An Interesting Take on MS-70 graded Moderns

I do not understand the meaning behind your intentionally-malicious, and completely incorrect remark.

Guess what was in my pocket change. All moderns. Guess what is in everyone’s pocket change. Moderns. Guess what, Morgans are common, especially 1921’s. The thornhead is rare. But it is hardly special. A 1977 D Type C reverse is rare, but it is not special either. Moderns in general are common, with hundreds of millions produced each year. Sure there are rare varieties, but that does not make the issue as a whole any less common.

Guess what? I attacked Morgans, the ubiquitous classic US coinage, and lumped them into the same category as moderns. I can name many “classic” issues that I will lump into the same “common” category. Sure, many of those have rare varieties, but that does not make them any less common.

I have nothing against moderns. But to say they are anything but common is fallacious. You have to apply many conditions to make them rare (die variety, strike, top end of the grade, etc.). If the coins were not common, then this filtering would hardly be necessary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Get a thicker skin........I've never known Clad King to exhibit malice of forethought.........

 

I’m not offended. I just want him to explain himself

 

Hundreds of billions of moderns survive. Yes, they are very common.

But billions of classics survive too.

These facts are simply irrelevant to collectors attempting to build sets. Obviously if a collector chooses he can complete sets of common coins in low grades and there's nothing wrong with this.

The biggest difference to the collector of modern coins is that MS-60 is pretty low grade for "non"-variety moderns. Such sets can be assembled extremely cheaply because the coins are "common". There's nothing wrong with an MS-60 set or an AU55 set of clad quarters. Indeed, one of my proudest possessions is a set of XF+ and better coins I've found in circulation since 1996. It's virually "worthless" but it would be almost impossible to duplicate because the coins are "rare" now. You simply aren't going to find a well made '92-D in AU58 any longer. It's worth quarter on the market and is priceless to me.

Most modern collectors can easily afford an MS-60 set but then MS-60 clads tend to be quite ugly. Moderns weren't made to the standards of classics. Dies were overused, badly hubbed, poorly aligned, and struck with too low force. Minting quarters in 1965 was about extending die life not making good looking coins.

To get nice looking coins it requires active searching or you have to buy graded coins. Not even all MS-64's are attractive. If you like nice solid strikes from good dies then not even all MS-65's are attractive.

Calling an attractive 1982-P common in any grade above VF is missing the mark. Indeed, now days the old coins in circulation tend to be pretty beaten up by counting machines so an attractive '82-P in any grade at all will prove a little tough.

It certainly isn't hard to find a nice attractive VG 1907 indian cent though. So why don't people warn indian cent collectors that the coins are risky business and are prepared for a fall since more and more will be graded

I understand why people are concerned about the market viability of moderns and why so many people hate them. I'd just prefer they keep their statements accurate while damning them.

 

So a VG 1907 IHC is the same thing as a top-pop modern (or top-pop classic for that matter)? I don’t think so.

For starters, it is well-recognized that there are millions of VG late-date IHCs out there, so we do not need the TPG population reports to validate that fact. For top pops, the only ones known (and recognized) on the market are the ones graded by PCGS and NGC. Usually, they are valuable because this number is small, or because there are none graded higher. If this number increases, these conditional rarities are no longer as rare. If some are graded higher, then they are no longer the finest known. The top pops have small, finite numbers which can only increase as more are sent in. And this increase will cause a price decrease. THAT is why top pops and high grades (post-1900 classics, Morgans, and moderns alike) are a poor investment. I remember when the going rate for an MS-65 1880 S Morgan was $200. Now they can be had for half that because so many have been graded.

Read this. The market only backs up what I say:

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/5740/

 

You're tarring all moderns with the claim that they are common. They made over 5 million 1827 half dollars. Large numbers sat in vaults for many decades as backing for paper currency. Nobody knows how many are still out there or whether an entire bag of MS-65's will come out tomorrow. One could make an argument that these aren't even real coins and much more served the purpose of bullion. There are thousands of 1827 halfs on the market that have been repaired or otherwise played with to get a higher grade or improve their appearance.

One can come up with plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to dump on 1827 half dollars or the counterfeit 1804 dollars and the risk of investing in them but this NEVER happens. It doesn't happen because everyone loves bust coins but nobody loves clad.

EVERY coin has strengths and weaknesses in collectability and "investment" potential. But instead of talking about how MS-69 moderns which are virtually perfect being the norm we're instead treated to an endless chorus of how MS-70 must be a rotten deal. Instead of telling newer collectors to use discretion and to learn their markets and their coins they are instead told "all moderns are common" and you're gonna lose your shirt. They are told that common coins are uncollectable and real men, real numismatists, collect old coins which are(apparently) all rare.

I never saw a VG indian cent collection missing only the 1907. Imagine finding this coin to common to collect and leaving the space empty! How many bust half collections miss only the 1827?

 

Have you not noticed how half of my examples have been classic coins? Did you not see that the majority of the examples in the NGC article were classic coins. As I have said, top pops and really high grades are poor investments. That applies all across the board, not just moderns. As I have also said, I have no problem with moderns. But since we were on the topic of moderns, I said the ones that have historically been poor investments were top pops. Stop acting like I am attacking moderns as a whole and glorifying classics. I only spoke of a small, specific subset of moderns and lumped classics into the same analysis. But apparently you are so stuck in your vandetta to attack everyone who prefers classics over moderns that you simply are incapable of reading the straightforward words I wrote. It is not rocket science. Just simple reading comprehension.

 

Nowhere have I said that old coins are rare. I have actually said the oppoite multiple times. Again, you are only hearing what you want to hear and ignoring all statements that are inconvenient to your cries of being a victim.

NOT ONCE have I EVER condemned someone for chosing to collect modern coins, with the only exception being my claim that top pops are bad inveatments. I actually recommend beginners to start with modern coins. If they like them enough to stick with them, that is fine by me. If they decide to pursue classic coins, that is also fine by me.

I used to collect moderns. I quit because I found them boring. I then tried sets of classics. Also boring because they require so much money for very little difference between the coins. Then I tried a US type set. This offered enough variety to be interesting for several years, and I liked seeing the US’s history through all of the coins. But this got boring as well because the prices of the classic coins were so high for coins that were actually pretty common, and the ones that were actually rare (1796 quarter, small eagle half dollar) were prohibitively expensive, even for ugly, low-grade coins. I don’t actively collect US material anymore, except for the occasional coin that I find attractive or tells an interesting story.

My interest now mainly lies with ancient coins, particularly with ancient Chinese. There are several types that are actually rare, and forming a collection is challenging for this reason, not cost. Plus, these coins have far more interesting stories than US coins do. And do you see me trolling the US coins forum telling everyone that US coins are boring and they should switch to ancients instead? No. I stick around and partake in everyone’s enjoyment of the hobby and share the knowledge I gained from when I collected US coins.

 

Perhaps it's mostly just crossed wires here.

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to blanket statements about moderns and just about any other taxonomy for that matter. I don't support the concepts that all moderns are common, all pop-tops are likely to decrease in value, or that MS-70 moderns are a bad thing in any way.

As far as I'm concerned anyone can collect anything they want and I have no problem with it. I like to see passion in collecting whether it's thimbles or large cents. Obviously suggesting to any collector that his actions might be risky can be friendly advice and I don't have trouble with that either.

 

There is definitely a rarity when speaking of moderns, And there are definitely what is called Conditional Rarity's among classics. I will say that I will definitely put nice coins away, so that they may be considered that "Conditional Rarity" one day, arguing past the point, is pointless.

 

I know I can't make everyone (or anyone) a lover of moderns and that's never my point. Nor is my point to chastise anyone who doesn't like them. I'm a strong believe in "live and let live".

But I dislike the article that prompted this thread because it is highly misleading and new collectors of both "moderns" and MS-70's" might be led to believe that there is something inherently wrong with collecting their favorite series. If the author had merely confined himself to MS-70 and made specific warnings then I'd probably have had nothing to say and if I did it would have sounded much less like criticism and much more like a countering of those specific points.

I don't know the author and don't know that he would intentionally trash the coins I collect or not and really it doesn't matter. I would be interested in discussing any point he might make against moderns. Obviously there are strengths and weaknesses of any coin from a collecting or "investing" perspective. I simply believe moderns are a fun and uncharted area to collect and because they are "uncharted" there is probably a great deal more room for SOME of them to increase in price. Nobody should buy any coin for investment because they are too risky. Collectables are too risky because no one can predict the future of demand. It's difficult to even gauge supply in most moderns because they are mostly uncharted.

I certainly agree whole heartedly with you and have been setting what I believe are rare coins aside for many years. I used to believe in investing in coins before the market proved me right but way too late. I still save a few coins for the future but my safety deposit boxes are full and I'm saving them much more for collectors than for profit.

 

I believe that @physics-fan3.14 posted a fantastic 99' Lincoln.
Maybe he can show us a conditional rarity.

 

Well, let's take another view of this topic: CoinWeek did an analysis of a PR-70DCAM Lincoln, showed its population and price history, and speculates on its future. Take a look: https://coinweek.com/auctions-news/...is-set-to-sell-for-more-than-1000-at-auction/