Interesting Article on the Cutoff of Modern and Classic US Coinage

I just came across this article about the cutoff between modern and classic US coins. I know the topic has been discussed before here on CT so I thought I would share this. It's interesting and the author makes some strong points for 1933/34 as the cutoff point.
Give it a read and let's hear what you think.

PART ONE
http://www.coinweek.com/us-coins/mo...4-tend-common-1793-1933-classic-era-part-one/

PART TWO
http://www.coinweek.com/commentary/...ommon-1793-to-1933-is-the-classic-era-part-2/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

"Does it make logical sense to collect AND pay substantial sums for coins that are extremely common?"

...The author implies at the end of the article. This is based on the idea that there are just scads and scads of "common" coins in high grade (somewhere?) in rolls and bags that (somebody?) hasn't bothered to check and get graded. Example: 61-D quarters in MS-67.

Well, dang. What a buzz-kill.

 

Human beings aren't logical. For most collectors, acquiring new pieces is an emotional exercise. Chasing condition rarities among moderns seems like so much of "keeping up with the Joneses" to me, but what do I know? Maybe another collector is emotionally moved by owning a PR70 over a PR69 of which a hundred gazillion were made. I tried that sort of collecting and found it sorely wanting.

But each to his own, whatever floats your boat, I'm OK, you're OK, etc., etc.

 

We know you've got those bags of MS70's in your back room, Doug. Quit holding out on us!

 

Yeah I can't see there being hoards of high grade coins stashed away that are waiting to be discovered.

I thought the price examples he showed for Mercs, Buffs, and Walkers at that 1933/34 date were interesting.

 

Let me see if I've got this straight: (1) high market values for pre-1934 coins prove that those coins are classic, (2) high market values for any post-1934 coins prove that there are too many misguided collectors around. Well, thank goodness Reynolds has put this all on an "objective" basis for us.

 

Believing prices paid for top pop modern coins are often ridiculous and are a product of dealer and TPG’er hype, I agree more with this article than I disagree. Even though one can argue top pop grades are rare, the fact remains, if all factors are equal or substantially similar (i.e. production, distribution, collector interest, etc), the more coins that are produced, the more top pops will exist. So, the fact that there are few top pop 2013 cents today, means nothing for future populations, which could be anything but rare.

 

Great Post/Article.

 

Rarity can be dissected into different classes. While I agree it's more prestigous to own an old coin in high grade that is rare in totality (all grades), someone else might prefer a recent coin with high mintage in which only top grades are rare. Like they say... to each his own.

 

This is just more modern bashing. It is directed at trying to muddy the facts so people don't see the reality.

Of course there is a natural dividing line at 1933 or so for all the reasons stated in the article plus the fact that this is when the US Mint changed their policy. Before this they made as many coins as needed for a region even if this were tiny. But when someone tried to purchase the entire 1931 S output of one cent coins they balked and changed the policy.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with what constitutes a "modern" coin and they muddy the water to hide it. Collectors saved current coin between 1931 and 1965. They saved them in relation to the mintage.

EVERYTHING changed in 1965 when moderns began because nobody was saving new coin any longer and EVERYTHING changed. The composition changed. The relationship of collectors to mints changed. Dates, mintmarks, changed. Mint sets and proof sets changed. This is all invisible to modern bashers because most have never looked at a coin made after 1933. By 2033 they probably still won't have looked.

 

I disagree with the second part of the article as strongly as I disagree with the first part.

The big change in 1933 that made the older coins valuable today is the great depression. There were some coins saved in the '20's but when the depression hit most had to be spent for day to day expenses. The popularity of collecting soared in the depression and those who had money began to set aside more coins but the older coinswere already gone and there was less interest in saving things like XF/ AU '26-S nickels from circulation.

Modern bashers love the 1933 date because it fits so well into their version of reality that only low mintage coins and low mintafge coins in high grade are collectable. Only coins made before 1933 are collectable. Still they have no problem with something like collecting 1883 one cent coins despite a mintage of 46 million. It's old and desirable but a 1969 quarter is modern junk.

Ages of coins are important to some collectors and these people should collect old coins. But there's nothing wrong with 1938-D half dollars nor with 1986 cents.

I often wonder if these folks collect only the two or three scarcest date bust half dollars and consider the rest "too common". Or if their collection of indian cents includes only the 1877 and 1909-S.

 

This is the shame of it; that they got a well respected numismatist to write it.

I certainly understand how collectors can look at US coins and find only pre-1933 coins worthy. Later coins were either saved or were debased. Some people wouldn't want to collect such coins.

The fact that so many people agree is symptomatic of the fact that most collectors hate moderns and hate base metal coins. If we were still making silver this modern bashing wouldn't still be going on but it's simply impossible that all these coins would still be made out of silver because there isn't so much silver on or in the planet and the price would explode. How do you make a dime out of silver if the price had exploded back in 1966? This is why I say most modern bashers are still looking from a 1964 perspective.

Frankly it no longer bothers me at all that they are never going to collect moderns. I've accepted this after all these years. What bothers me is the constant negativity toward moderns will serve only to dissaude new collectors from collecting at all. They are told that even the valuable moderns are just overpriced junk so they figure what can their own collections of circulating coins be worth. Sure, some will go and collect worthy indian cents made in much larger quantities than their own 2009 issues which are just junk but more will just give up in frustration.

They are driving the next generation of collectors from the hobby like modern manufacturers drive away their own customers by lowering product quality and package sizes. What better symbol of this age could possibly exist than a zincoln collection in Gem? It's incredibly cheap because of modern bashing. It's worth less than nothing as a circulating medium due to inflation. And it represents what this age could be if we actually applied ourselves. Best of all it will keep you busy for years trying to find the tough dates. Bashers can't see this. They see a few peoplwe bidding up MS-70 coins and figure that it represents money that could be competing for and driving up the prices of "real coins" like an 1804 cent. Like everything now days their words and actions reflect shortsightedness and no wisdom.

 

Imagine if you could still open cans without blood loss!! How about being able to cook a ham without half of it first being sprayed all over the kitchen and dumped down the sink and still with so much water in it that it boils instead of bakes!! How about a half gallon of ice cream that's little more than a pint? Wouldn't it be nice if one consumer product actually worked and didn't make a quick trip to the curb to be hauled away as trash?

How about a coinage system that actually worked and allowed you to buy cola or small purchase without the need to reach for paper (that rarely works) or plastic that adds to the cost?

Nothing represents this madness like Gem zincolns that should never have been minted in the first place. They were only issued to support lobbyists and elements of the status quo. The mint could have saved countless millions and we'd all be billions wealthier without this drain on the economy which nets a few rich people a few million. Great destruction results in small gains for the few. But Gems show what we could do if we actually tried. If we can turn out a Gem piece of garbage that shouldn't exist then surely we could have food that hasn'ty been adulterated with sodium tripolyphosphate and water and whatever other processing they are doing this week and not saying. (pink slime anyone?)

Gem zincolns aren't for everyone, of course. There aren't very many anyway! But I can't imagine where anyone gets off suggesting that they aren't collectable or that superb Gem zincolns must be overpriced because they'd never pay so much.

Why can't they just live and let live?

It seems to me that this is one mightily peculiar age in which we live. It would be a shame if any aspect of it were lost.

 

I should add a mia culpa here.

I didn't notice the article was from four years ago and wouldn't have come down on it so hard. Attitudes have changed a lot is the last few years and as far as I'm concerned everyone is entitled to any belief they choose. I'm only concerned when I believe their words or actions are destructive to the hobby and it's this which is much less common now.

Had I noticed how old it is I'd have been more concerned with the fact that defining 1933 as the cutoff is ignoring a far bigger change that came in 1965. 1933 was insignificant in comparison. Certainly 1933 divides classics quite well but it doesn't divide classics from moderns.

 

All I can say is don’t despair, it’s not as bleak as you think. Back in 1964, most collectors looked at anything recent, the same as they look at recent issues today, they weren’t worth collecting. Coin collecting does include moderns more and more every year, especially since the mint is currently making some true scarcities and rarities – not only because the mint is flooding the market, but too, because old school collectors over look them, probably because the last time they looked at modern mint products was the 1960’s/1970’s/1980’s when the mintages were too high, so a terrible investment.

The future of coin collecting is the coins that are produced today and it is what the young collectors are collecting because they are affordable and there are some beautiful exciting issues, unlike the period from the 1940’s through the 1970’s. Again, old school collectors don’t see this because they don’t use the internet and they purchase only from B&M’s and shows. They believe coin collecting is dying – well yeah, coin collecting as they know it is dying. The last show I went to last month looked like a retirement home, average age above 70. All of this tells me the “classic” coins will, as the years progress, be relegated to the likes of type collectors. The moderns will be the coins collected by series by younger generations, the future of coin collecting, who are alive and well and growing on the internet.

 

I don't see the point of trying to define a sharp dividing line between classic and modern anyway. It really doesn't have anything to do with his point about warning about overpaying for condition rarity moderns. Why is it so necessary to try to define it to the 'nth.
The examples he gave to try to prove his point about scarcity issues of pre '34 coins versus post '34 coins and the effect on prices is kind of bogus. He used the dates from '28 to '33 and compared them to '34 to '37. What he failed to mention is in all the series he used for his comparisons the mintages in general increased tremendously starting in '34. Sure there will be differences in survival rates, and prices in these years, the mintages were much lower pre '34.

 

You know, I am tempted to read the entire article and actually started to do so until I get to the poibnt where he states: "I am not referring to mintages; I am referring to the number of coins that survive."

To me, that takes what is a simple definition into nothing more than a numbers game.

To me, Classic and Modern refers solely to coin "design". (The same really as anything else that has an artistic interpretation.

A classic coin is a coin with some representation of Lady Liberty.
A modern coin is a coin with a dead president on it.

This means, that there is no line. There is no boundary and mintages with numbers of survivors has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It's all in the design and folks either appreciate modern coin designs or they don't.

 

I didn't actually read the article; reading the responses is enough. I make the division at 1954 - the end of the classic commemorative series and close enough to the George VI/Elizabeth II changeover.
No matter what I say, I think cladking will be unhappy. I don't like modern coins because, other than the dollar coin- and no, I won't acknowledge state quarters, etc here- coinage hasn't changed in my lifetime. They're uninspired designs and base metal. When I was very young, you would still occasionally come across mercury dimes and buffalo nickels in change. They are what sparked my interest and no statistics or arguments can convince me to find Lincoln cents, Jefferson nickels, Roosevelt dimes or Washington quarters the least bit interesting.