Hello all, Even when I make a small purchase, One of the local dealers always gives me something to further my numismatic education. The latest gift was a 1969 redbook. Since I have a 2009 redbook, I am playing with a spreadsheet comparing coin prices over 40 years compared to inflation. I realize that this is inexact for a number of reasons. However, it is interesting. Preliminarily, it seems that many lower grade common coins have not kept pace with 40 year inflation. I wanted to compare higher value coins but the 1969 Redbook uses "unc" with not MS grading. Should I average MS grades from the 2009 Redbook, or go with a lower MS in making comparisions for uncirculated coins from the 1969 book?
Kind of a tuff question. The older Red Books had G, F, Unc and Proof. Back then that was all anyone cared about. And then they got real complicated with terminology like AG, EF, AU. AND for who knows someone really messed things up with a 70 point system. Now you can't even compare a UNC with all those MS-62,-63,-64, etc. My suggestion is to just use all G-x and VG-x as G for comparisons. Then All F-x, VF-x and EF-x as what used to be F. Naturally that only leaves all those MS's and AU's as what used to be UNC. Other than that if you really want to make such a comparison you would just have to guess a lot. Things were so simple back in the old days. I still remember when that Red Book first came out and wondered why anyone would go through all that trouble trying to evaluate the different prices of a coin. Why not like socks, one size fits all?
Here is a comparison for you. In 1965 I sold 2 Mercury dime sets(no 16D), average circulated for $200. each to make a down payment on a new hot 1965 Dodge.(It was $2700.!!!) They were sold to dealers. I can buy the same sets on ebay for +/- $150.
Just going by what I've heard, so you should confirm it with others who may know better, the old redbooks designation of MS was for a "typical" MS coin with the understanding that premium quality coins could sell at a substantial premium. So I would go with a lower-end MS price for comparison purposes.
Thank you all for your thoughts. I will share any results from my playing with this. dlbuna-Funny you should mention Average circulated Mercury dimes-they appear on first analysis to be a coin that has definitely NOT kept pace with inflation. If it makes you feel any better, your 1965 $2,700 for a car would equal about $17,000-18,000 spent today per CPI. I paid less for my last new pickup truck in 2004 and could buy it even cheaper today.
It'll be interesting to see some results. How/where are you getting the 40 year inflation figures? I'm guessing you'll find that 90%+ of coins do not keep up with inflation - that's why it's a hobby
Hi Pocket Change. I use one of several inflation calculators that are available on the web. Google "inflation calculator" sometime. Most just use Consumer Price Index (CPI) but there are other approaches. None are really any more exact than coin grading seems to be. For example, the last three presidential adminstrations all changed the way CPI is measured for various political reasons--but that is getting off-topic. I will try to post some results this weekend.
No such thing as MS back then. The first similar notation was Uncirculated. Back in those days that ment Uncirculated or a coin that was not in circulation. We had GOOD, meaning anything that was not fine, you could read all the details. Fine ment really looked great, all details were FINE, but did show wear, meaning NOT UNCIRCULATED. Just no such thing as MS. No 70 point grading system, no TPGS, No Dansco Albums, only just fun collecting coins Eventually there came the VG, VF stuff though so things really got complicated.
