What is considered "old" for a coin? Before 1970? 1960? Is it specific to the coin? For example, is a 1965 quarter considered more rare than 1965 Nickel?
"Old" is subject to personal opinion. "Rare" is probably easier to define, as you can judge it on mintage, condition, and availability. A 1909 Lincoln cent is not that rare, unless it is an S-VDB. A 2006-W ASE is new, but demand exceeds supply(which could mean "rare" to some), which increases it's value. Bicentennial coins are not "rare", because so many were saved. Some would consider the end of circulating silver coins as a division between "new" and "old". You will probably get a different opinion from everyone you ask.
"Old" is just not a commonly used numismatic term. There are a multitude of age-break points that can be applied. For US dimes, quarters and halves, 1964 is a significant date, which marked the end of minting silver coins. For US dollars, 1978 is a significant date, which ended the minting of large dollar coins. 1983 is a significant date for US cents, due to a change in composition of their metal content. And those are only the start of a listing. When world coinage is included, there are probably hundreds of specific dividing lines, some quite recent, and some more than a century ago. Japan converted from cast and hammered coinage to milled coinage in 1868, so that could be considered the line between "old" and "new". On the other hand, during and immediately after WW II there were numerous changes in the denominations and metal composition of Japanese coins, creating an independent basis for differentiating "old" and "new". Like so many other numismatic questions, the real answer to the question "Is this coin old?" is "it depends."
The word 'Old' is used by some (Probably mostly unprofessionals) to determine value. If a coin is 'old,' it is more valuable than a coin that is 'new'. For example, a nickel from 1964 is 'older' than a nickel from 2006, making the 1964 coin more valuable to some.
kind of like when I was 20 years old, someone 40 was old. Now to me they are young. Matter of perception.
With UK coins I look at anything Pre decimalisation as old :smile and Commonwealth Pre EII but of course this is just my own interpritation. De Orc :kewl:
well, coins have a lifespan of 30 years so i guess any coin 1977 is old. i've heard someone say before 1968 and older for cents, 1965 and older for nickels, 1964 and older for dimes and quarters, 1979 and older for halves, and 1999 and older for dollar coins. i guess its because thats the year the red book changes the grades. like on page 118 of the 2007 redbook, look how the lowest grade possible for it to have value is MS-65. and in 1968, it changes to MS-63. i guess people think its old because the grade drops. thats also what i go by. i save 1982 and older cents (copper) 1965 and older nickels, 1964 and older dimes and quarters, i save all 1970 and older halves, and i save the pre 1999 anthony dollars.
My friend, I'm afraid that the "some" you refer to are people with no knowledge of numismatics, such as the folks who buy coins from the TV shopping network hucksters. Age is only one factor (and a minor one at that) in determining the value of a coin. By your reasoning the values of coins could be arranged in a grid with their dates, and all 1971 cents would be worth more than all 1972 cents, etc. Compare the value of a 1971 Philly with the value of a 1972 Doubled Die Obverse!
Easy: Old is what I feel like when I talk to my kids, and try to understand them. Also: Old is anything older than I am at any moment in time. Young: my age. Younger/New: anything after my date of birth.
That's why I said "some." Take this situation for example: A 2006 Nickel in mint condition with no errors, and x (x being a variable) mintage. A 1964 Nickel in the exact same condition with no errors and the same amount of mintage. 1964 would be considered more valuable, if not by a small amount. What I'm saying is, a coin that is an exact identical to another coin, except older, has more value. Coinlover has answered my question, thank you.
Rarity is directly related to demand IMO. Many of my token references assign rarity ratings to tokens based on the number known (thought) to exist vs. collector base. Some obscure tokens that have a miniscule collector following have a population with as few as 6 known that are considered to be"common".
There are also some rare coins whose prices remain low,because of the lack of demand.For example,the 1978 coins from the Hutt River Province Principality (a Proof-only issue) are rare (500 pieces each),but I got these coins (a 4 coin set consisting of the 5c.,10c.,20c.,& 50c. coins) for NZ$25 a few years back (2000 or 2001). Aidan.
As satootoko said, 'old' is not used frequently in numismatics. Many U.S. collectors substitute 'modern' and 'classic' - classic series are those before 1964, and modern typically encompasses coins minted after 1964. Of course, this is only an opinion, and each collector may have a different view of what is modern and what is classic. My $0.02, 09S
