Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Cherd, post: 1469794, member: 24754&quot;]Everybody seems to agree that demand is the primary driving force behind value of older coins. I wanted to graphically represent the influence of collector preference, and I figured that the Seated Liberty series would be the most accurate way of doing that (Essentially the same coin design in different denominations). Here&#039;s a plot of the raw data for value vs mintage for the different denominations:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH]184745.vB[/ATTACH]</p><p>It kinda looks like the value trends for each denomination are similar when plotted like this. I fitted a least residual squares function to each data set to smooth it out. I also ignored the coins issued in the 1880&#039;s because they are comparatively cheap even though mintages were very low (I guess a lot of them were hoarded by collectors or something?). The smoothed data plots look like this:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH]184746.vB[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>I guess that it would make sense that people prefer the larger versions of particular coin designs. As this will probably always be the case, this type of comparison also does not necessarily indicate over- or under-valued coins. However, I have heard many experienced coin collectors say, &quot;When a particular series increases in popularity, the key dates are the first ones to move and the rest follow&quot;. The quarters and halves are kinda bunched together and dimes and half dimes are bunched together. But you do see a trend where the &quot;key date&quot; end of the dime plot is creeping up towards the quarters and halves. Do you think that this may be an indication that the rest of the dime series will follow?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in