Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2158780, member: 28107&quot;]I think that the article doesn&#039;t tell me anything that I didn&#039;t already know before.&nbsp; If you are trying to prove that there are exceptions to the rule that most moderns do poorly, we have already been over that.&nbsp; I have said since we first began discussing this topic, whether it was in this thread or a closely related one, that there are exceptions to this rule.&nbsp; Pointing to a few exceptions says nothing about moderns as a whole.&nbsp; For instance, I can pick a classic series that isn&#039;t doing well and find one in the series that is.&nbsp; Does this mean that the entire series is a good value?&nbsp; I don&#039;t think so.&nbsp; My point was to be careful about making broad claims without enough data to support.&nbsp; The 1995-W actually has a significant amount of data and auction records to support the conclusion that it is a desirable coin that has been in demand for quite some time and will likely always carry a premium. It is unclear with these coins, but I think poster TomB was on to something: The proof mintages of the early 1950s are lower and also lower priced for the most part (except perhaps for cameo/deep cameo coinage).&nbsp; If you are relying on mintage numbers alone to make your claims (which you have been doing), then this would contradict your hypothesis.&nbsp; If mintage alone is dispositive, the early 1950s proof coins should be worth substantially more.[/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