Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cladking, post: 88876, member: 68&quot;]Kennedys look great compared to the quarters.&nbsp; The quarters have a huge velocity in comparison and have much more wear.&nbsp; There are no examples even in AU from before 1987 and many of the early dates will usually be in VG if you can find them at all.&nbsp; Dates like the &#039;68-D are just buried under mountains of other coins and many have been lost and destroyed over the years.&nbsp; Only about 10% of quarters are dated before 1980 anymore and many of these have major damage or corrosion.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Kennedys can be tough and make a great collectible in any grade but they were saved in rolls a little and many people collected them or cut them from mint sets.&nbsp; At the same time the quarters were usually spent from the mint sets and finding rolls of these is extremely tough.&nbsp; Many of the clad quarter rolls are virtually non-existent.&nbsp; On the rare occasion you see a roll like a &#039;69, &#039;71, or &#039;73 it&#039;s a virtual certainty that it will be a roll that was assembled from mint sets.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Kennedys make a great collectible because they are well-studied and there are great books (like Wiles) about them.&nbsp; Quarters make a great collectible because there is little known about them and you can break new ground.&nbsp; In either case there are what appear to be tremendous bargains in coins which are really tough but sell at reasonable prices.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>If you want to collect any coin, you might consider tackling it from a little different angle than most other collectors.&nbsp; It&#039;s great fun to recognize rarity that only you are aware of whether it&#039;s variety, type, grade, errors or production differences.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Have fun.[/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