I've been told and read some interesting takes on the collecting of modern (1982 onward) U.S. silver coinage (commemorative issues and, of course, the Silver Eagle program). I'd like to lay out these various assertions to get your thoughts on them.... Postulate #1 - Given the improved technology with which modern coins are struck, handled, and shipped, most graded MS69 or PF69 ought to be regarded as "impaired" and that any future numismatic premium will generally be reserved for those graded MS70 or PF70. Postulate #2 - Other than possibly the aforementioned MS70 or PF70 graded pieces, with regard to commemoratives and special Silver Eagle sets, future collectible value will accrue to those that survive in their original packaging as opposed to those that were broken out to be certified. Postulate #3 - Because they haven't been circulated, it's deceiving to compare the mintage quantities of modern issues to those of older coins (other than proofs) in judging future rarity. Very few modern issues will be truly scarce anytime soon. Postulate #4 - Special labels, as well as designations such as "early releases" or "first releases" on certified coins are so much fluff that will have at best a nominal impact on future price appreciation.
I think all 4 actually fit but if I had to pick just one it would be Postulate #3 - Because they haven't been circulated, it's deceiving to compare the mintage quantities of modern issues to those of older coins (other than proofs) in judging future rarity. Very few modern issues will be truly scarce anytime soon.
I thought that at irst then I realized that it doesn't. All Postulate #2 states is that of all the coins that are not certified as 70's, and are thus "impaired", the "impaired" coins still in OGP will be worth more than those NOT in OGP. The question is begged whether or not this small premium is a "Numismatic" premium or not. By the first postulate it isn't a numismatic premium but some other class of premium.
I just wanted to remark with respect to Postulate #1 that I personally can't discern the physical difference between coins graded 69 versus those deemed worthy of the the perfect 70 score, so I don't shun them nor am I suggesting doing so. From an analytical standpoint, I also don't think that Postulate #1 in any way implies that "we do away with any kind of grading scale altogether, and all other less-than-perfect coins should just be thrown into the bargain bin." I do agree with the later statement that "Condition rarity should be more important than mintages" and I believe that's actually more or less the thrust of Postulate #1, that in modern issues, 69's are quite common while 70's aren't (relatively speaking), and thus the latter is where the action might well be years from now. I think I ought to emphasize that I wasn't intending to engage here in advocacy with regards to any of these postulates (which summarize opinions I've heard or read), even though I'll admit they do seem to me to have some prima facie merit. They're put up here primarily to form the basis for a healthy discussion of where future collecting may be headed.
I gathered that from your first two sentences, and my comments were in no way intended to reflect on you, personally. Chris
I don't agree with any of the 4 postulates. I think MS or proof 68 and 69 coins are bona fide collectible coins, and they don't have to be 70s to have value. 69 coins are not damaged goods. First strikes can be hype, but they can also be the first run off of fresh dies, and that could be some of the best of a new coin run. There are already scarce modern issues--the 1998 Kennedy Matte is considered a modern rarity, as are the ASEs from San Francisco in 2006, and 2011. Just one person's opinion.
The problem with this is that those "fresh dies" can easily produce 100,000+ coins. So, which ones are the best when they finally get around to shipping stacks and stacks of the boxes out? Therein lies the rub! Chris
1928P Peace dollars could be picked up at the bank at one point. Collecting modern coins is more about forward-thinking for me. We can't all collect the 20th century forever. Today's modern is tomorrow's key date. Sent from my SHV-E300K using Tapatalk 4
3 and 4 I would agree with but expecting MS/PF 70s for all or most even 69s is beyond and above average. Face it we are using 90% of the exact same tech that was used 100 years ago to mint these coins we are just doing them in greater volume which in then end will produce more lower quality coins rather then higher. (ie the 2009 Lincoln formative years penny) I will add that #2 is personal preference some collectors will buy coins only if certified, most newer collectors that don't have the experience to judge the raw coins could only benefit from this. Other older collectors I know own not even a single TPG certified coin. So that is not really something that can be judged overall but must be taken on a case by case basis.
Two or three major grading firms are making a killing on this hobby doing everything you are saying is bunk. And two of them have registry programs that draw a great number of collectors to them. As for rarities check out the mintage on this one. At just a hair over 5K minted it is a true rarity on any scale.
Your last line says it all--5,000 minted is a rarity on any scale, and to condemn the TPGs for grading modern coins appropriately is an insult to the intelligence. I have begun collecting some of the modern rarities, and consider then as worthy of the rarity status as I do my 1893s Morgan. That date has a pedigree, due to its scarcity and hype over 100 years. There are far fewer moderns minted of certain dates than the 1893s, so let's compare apples with apples.
