On August 26, 2010 at 12:00 Noon ET, the 2010 Silver Proof Set will go on sale at the United States Mint. This set contains 14 different proof coins, with 7 struck in a composition of 90% silver.

Each 2010 Silver Proof Set includes the following coins:

(1) 2010-S Proof Lincoln Cent – the first year of the new Union Shield design.

(1) 2010-S Proof Jefferson Nickel

(1) 2010-S Proof Roosevelt Dime – struck in 90% silver.

(5) 2010-S America the Beautiful Quarters – struck in 90% silver and featuring Hot Springs National Park, Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, and Mount Hood National Forest.

(1) 2010-S Proof Kennedy Half Dollar – struck in 90% silver.

(1) 2010-S Native American Dollar – featuring the Hiawatha Belt design.

(4) 2010-S Proof Presidential Dollars – featuring Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and Abraham Lincoln

It’s worth noting that all of these coins have previously been released by the United States Mint in other proof sets except for the 90% silver Kennedy Half Dollar and Roosevelt Dime.

The 14 coins of the 2010 Silver Proof Set are packaged in three separate plastic lenses and placed within an outer cardboard box with certificate of authenticity. The sets are priced at $56.95 with no stated maximum production and no household ordering limits.

The price of the set represents an increase of $4 compared to the cost of the 2009 Silver Proof Set. Last year’s set contained 18 different coins with 8 coins struck in 90% silver. The price increase follows suit with the previously released 2010 annual sets, although in this case the pricing is more easily justified by the higher price of silver.

When last year’s set went on sale on July 17, 2009, silver was $13.16 per ounce yielding a silver value per set of $19.99. Using silver’s current price of $18.40 per ounce, the silver value per 2010 Silver Proof Set is $24.63. For the calculations, I used Coinflation’s Silver Coin Melt Value Calculator.

Sales trends for the currently available 2010 annual sets suggest lower final sales will be achieved for each set compared to the 2009 versions. Likely, the 2010 Silver Proof Set will follow suit. The last reported sales figure for the 2009 Silver Proof Set was 694,406.

It has become clear to me that a lot more people have done their research and come to the conclusion that they should own some gold and/or silver as part of their total assets.

But, once you have come to that decision, then you have to choose the appropriate vehicle(s) to get into the precious metals markets.

In the past few months I have come to appreciate, much more than I ever have, that this second decision is far more intimidating to people than simply realizing that owning gold and silver is right for them. There are so many options that I have seen a number of people who end up doing nothing. Alternatively, I have also seen people who were steered in directions that did not suit their reasons for wanting to own precious metals.

I have a definite bias, being a buyer and seller of physical metals, so I remind readers that the following discussion may gloss over some of the positive reasons for possibly choosing to acquire metals in other forms. Feel free to do your further research.

With that disclaimer, let me review some of your options.

Gold and Silver Mining Stocks

 You could consider purchasing shares of stock in gold or silver mining companies. This route has some potential for great returns but also for disappointing results. Often, the returns depend more on factors other than the price of gold or silver. For instance, the caliber of a company’s management and operations can have a huge impact on stock prices. You also have to be concerned about environmental issues, political risk, and a number of other factors, which have nothing to do with the prices of precious metals. Rather than putting your full investment with a single mining company, many investors hold stock in multiple entities, hoping to reduce risk by this process.

Another factor to consider is that the profitability of a mine is determined over many years of production. There are limits to how much gold or silver a mine could sell onto the markets during a price spike. Invariably, the metals will be sold at their average price over a period of many years. This long-term realization of profits is why mining stocks typically do not rise by the same percentage when gold or silver prices are rising quickly. Conversely, when metals’ prices drop quickly, the stock prices also tend to decline by a lesser percentage.

Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs)

Another option is to own shares of exchange traded funds that supposedly are devoted exclusively to owning either physical gold or silver. At the inception of an ETF, for example, one share of a gold ETF will typically represent the value of 0.1 ounce of gold while a share of a silver ETF will normally reflect the value of ten ounces of silver.

If this were exactly how the ETFs operated, they would be a really convenient way to own physical metals. However, be sure to read all the fine print in the prospectus issued by an ETF. What you will find is that the ETF invariably has no legal liability for any defaults by any sub-depositories that don’t have sufficient physical metal to meet their obligations. Further, find out if the ETF is authorized to lease its physical metal, which would add another risk of default of ever getting the gold or silver back. Last, check if the physical metal that the fund operator carries in its own vaults is considered to be what is known as unallocated metal. If so, you need to be aware that the metal supposedly owned by the ETF may be subject to superior claims of ownership by other parties. Altogether, there is more risk that the ETFs may not have the physical gold or silver to cover what it theoretically owes to its shareholders.

Because these are shares of stock of a company that is simply holding assets, shareholders are not charged an annual storage fee. As a result, most if not all ETFs see the value of one share shrink over time in how much metal they represent as the means to cover expenses. A gold ETF that started off with one share equal to 0.10 ounce of gold may now only represent 0.098 ounce of gold, for example.

Commodity Contracts

You could purchase commodity contracts on the COMEX or other exchanges. Many investors buy such contracts on margin, hoping to magnify their results should the price rise on a long contract or decline if the owner holds a short position. If the market goes against this party, though, losses are also magnified.

However, keep in mind that the available inventories held to make contract deliveries only cover a small fraction of outstanding contracts. The inventories that do exist may also be subject to the claims of other creditors. The COMEX allows parties obligated to deliver on a commodity contract to alternatively pay cash or with shares of ETFs, with the owners of the contract having no say on how the contract is fulfilled.

London Bullion Market Association Contracts

Another option is to purchase London Bullion Market Association contracts. This is the largest gold and silver market in the world. In theory, these contracts are for the physical delivery of metal and are, therefore, 100% backed by the physical gold or silver.

However, in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission hearings held this past March, it was confirmed that there is only enough physical metal to cover 1 to 3% of outstanding contracts. Once again, the physical metal in the vaults may also be subject to claim of other parties. I have heard regular reports of contract owners being offered cash to settle gold contract delivery as the counter party simply did not have the metal to make proper delivery.

Certificate Programs

There are also certificate programs where bulk gold or silver is stored in a vault such as at the Perth or Royal Canadian Mint. Customers can buy fractions of the large bars, or in come instances, a portion of un-fabricated metal. Here again, there is the risk that this metal may be pledged as collateral to other parties.

These above forms are ones that I refer to as “paper” gold and silver. The owners do not literally own the physical metals but instead depend on the performance by another party to eventually convert their paper evidence of ownership into physical metal that they get to hold in their hands.

Physical Gold and Silver

What I consider to be the safest option is to own physical metals in your own name, either in your personal custody or in segregated storage where the metal is considered your asset and not an asset of the storage company. Direct ownership of the real asset means you hold something that is not someone else’s liability.

However, owning physical precious metals does present the dilemma of safe storage. There is no perfect answer for everyone. If you secret the physical metals in your residence, you have some risk of burglary. If you put them in a safe deposit box, you may have trouble accessing it in event of a disaster. When a good percentage of the northeast US suffered an electricity blackout several years ago, banks were closed for several days, for instance. Physical metals in segregated storage in a secure vault may be a long distance away, and not practically accessible in an emergency.

If you own metals directly, avoid unallocated storage. In this kind of storage, the metal is considered to be an asset of the storage company and the supposed owner of the metal is in reality an unsecured creditor of the storage company (the London Bullion Market Association states this explicitly in its contracts).

I will go into more details another time about which physical metals may best suit your purposes. As a quick rule of thumb, for most people I usually suggest looking for widely traded forms that are highly liquid, where your cost is the lowest possible premium above the metal value. In other words, go for bullion-priced gold and silver rather than numismatic forms.

I almost always object to recommending the purchase of what the selling dealer describes as “semi-numismatic.” In theory, this is an item that costs the buyer a higher premium than strictly bullion-priced items, but supposedly has the prospect of selling for an even higher collector premium in the future. Of the products that have been marketed as semi-numismatic over the past three decades, almost all of them have been purchased at rare coin prices and liquidated at bullion prices. Many of them were actually bullion issues that the marketer chose to promote at a higher premium than other dealers were charging. There are occasional exceptions, but my best rule of thumb is to steer clear anytime you seen the phrase “semi-numismatic.”

By the way, in making this list, I do not intend to give the impression that ownership of only one category is necessarily the best option. Someone else may hold a core position of physical metals and also buy shares in promising mining companies. In addition, the time frame of ownership may affect the decision of which form to own. For someone looking for a very short term holding, say for just one week, ownership of an ETF with its low brokerage fees may be an optimum way to go.

With this information, I hope that some of you are able to take the second step from deciding to own gold and silver to actually making your acquisitions.

Patrick A. Heller owns Liberty Coin Service in Lansing, Michigan and writes “Liberty’s Outlook,” a monthly newsletter covering rare coins and precious metals. Past issues can be found online at http://www.libertycoinservice.com/ Pat Heller is also the gold market commentator for Numismatic News. Past columns online at http://numismaster.com/ under “News & Articles”. His radio show “Things You ‘Know’ That Just Aren’t So, And Important News You Need To Know” can be heard at 8:45 AM Wednesday mornings on 1320-AM WILS in Lansing (which streams live and becomes part of the audio and text archives posted at http://www.1320wils.com.

This article was originally printed in the latest issue of Numismatic News.
>> Subscribe today!

---

There is no doubt that Walking Liberty half dollars are a very popular collection. Certainly at least part of their popularity comes from a design that can safely be called an American classic. A good design, however, does not by definition mean popularity. For a collection to be popular with collectors some good and even key dates are needed in a collection and when it comes to Walking Liberty half dollars it is the Denver Mint that was the source of most of the key dates that have helped to make Walking Liberty half dollars so popular and interesting.

The Walking Liberty half dollar made its debut in 1916 along with the new Mercury dime and Standing Liberty quarter. Americans had never seen anything quite like it as for the first time in history the designs of the dime, quarter and half dollar would be clearly different from each other. In the past except for the reverse of the dime, which had no eagle, the designs of the three denominations had been basically identical.

The first Denver Walking Liberty half dollar would be the 1916-D and it like some of the production in 1917 would be different as it would have a mintmark on the obverse below the word TRUST. It was a case where both the Walking Liberty half dollar and the Standing Liberty quarter would see modifications in 1917. There would be 1916 and 1917 Walking Liberty half dollars with an obverse “D,” which would be moved to the reverse during 1917.

The mintage of the 1916-D was 1,014,000, which does not sound large. In fact, it was high at least for 1916 as it was almost double the totals from Philadelphia and San Francisco, which stood at 608,000 and 508,000 respectively.

The amount of saving by collectors and the public of any 1916 Walking Liberty half dollar is suspect. Normally there would be added saving of a new design and almost certainly that was the case. How much added saving there was is another matter as we have learned that at the time dealers were unlikely to stock new issues as their customers would simply acquire them on their own from circulation or banks.

That meant that in most cases the 1916-D simply circulated. In fact, the 1916-D because of that obverse mintmark would regularly be pulled from circulation by later generations of collectors and that makes it relatively available in circulated grades today with a G-4 being priced at $48.50.

If there was any extra saving of the 1916-D it would be seen in Mint State supplies. The 1916-D does have a certain following because of that obverse mintmark, resulting in an MS-60 price of $360 while an MS-65 is at $2,500.

The extra saving, however, was not likely to have been large. We see that in the grading service totals as PCGS reports just 137 examples of the 1916-D in MS-65 along with 39 in MS-66 and two more coins in MS-67. In fact, such totals make sense as Q. David Bowers did some research on the dealer inventories at the time and found that only a couple had working inventories of the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter. If the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter with a mintage of just 52,000 was not being stocked by many dealers, it stands to reason that the 1916-D half dollar with a mintage of over 1 million would not be in many inventories either.

In the case of the 1917-D with the obverse mintmark, the mintage was significantly lower at 765,400. With the novelty of the new designs gone it would be expected that there would be lower saving. That would not show up in circulated grades and interestingly the lower mintage 1917-D is actually less expensive than the 1916-D at just $23.50 in G-4. In any grade above F-12 the situation changes with the 1917-D becoming the more costly  at $625 in MS-60 and $7,900 in MS-65 – certainly well above the 1916-D. The price difference reflects a difference in numbers seen at the Professional Coin Grading Service, as well as the total for the 1917-D in MS-65 is just 57 and four more in MS-66. None is seen in any higher grades.

The rest of the 1917 mintage would have the mintmark moved to a location around 8 o’clock on the rim on the reverse. In fact, there was a number of other small modifications as well, suggesting that the design had really been rushed into production in 1916. The changes are primarily one to help enhance the design suggesting that the time situation in 1916 had just been too tight to give everyone the opportunity they might have liked to smooth over a couple rough spots in the design. That was natural as A.A. Weinman it must be remembered was working on two different designs (the Mercury dime being the other) and the Mint was working on three. As it turned out, the Standing Liberty quarter barely got out at all in 1916 so almost certainly things were just more rushed than was ideal.

The 1917-D with the reverse mintmark had a mintage of 1,940,000, making it an available date for the time with a price of $10 in G-4. It is, however, a much tougher date in Mint State where it lists for $940 in MS-60 and $18,500 in MS-65. The prices are backed up by low supplies with PCGS reporting just 28 in MS-65 and another four examples in MS-66.

The reverse mintmark 1917-D actually starts a trend of dates from Denver where the supplies of top quality examples are very low. The dates may not always be tough in circulated grades, but when you try to find them in MS-65 or better you find that the Denver dates of the period are really the keys to a Walking Liberty half dollar set.

The 1918-D is a typical example as it had a mintage of 3,853,040, which is high enough to make it an available date. That shows with a $10.10 price in G-4, but at $1,300 in MS-60 it is clear there are supply problems. Any Walking Liberty half dollar at $1,000 or more in MS-60 is a better date and if the date is not available in MS-60 the odds are that it will be very tough in MS-65 and that is seen in the 1918-D, which lists for $24,500 in MS-65 and with good reason as PCGS reports just 24 examples graded MS-65 and three more in MS-66. That makes the 1918-D one of the top five Walking Liberty half dollars in MS-65.

The 1919-D is even tougher. In fact, the 1919-D is the key Walking Liberty half dollar in MS-65 (though it is tied with the 1921-S). Again, it follows the pattern as it was not even the lowest mintage half dollar of 1919 with a mintage of 1,165,000, which makes it an $25 coin in G-4. In MS-60, however, it jumps to $6,000 and from there it soars to a price of $130,000 in MS-65. The reason for the high price is that PCGS has seen just nine examples in MS-65 and one more in MS-66.

Sandwiched between a couple exceptional dates, the 1920-D is a natural for getting overlooked. The 1920-D, however, also fits the pattern as it had a mintage of 1,551,000, which is slightly higher than the 1919-D, but certainly not large. That total is enough to see the 1920-D at $10.40 in G-4, but once again in upper grades the supply simply dries up with the 1920-D listing for $1,485 in MS-60, although even that listing does not put it among the top Walking Liberty half dollar dates. Any date at $10,000 or more in MS-65, however, is one of the better dates and the 1920-D qualifies at a current listing of $17,500 in MS-65.

The 1921-D is perhaps the best known of all Walking Liberty half dollars in large part because of its mere 208,000 mintage. In the case of the Walking Liberty half dollar, the mintage totals were especially low with the 1921 from Philadelphia being slightly higher at 246,000 and the 1921-S was at 548,000. The combined total of the three facilities is barely one million.

With its record low half dollar mintage of 208,000, the 1921-D has received a lot of attention over the years. Even those not attempting a complete set of Walking Liberty half dollars would pull a 1921-D from circulation and that has provided a supply, although a small one, in almost every grade. Today a G-4 is priced at $310, which makes it easily the key Walking Liberty half dollar in that grade as the price is $145 more than the 1921, which is its major competition.

It is hard to know if there was a small amount of extra saving of the 1921-D because of that mintage. In all probability if there was it was very small as the 1921-D is among the top Mint State Walking Liberty half dollars. That said, it is still far from being a leader in terms of price with an MS-60 at $5,650 while an MS-65 is at $29,500.

The price actually seems to be right as PCGS reports 28 examples in MS-65 and another three in MS-66. That makes the 1921-D one of the top three Walking Liberty half dollars in terms of price and among the elite in terms of numbers graded in top grades as well.

After the low 1921 mintages there would be no Denver half dollar mintages until 1929. The logical question is why  such a long gap in production?

It is certainly at least partially the lingering effects of the recession. All mints had production of other denominations suffer, but San Francisco saw no half dollar production in 1922 and then again from 1924 to 1927, but the Denver gap was much longer as was the Philadelphia gap, which would produce no half dollars after 1921 until 1934. Could our grandfathers in the 1920s been giving up on the half dollar, too, as we have done since the Kennedy half was introduced in 1964?

Certainly since 1879, the public was showing less and less interest in large coins and more and more interest in the handier paper money.

The return to production of Walking Liberty half dollars at Denver took place in 1929 with a mintage of 1,001,200, so it was hardly a case of making up for lost time. Few give the 1929-D much thought and in circulated grades it is definitely available at just $10.1 in G-4. It is, however, a better date than some realize at $390 in MS-60 and $3,350 in MS-65. Those prices don’t make it a top Walking Liberty half dollar, but it is also far from a readily available date.

After the 1929-D, Denver saw another production gap lasting until 1934 and the Great Depression hit all Americans. In the Denver Walking Liberty half dollars of 1934-1937 we find available dates but ones that still had low mintages. In G-4 they are $7.40 with their MS-60 prices showing the 1,676,000 mintage 1937-D as the most expensive at $220 while the 1935-D is the most expensive MS-65 at $2,450 with some 300 graded MS-65 by PCGS as well as 47 in MS-66 and a single MS-67.

In a way, the 1938-D would prove just how far interest in coins had grown since the beginning of the Walking Liberty series even though the nation had been in the middle of the Great Depression. Interest in coin collecting actually increased during the Great Depression despite the fact that virtually no one had any money to buy coins. That was seen in heavy hoarding of the low mintage 1931-S Lincoln cent and again when the mintage of the 1938-D Walking Liberty half dollar was put at 491,600.

The 1938-D, thanks to its low mintage, would actually be pulled from circulation and saved even though it was a half dollar. We see evidence today as a G-4 is $70 and that is not because none was saved in G-4, but rather because few ever circulated long enough to become G-4.

The 1938-D also shows signs of being saved when released with an MS-60 at $475 and an MS-65 at $1,750, which are low prices considering the mintage. The PCGS totals also support the idea of saving as it has graded 625 in MS-65, 250 in MS-66 and 21 in MS-67. For the third-lowest mintage Walking Liberty half dollar those totals are solid proof that much had changed in 20 years as the MS-66 total is larger than the MS-65 total of many earlier dates.

In the years that followed there would be no Denver mintage in 1940 but all the other dates from the 1939-D to the final Walking Liberty half dollar from Denver in 1947 would be considered more available. None of the dates had a mintage of even 12 million and some were much lower like the 1946-D at just 2,151,000. Even with the modest mintages an MS-60 is many times well under $50 and no MS-65 of the period is more than the $325 of the 1942-D and some are closer to $200 in MS-65. While certainly less expensive these dates may well surprise in the future especially in MS-65 and better.

Whatever your approach to the Denver Walking Liberty half dollars, the fact remains that in their ranks are found many of the key date Walking Liberty halves.That makes Denver Walking Liberty half dollars a tough group that is always in demand.

Other News & Articles

• Gold Seizure Mechanism in Place
• Eagle Collector Base Should Grow
• Mint Coin Output Passes ’09 Total

Only the Buffalo nickel might dispute that title with the Walking Liberty half dollar.

If we didn’t all collect Walking Liberty half dollars out of change in the 1950s and early 1960s, it wasn’t for artistic reasons. It was purely financial. A half a buck was just too much money to tie up in one coin. Years of inflation might make that statement hard to believe for youngsters today, but it was true.

And if we had been able to collect Walking Liberty half dollars from circulation in those happy days of childhood, I think it is fair to say that we wouldn’t have been especially watchful for the Philadelphia strikes as a group, but certainly there are some very scarce early dates that we would have realized very fast.

This is perhaps what makes reviewing the situation today so interesting.

It’s easy to make assumptions when it comes to Philadelphia coins especially during the first half of the past century. As the main facility, the Philadelphia Mint would frequently turn out far high mintages than the other facilities. Moreover, as had been the case historically there was significant saving of new issues in and around the Philadelphia area. The result is that in many cases coins from Philadelphia are more available than the same date and type from Denver or San Francisco. While that is a general pattern, it does not apply in every case and some of those cases can be found in the Philadelphia Walking Liberty half dollars, which sometimes can be surprisingly tough.

The message that Philadelphia would not always be the top producer of Walking Liberty half dollars was immediately clear as when the Walking Liberty half dollar was introduced in 1916, the Philadelphia mintage stood at just 608,000, which was well below the Denver total of 1,014,000 and just 100,000 coins higher than San Francisco.

To have the main facility produce significantly few coins than Denver and close to the San Francisco total was highly unusual. The situation could at least in part be explained by the fact that Philadelphia in 1916 was a very busy place. After all, there were three new designs being introduced that year and that was unusual as historically the dime, quarter and half dollar basically had the same design. The dime because of its size did not have an eagle on the reverse but otherwise the three designs were the same. That was changed in 1916. For the first time in history the three denominations would have very different designs.

Time was another factor. The historical record was mixed, but even with the designs being basically the same, a design change was not always accomplished on all three denominations in the same year. All designs had been changed in 1892, but if you went further back to the Seated Liberty design, it took well over a year before the design would be used on all denominations.

In 1916 they were attempting to get three new designs ready in the same year. Even with better technology and a larger staff, it was a real challenge as Philadelphia not only had to produce its own coins but also prepare the designs and in addition make and ship the dies for all denominations to the other facilities.

As it worked out, the A.A. Weinman Mercury dime was prepared first because there was more commercial demand for dimes. The A.A. Weinman Walking Liberty half dollar was the second to be prepared and the Hermon MacNeil Standing Liberty quarter was third. The fact that they barely completed their work is seen in the fact that the first Standing Liberty quarter had a mintage of just 52,000 pieces and no 1916 quarters were produced at either Denver or San Francisco. This is probably because there was no time to get the dies to the other mints and begin production before the year was finished.

Here is another factor, which is that heading into 1916 there was a very definite pattern of low production of half dollars at Philadelphia. It is hard to know why the pattern existed as the assumption would be that Philadelphia would be a major producer of half dollars. Perhaps the demand for the denomination was lower in the East or perhaps there was some other reason, but Philadelphia had a 1910 half dollar mintage of just 418,551. That total was followed by better than 1 million totals in 1911 and 1912, but then the total really took a nosedive with the 1913 Philadelphia half dollar having a mintage of just 188,627 and the 1914 was just 124,610, with the 1915 total being 138,450.

Compared to the other facilities, that 1913 total was well below either Denver or San Francisco while the 1914 was below San Francisco with Denver having had no mintage and then the 1915 was more than 1 million pieces below either Denver or San Francisco.

Certainly there was a pattern there of low mintages from Philadelphia, making the 1916 seem not as low as it originally appears especially when compared to the other facilities as it was higher than San Francisco and at the time that was actually not always the case.

The 1916 Walking Liberty half dollar was an interesting coin. The assumption would be that being a new design and coming from Philadelphia the 1916 would be heavily saved if for no other reason than as a novelty, which produces a lot of saving when new coins are issued. There was almost certainly some of that, but perhaps not as much as we might expect. There were, after all, three new designs that year and a half dollar was a lot of money to many at the time.

Also, it was not just the collectors of the period who reacted this way. In his research, Q. David Bowers discovered that the dealers of the day also did very little saving of new issues as he could find only a couple with what he calls “working inventories” of the 1916 quarter. As a lower denomination with a mintage of just 52,000, the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter seems like a far better candidate for saving than the 1916 Walking Liberty half dollar. If the quarter was not being saved, there is little reason to expect that the half dollar was saved in any numbers.

Thanks to its low mintage, the 1916 Walking Liberty half dollar is actually a better date although it is not one of the few dates topping $100 in G-4. It is, however, at $47 inG-4 and that is a premium price as available dates are still at basically silver related prices of $7.40.

In the case of a Mint State example, the 1916 by a narrow margin is the most available of the 1916 Walking Liberty half dollars with a price of $345 in MS-60, which is just less than the 1916-D while an MS-65 is $1,950, which is also lower than the 1916-D.

There may be a couple of factors at work in the prices as there were still more collectors in the Philadelphia area, so despite a low mintage there was likely to be greater saving of the Philadelphia 1916. In addition, the Denver and San Francisco 1916 half dollars had the obverse mintmarks, which are popular and which lasted for just 1916 and part of 1917, and that could mean some additional demand for nice examples featuring the obverse mintmarks.

The supplies reported today of the 1916 do suggest at least some saving as the Professional Coin Grading Service has seen just over 1,000 examples of the 1916 and about 80 percent qualify as Mint State. While there are more Mint State coins than is usually seen for the period,  the supply in MS-65 or better is still modest ,with 141 coins being graded MS-65, 59 graded MS-66 and just four were called MS-67.

The pattern of lower half dollar mintages from Philadelphia seemed to change in 1917 and 1918 as the 1917 mintage was a record 12,292,000 pieces and the 1918 was large as well at 6,634,000. Those totals make the two readily available especially in circulated grades where both are at basically common date prices.

The modest saving of new examples was to have an impact and we see that in the prices with the 1917 at $130 in MS-60 and $1,050 in MS-65. The 1918 is much tougher at $565 in MS-60 and $3,800 in MS-65.

We see the difficulty in finding a 1918 in the grading service totals as well for PCGS has only seen the 1918 72 times in MS-65 and just 7 times in MS-66. Those totals are not the lowest for a Walking Liberty half dollar, but they are low enough to suggest that with any additional increase in demand the 1918 might prove to be a real problem and that is even true in lower Mint State grades as in all Mint State grades PCGS has only seen the 1918 a total of roughly 425 times.

After a couple years of higher mintages, the Philadelphia 1919 total dropped to just 962,000 pieces, which once again was the lowest total for the three facilities. That makes the 1919 a better date at $26 in G-4. In Mint State all 1919 Walking Liberty half dollars are in short supply. It is hard to know why the year seems to be such a problem, but the Philadelphia 1919 is the most available although hardly readily available with an MS-60 price of $1,325 and an MS-65 listing of $7,750 with the grading service totals again showing very low numbers as the 1919 has been seen just 42 times in MS-65 by PCGS alone with 16 appearances in MS-66 and five more in MS-67.

In 1920 the mintage in Philadelphia returned to higher levels with a production of 6,372,000, making the 1920 a more available date at just $9.7 in G-4 while an MS-60 is $330 and an MS-65 at $5,250. That MS-65 price is high, suggesting a lack of supply and that is confirmed by PCGS as the 1920 has been seen 61 times in MS-65 and 10 more times in MS-66.
The years that followed would see Walking Liberty half dollar mintages influenced by the sharp recession and then the return to Roaring Twenties prosperity.

The need for silver dollars helped take up the slack. Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon had the task of reforming U.S. finances following the high deficits of World War I.
It was not a case where the United States had no silver dollars as there were still hundreds of millions sitting in the vaults, but the Pittman Act of 1918 had resulted in the melting of just over 270 million and that caused a problem as those dollars were needed to back Silver Certificates. Other notes with a different backing had to be issued and those notes were backed by short term notes that paid 2 percent interest. In the mind of the secretary of the Treasury Silver Certificates backed by silver dollars were much better than paying 2 percent interest so he ordered production to replace the melted dollars, which finished in 1928.

The problem was that silver dollars take time to produce and even though shifts at the facilities were changed from 8 to 12 hours a day, six days a week, producing 200 million silver dollars was a slow process.

Wartime inflation caused the price of silver to spike and for a time in 1919 and 1920, the silver in a silver dollar was worth $1.06. Even the slightly lighter dimes, quarters and halves were threatening to see the metal value exceed face value, but when the recession hit, the silver priced dropped by more than half.

The result of the slack economy was that all Walking Liberty half dollar mintages in 1921 were very low. The 1921-S proved to be the top mintage date of the year at 548,000, which in a normal year would have been low. The 1921-D was the lowest mintage date of the three at 208,000 while the Philadelphia 1921 half dollar was not much higher at 246,000. Those totals made the 1921 and 1921-D the key circulated Walking Liberty half dollars with the Philadelphia 1921 ranking as the second most expensive Walking Liberty half dollar in G-4 at $165 while the 1921-D is $310 in the same grade.

In Mint State the 1921 is also a very difficult date with an MS-60 price of $4,500 and an MS-65 at $19,500. While those prices are not as tough as the mintages might suggest, it must be remembered in Mint State what matters is the number saved at the time and not how many were produced. The PCGS totals show that while low mintage the 1921 did have a small amount of saving with 59 examples graded MS-65 and three more in MS-66.

What followed the 1921 low mintages were even lower mintages as Philadelphia would basically go out of the half dollar production business for years. It is possible there was a backlog, but it is worth remembering that stretching all the way back to Barber half dollars the Philadelphia mintages suggested that the need for half dollars at least in the area served by Philadelphia was apparently not that high while San Francisco tended to always need half dollars. The only other half dollar mintages for the rest of the 1920s would be from Denver and San Francisco and the Denver total was also extremely low as it produced just over 1 million pieces in 1929 but no others.

The San Francisco mintages while more frequent were also not regular and not very large as none would reach more than 2.5 million coins. By the later part of the decade the silver dollar production was over so that reason for low mintages was eliminated, but it did not take long for the nation to drift into the Great Depression. Tough economic times usually result in lower mintages.

Certainly tough economic times result in lesser demand for higher denominations, but Philadelphia was once again unusual in that it continued its string of no half dollar mintages until 1934. From that point on Philadelphia would have regular half dollar mintages, but for the period of more than a decade from 1922 through 1933 it would be awfully hard to make the case that Philadelphia was a leading half dollar producer.

Even when half dollar production returned to Philadelphia in 1934 it was not a case where the facility seemed to making up for lost time. The mintages in the 1930s would range from about 12 million in 1936 to 4 million in 1938, so none can be called unusually large. The higher mintages result in lower prices. An MS-65 1934 is $565, a 1935 is $365, the top mintage 1936 is $265, the 1937 is $285, the 1938, the lowest mintage date of the group, is $460 and the 1939 and 1940 would be $210 and $185, respectively. The grading service totals support such prices as it appears that collecting interest or perhaps dealer saving or both had increased so we see significantly higher numbers available for all these dates.

From the period of no production Philadelphia would go to the opposite extreme with the start of World War II. The war years would see extremely large half dollar mintages with the peak coming in 1943 when 53,190,000 were produced. That extremely high total at the time was really only a little higher than the 1942. With such totals it is natural that the dates are available.
Even with the heavy mintages, examples in MS-65 are not always as available as might be expected as when mintages rise quality sometimes suffers. That said ,almost any Philadelphia Walking Liberty half dollar date from the 1940s can be found for roughly $150 to $200,  making them the least costly MS-65 Walking Liberty half dollars and perfect candidates for type collections.

With the end of World War II, the production levels dropped off significantly to 12,118,000 in 1946 and a mere 4,094,000 in 1947. Such totals might result in higher prices, but at least in part, the low totals were overcome by increased saving as the interest in coin collecting would increase quickly with the end of the war.

Moreover, with the change in design to the Franklin half dollar in 1948, some saved the last years of the Walking Liberty half dollar although the coins saved in many cases while nice looking tend to be AU or lower Mint State in grades.

That makes it easy to acquire an MS-60 from the 1941-1947 period as all are safely under $50, but MS-65 examples are not as available as many think. We see that in prices of $200 for the 1946 and $275 for the 1947 in MS-65. Over time we may see other changes as these lower priced dates in MS-65 have not always been sent into the grading services in large numbers, so the numbers reported by the services may well not be a perfectly accurate reflection of which dates are less available and which dates are more numerous.

With the 1947 mintage the Philadelphia Walking Liberty half dollar production would come to an end. As you study the Philadelphia Walking Liberty half dollars it is hard to escape the fact that these coins have an extremely interesting story. In addition, their history of production is not what most would expect from Philadelphia as very clearly the nation’s main mint was not as active in terms of half dollar production as most would assume. As a result, the Philadelphia Walking Liberty half dollars are tougher than most would expect but that makes them a great group to acquire as realistically they are excellent values on very interesting coins.

Insider’s Tips for Buying and Selling Coins

How the Wholesale Coin Market Works

By Susan Headley, About.com Guide

Another frequent question I am asked is if gold and silver are still worth buying?

That is a reasonable question. After all, through the US close on July 29, 2010, gold is up 318.9% since December 31, 2001. In the same time, silver is up 284.3%, platinum rose 218.3%, and palladium 10.8%. Gold and silver compare especially favorably when you consider that the Dow Jones Industrial Average only rose 3.3% over the past nearly ten years and even the NASDAQ is up a meager 15.4%.

Markets operate in cycles. There is some tendency by investors to think that, after the strong run for gold and silver over the past decade, future prospects might not be as attractive as for the underperforming assets like US and foreign stocks. A market often moves toward the middle of a long-term trend after a period of significant under- or over-performance, sometimes described as “regression to the mean,” so this investor tendency toward avoiding a hot market is not surprising and often prudent.

Let me give you a personal example to put this in perspective. I bought my first gold and silver coins for investment purposes in the fall of 1973. My intention as I accumulated them was to hold them forever, a thought expressed to me by a high percentage of other gold and silver buyers over the years. I accidentally happened to make my largest purchases of gold bullion in September 1976, when the spot price was right down close to $100, within a day of the lowest price for gold ever since. I wasn’t trying to time the market, it was just when I received an unexpected amount of cash from selling a car, did not need the funds for other purposes, and had the opportunity to visit the store for a purchase.

I continued periodically using extra funds to acquire more gold and silver through the fall of 1978. The last time I bought gold then, the spot price had risen up over $260. At the time, I didn’t really expect gold and silver to go much higher, so I discontinued further purchases.

As I’m sure most of you know, gold and silver enjoyed a sharp price spike that peaked in January 1980. Gold passed $800 and silver reached $50. About that time, I had the opportunity to purchase a house where I could assume the existing mortgage (which had an interest rate about half of what new mortgages were at the time) if I paid about half down. I did not have other resources to tap, so I sold my gold and silver close to the top of the market. I didn’t want to sell out (I tried first to borrow the money using my precious metals as collateral), but it turned out that I accidentally sold near the peak. (The founder of my company was so impressed by the profits I made from these transactions that he decided that I would buy this company when he retired at the end of 1980—but that’s a story for another day.)

I had made my purchases during the 1970s anticipating that prices would go higher. I stopped purchasing after the fall of 1978 as I thought prices had risen “enough.” I did not sell in 1980 with the thought that I was cashing in at a market peak, and first tried to keep my gold and silver as my “insurance.”

Near the 1980 peak, gold and silver prices became a subject of conversation among strangers. When taxi drivers, barbers and hairdressers, people sharing an elevator, and other such people started saying to people they did not know that precious metals were such a good buy, that turned out to be a signal that prices were near the top.

I don’t know what will be the peak gold and silver prices in the current market cycle, except to say that they will be much higher than today. At a minimum, I expect prices to double or triple from current levels. One of the reasons I say this is today’s extremely negative sentiment towards owing precious metals in the US. Some market observers, such as Mark Hulbert, track an index that tries to give an idea of the relative favorable/unfavorable attitude towards gold and silver. Mark Hulbert has published the Hulbert Financial Digest since 1980. This publication tracks the results of recommendations made by investment advisory newsletters. One of the statistics he follows (HGNSI) is the positive versus negative sentiment toward gold and silver among these newsletter writers. His HGNSI was at only 9.2% on July 28, toward the most negative of the range of sentiment for the past several years. Another index, the MarketWatch Bullish Consensus on July 28 was at 61%, which was also among the lowest readings for the past several years.

The index numbers are not as important as how these numbers compare over time and how precious metals prices have trended in relation to the fluctuations in these indices. Generally, when the indices are relatively low, they have signaled short term bottoms for prices. If the indices shoot toward the top end, there is a greater chance that markets will retrench soon.

So, the market sentiment indices right now are giving off a buy signal. Also, the extensive activity over the past several weeks by the large commercial traders of gold and silver to sharply reduce their short positions indicates that they perceive a strong likelihood that prices are at or close to a temporary bottom.

The recent customer activity at my company roughly matches what the indices are showing. For much of the past several months, we have enjoyed a significant surge in the number of new customers doing business with our company. In the past two weeks, that has slowed down, with some of the slack taken up by longer-term customers stepping up their buying activity.

As I said, I don’t know what price levels gold and silver will reach in the current bull market. Silver analyst David Morgan compiled a list of peak predictions stated by more than 65 other analysts. He broke them into three categories for their prediction of the peak gold price. A large number forecast $10,000 or higher, the largest number ranged from $5,000 to under $10,000, and many thought the peak price would be under $5,000. Only a couple thought the peak would be under $2,000.

I am confident that I will be able to discern the market top simply by observing the behavior of customers. When we see lots of fresh people in our store who are almost desperate to buy any form of physical gold or silver, and they care more about being able to buy it than the price it costs them, that will signal a peak is near. This indicator proved accurate in the 1979-80 boom, and I expect it to be reliable again.

There are two ways to answer the question about whether gold and silver are worth buying today—for the short-term or for the long-term. The recent softness in prices has just about every indication of being a temporary dip which means that precious metals are a good buy for those looking at short-term moves, even if it turns out that prices could slip further from current levels. In the long-term perspective, gold and silver look to be outstanding buys today, despite their previous strong decade-long track record. As my friend David Morgan has said multiple times, and I agree with him, the easy profits in gold and silver have been made but the biggest profits are yet to be made.

Patrick A. Heller owns Liberty Coin Service in Lansing, Michigan and writes “Liberty’s Outlook,” a monthly newsletter covering rare coins and precious metals. Past issues can be found online at http://www.libertycoinservice.com/ Pat Heller is also the gold market commentator for Numismatic News. Past columns online at http://numismaster.com/ under “News & Articles”. His periodic radio interviews can be heard on WILS 1320 AM in Lansing, www.talkLansing.net, and on www.yourcontrarian.com.

Gold Prices May Suffer Amid Complaints About Coin Scams

By VISHESH KUMAR Posted 8:00 AM 07/30/10 Economy, Investing