Inexpensive Type Coins Make Great Sets

By Mike Thorne, Coins Magazine January 03, 2012

This article was originally printed in Numismatic News.
>> Subscribe today!

At some point in every coin collector’s life, he or she realizes that collecting everything is out of the question. (Louis Eliasberg was the exception here, of course, as he formed a complete collection of all known U.S. issues.) Usually the issue is cost, as there are many coins that are simply too expensive for ordinary collectors to contemplate owning.

A Guide Book of United States Type Coins Learn how to begin the ideal numismatic pursuit: a collection of United States coins by type. Get your copy today!

Another problem can be availability. That is, even if the collector is rich, there are some coins that are so rare that an appropriate example may not be offered during the individual’s collecting lifetime.

So what is the collector of modest means and finite life span to do? One possibility is to be satisfied with incomplete sets. As examples from my collecting life, I soon discovered that if I wanted to collect either Barber or Standing Liberty quarters, I would have to be content to form sets missing at least one key coin in each case (1901-S for the Barbers and 1916 for the Standing Liberties).

Another possibility that is particularly relevant for 19th-century issues is to collect by type rather than striving for complete date/mintmark collections. As Q. David Bowers explains in United States Coins by Design Types, “instead of collecting a single series or specialty by die varieties or mintmarks, a display is formed consisting of one each of many different motifs.”

In other words, rather than trying to assemble a set of all the different dates and varieties of nickel three-cent pieces, for example, the type collector is content to have just one nickel three-cent piece for his type collection. With this introduction, I will now list 10 early type coins that I consider to be interesting and relatively inexpensive. Each can be obtained in a nice, collectible grade at the present time for $100 or less. Note that my list is not intended to be exhaustive; I can think of at least as many additional early types that could be included in an inexpensive set as the ones I’ve chosen to discuss here.

1. Draped Bust half cent in Very Good-8. With a design by Robert Scot, a decent circulated Draped Bust half cent will be an impressive coin to show your non-collecting friends. Coined between 1800 and 1808, most of the dates had relatively large mintages, so finding one in VG-8 for $100 or less should not be terribly difficult.

If you have a choice of dates, the one to look for is 1803, with a mintage of just 97,900 pieces. The November 2011 edition of Numismatic News “Coin Market” assigns this date a value of $95 in VG-8 and $105 in Fine-12.

On one interesting variety of 1804 half cent, Liberty appears to have a spiked chin. With a listed value of $105 in VG-8, it’s possible that you can obtain a well circulated, but still presentable, example of this variety for $100 or less.

2. Draped Bust large cent in VG-8. Like the half cent, the large cent of this period was designed by Robert Scot. Also like the half cent, this is a suitably old and impressive type coin for your inexpensive early collection.

Although this series of large cents was minted between 1796 and 1807, you’re unlikely to find any of the pre-1800 varieties for less than $100, unless it’s in a condition that you wouldn’t want to include in your collection.

Beginning in 1801, however, you’ll find that most of the dates are valued at $100 or less in VG-8. Actually, the only date from 1801 to 1807 that is worth more than this is the 1804, which is a key date that lists for $1,000 even in About Good-3.

If you have a choice of dates, go for the 1806 at exactly $100 in VG-8. This is a coin with a mintage significantly below that of the 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cent, and you can be sure that 1806 large cents were not differentially saved.

3. Two-cent piece in About Uncirculated-Uncirculated. The two-cent piece was designed by James B. Longacre, who is better known for designing the Indian Head cent. This was a short-lived series minted between 1864 and 1872, with only proofs struck in 1873. The two-cent piece is perhaps most noteworthy as the first U.S. coin to display the motto “In God We Trust.”

If you haven’t priced two-cent pieces lately, you may be amazed to find that most of the early dates, between 1864 (large motto) and 1867, should still be available in AU-50 to Mint State-60 for $100 or less. The most expensive of these, the 1867, lists for $96 in AU-50; the earlier dates range between $88 and $98 in MS-60.

Of course, an MS-60 two-cent piece might be a real horror, with staining or damage but no wear. You may find that a nice AU-55 or -58 would be a more presentable coin for your set.

4. Nickel three cent piece in AU-Unc. Because of hoarding of all silver coins, including the silver three-cent piece, a nickel version of the denomination, with suitable design change, was introduced in 1865. The coin was also useful for retiring fractional currency of the three-cent denomination. Silver hoarding continued until 1876, after which the nickel three-cent piece became less useful and mintages (with one exception), dropped precipitously.

Designed by James B. Longacre, nickel three-cent pieces were coined between 1865 and 1889, with low mintages and some proof-only issues after 1876. The one exception to the low mintages in the latter years of the series occurred in 1881, when more than a million of the coin were struck. For type purposes, all of the dates through 1876 (and 1881) are valued at less than $100 in AU-50, with the 1876 (162,000 minted) having the highest value at $95 in this grade. In MS-60, three-cent pieces from 1865-1868 are worth exactly $100 each. As before, a coin in AU-55 or -58 might be more attractive than one in MS-60.

5. Capped Bust dime in Very Fine-20. Designed by John Reich, Capped Bust dimes were minted between 1809 and 1837, with minor design changes in 1828. Although some of the earlier dates are priced below $100 in F-12 (1820, 1821, 1823/22, 1825, 1827), dates with values appropriate for our inexpensive early type set are found in the dimes of the second variety, coined from 1828-1837.

Capped Bust dimes of the second variety valued at less than $100 in VF-12 are some of the 1829 varieties (medium 10 cents, small 10 cents), 1830 small and large 10 cents, and all of the dates from 1831-1837. Mintages are relatively large for the period, ranging from 485,000 to 1,410,000.

6. Seated Liberty dime in AU-50. Designed by Christian Gobrecht, Seated Liberty dimes, in one form or another, were minted between 1837 and 1891. Varieties include dimes with no stars on the obverse, dimes with stars, dimes on which the stars are replaced with “United States of America,” and dimes with arrows at the date. Seated Liberty dimes valued at less than $100 in AU-50 can be found in the group minted between 1875 and 1891.

Within this group, you’ll find a large number of dates to choose from. Examples include 1875, 1875-CC, 1875-S, 1882-1884, and 1887-1889. All of these have rather large mintages, which is why they’re so reasonably valued for coins in the late 19th century. Given the choice, I would probably opt for the 1875-CC because of the mintmark.

7. Capped Bust quarter in VG-8. There are two varieties of Capped Bust quarters, the large-size (27mm diameter) variety designed by John Reich and minted from 1815 to 1828 and the reduced-size version (24.3mm) designed by William Kneass and coined from 1831 to 1838. Kneass also omitted the motto above the eagle on the reverse.

Although several of the earlier version are valued at or below $100 in G-4 and would be well worth including in an inexpensive type collection, I’ve chosen to highlight the smaller coin, as it should be available in a slightly higher grade for the same money. In fact, with one exception (1834 O/F in OF), all of the dates from 1831 to 1838 are valued between $90 and $100 in VG-8. If you can afford a slightly better coin, you’ll find that the value listed for each in F-12 is either $110 or $115. With the exception of 1835, of which nearly 2 million were coined, mintages range from 156,000 (1833) to 832,000 (1838).

8. Seated Liberty quarter with motto in Extremely Fine-40. Designed by Christian Gobrecht, with motto Seated Liberty quarters were minted from 1875 to 1891. Several dates at the beginning of the series (1875-1878) and a few at the end (1888-S, 1891, 1891-S) had large mintages and should be available in a nice circulated grade for $100 or less. In EF-40, the following dates have values of $62.50: 1875, 1876, 1876-S, 1877-S, 1878, 1888-S, 1891, and 1891-S. In addition, the variety of 1876-CC with fine reeding lists for just $90 in EF-40.

Another Seated Liberty 25-cent type that I find appealing and remarkably inexpensive is the version with both arrows at the date and rays around the eagle. The purpose of the arrows and rays was to indicate that the weight of the coin had been reduced. All three date/mintmark varieties of this type are inexpensive, although none qualify for the under $100 in EF-40 category.

The 1853 arrows and rays quarter had a mintage of more than 15 million and lists for just $44 in VF-20. The same coin with a New Orleans mintmark had less than a tenth of the mintage and is worth $85 in VF-20.

In 1854 and 1855, the arrows were retained, but the rays were removed. With large mintages, both 1854 and 1855 list for $70 in EF-40. The “normal” variety of the 1854-O is worth just $60 in VF-20.

9. Bust Half Dollar in VF-20. Capped Bust half dollars, designed by John Reich and minted between 1807 and 1836, come in a bewildering array of variations and are great fun to collect. In fact, there’s even a well known organization of collectors of these coins. Called the Bust Half Nut Club, the club was formed “in the late 1960s as a group dedicated to collecting, studying, and sharing information among fellow members about Bust Half Dollars attributed by Overton [famous reference identifying different die pairs] die marriage.” Obviously, the BHNC is not appropriate for someone interested in just a type coin of this variety.

For the type collector, sizable mintages mean that there are many possibilities for your collecting pleasure. According to the second edition of the Professional Edition of the Red Book (A Guide Book of United States Coins), “Examples of most dates and overdates are easily found in just about any grade desired, from Fine and VF to MS.”

Dates listing for $100 or less in VF-20 begin to appear and become plentiful between 1821 and 1836. In fact, there’s at least one variety in the under-$100 category for each date during this period.

Of course, after you purchase one of these large and attractive coins, you may decide that you would like to pursue the whole series. From there, it’s an easy step to the BHNC.

10. Seated Liberty half dollar in VF-20. Seated Liberty half dollars were designed by Christian Gobrecht and were coined, often in sizable quantities, between 1839 and 1891. Within this lengthy period, there are varieties without the motto “In God We Trust,” with arrows and rays, with arrows only, and with the motto. In each case, the type collector should be able to find a number of dates that cost less than $100 apiece in VF-20. Toward the end of the run, from 1875 through 1891, several dates list for $100 or less even in EF-40.

In the first group of Seated Liberty halves, minted from 1839-1853, examples of dates worth less than $100 in VF-20 are 1839 with drapery, 1840 small letters, 1840-O, 1842 medium date, 1847, 1847-O, and 1850-O. The range of values for these dates is from $65 to $90.

As with the Seated quarters discussed above, 1853 brought a weight reduction to the Seated Liberty half dollar. In VF-20, the 1853 with arrows and rays lists for just $88.

In the run of motto-less Seated Liberty half dollars minted from 1856-1866, the majority of the dates list for less than $100 in VF-20. Several of these are valued at either $100 or $105 in EF-40.

The same can be said for many of the dates with mottoes, minted between 1866 and 1891. Mintages dropped a great deal after 1878, with the exception of 1891, and you will hard pressed to find any of these dates in the under $100 category in any grade.

Of course, it’s easy for me to list coins for an inexpensive type collection based on values found in “Coin Market.” The question is, “Can you really purchase nice coins at these prices?” From my limited experience, the answer is yes. In 2009, for example, I bought a certified VG-10 1831 Capped Bust quarter for $80. A little over a year later, I found an 1835 that I would conservatively grade F-12 for just $82.

I looked on eBay at finished auctions to see what some of these types were selling for. In each case, I was able to find coins that fit the grade and price criteria.

I will admit that some of the coins I saw were optimistically graded and sometimes wildly overpriced even when graded correctly. However, if you are willing to overlook the dross, you can find decent coins, and you should be able to obtain them for amounts in line with the information in this article.

Happy type collecting.

Mystery is Key to 1895-O Morgan

By Paul M. Green, Numismatic News November 30, 2011

This article was originally printed in Numismatic News.
>> Subscribe today!

The 1895-O is a Morgan dollar with a great story and a few mysteries. The 1895-O, basically alone among Morgan dollars, did not manage to find its way into the Treasury bags paid out in the 1960s, thus it never had any added numbers in Mint State to help supplies. Yet its scarcity today is just a small part of an interesting story.

Top 100 Morgan Dollar Varieties Learn the rarest, most popular and deisrable Morgan Varieties! Get your CD today!

The situation with silver dollars had changed by 1895. The large silver purchases of the Bland-Allison Act and Sherman Silver Purchase Act, which were used to make silver dollars quite literally by the ton, had either expired or been changed.

The United States certainly did not need any more silver dollars in 1895, but they were still minted, though in smaller numbers.

In the case of the 1895-O Morgan, the mintage was a low 450,000, but of course there were virtually no silver dollar collectors who cared at the time. Whether there was any saving of the 1895-O is a good question.

Of course with virtually everything about it a mystery, it is hard to answer.

What little we know is that the 1895-O simply never appeared anywhere in great numbers. Q. David Bowers suggests that perhaps a total of around 100,000 were issued at the time of its minting. It is worth noting that as of July 1, 1895, there were some 9.6 million silver dollars sitting in the vaults at New Orleans. It might have been normal to release some examples of a new date but certainly if anyone in New Orleans needed a silver dollar the 1895-O was not the only choice on hand.

If we assume Bowers is right, the next question is what happened to the remaining 350,000 1895-O dollars?

There is the very real chance that at least some were part of the more than 270 million silver dollars melted in 1918 because of the provisions of the Pittman Act.

If, for example, 250,000 1895-O Morgans were melted as a result of the Pittman Act and 100,000 had already been issued, we suddenly have only 100,000 sitting in vaults. They could have trickled out a few at a time without generating much interest.

Bowers reports rumors of several dozen to a couple hundred coming from the Treasury but concludes “I have found no account or even a rumor of any being a part of the 1962-1964 Treasury releases.” That leaves us with a supply today of lightly circulated pieces with an MS-60 priced at $15,000 while in MS-65 the price is $165,000.

In fact, most settle for something less than MS-64, as once you reach upper Mint State grades there is very little supply. The 1895-O was not especially well made, with most being lightly struck with dull luster.

With fewer than 20 examples likely in MS-65 or better, the real issue is what happened to the 1895-O? To that question, there are simply theories, as there is no proof it was melted or simply circulated.

Certainly the reputation of the 1895-O as a key Morgan in top grades is deserved, as few can be found at any price. The fact that it was never found in any Treasury releases makes the 1895-O Morgan dollar stand out as something special and especially interesting.

Mint Responds to Lack of Silver $1 Demand

By Paul M. Green, Numismatic News May 06, 2011

This article was originally printed in Numismatic News.
>> Subscribe today!

It could well be said that the 1851 Seated Liberty dollar is not just a tough date but a coin that reflects the times in terms of silver dollars and their use and also the situation with silver itself. It all adds up to a very interesting story.

The early 1850s were a troubled time at the U.S. Mint. The discovery of gold in California had upset silver prices to the point where it was actually costing more than their face value to produce silver coins. The problem was evident in circulation where people were hoarding silver coins, causing a national coin shortage.

2012 U.S. Coin Digest Up-to-date values in up to 11 condition grades! Get your copy today!

The only answer to the problem was to reduce the amount of silver in coins, but Congress responded instead with a 75 percent silver 3-cent piece. It is hard to justify the action except to suggest that it would appear the lawmakers did not want to be the ones responsible for lowering the silver content, but a new denomination that came out in 75 percent silver would perhaps not seem so bad. It was the best they could do at the time.

The situation still left the Mint with a significant problem. To produce coins was to lose money, and that is not viewed as a desirable outcome. The other side of the matter was that not producing silver coins would do nothing to help a growing national coin shortage. However, even if the coins were produced and put into circulation, they would only end up being hoarded. There was really no good answer.

As for the Seated Liberty dollar, these problems were just the latest chapter in the continuing trouble of getting people to use silver dollars. There had been little demand for them since they returned to production with the first Seated Liberty dollar in 1840.

In the period since 1840, no Seated Liberty dollar had even reached 200,000. In fact, it would be the tip of the iceberg as in the years that followed 1850 with the arrival of gold dollars, the silver dollar would see even more limited use.

There was a definite drop in production at the Mint. In 1850 the Seated Liberty dollar mintage was just 7,500, although New Orleans had a mintage of 40,000. In 1851 New Orleans would have no mintage and the Philadelphia total would be a mere 1,300 pieces.

The mintage made the 1851 scarce and that was recognized later when there was a restrike. The restrike can be identified as its date is centered while the date on originals is higher. Even the restrike has not had a negative impact on interest in the 1851.

The mintage alone is enough to make the 1851 very unusual, even though the 1852 was even lower at 1,100 pieces. Also worth noting is that as silver dollars, the 1851 and 1852 were not likely to be heavily saved, leaving a very small supply today. This explains the 1851’s G-4 price of $4,000, which is $500 more than the lower-mintage 1852.

Actually the 1851 is slightly better in all grades except in MS-65, where its $150,000 price is the same as the 1852. In MS-60 the 1851 is $43,500, exactly $5,000 more than the 1852.

If we check the grading services, we find that Numismatic Guaranty Corporation has seen just 18 examples of the 1851, although most were Mint State. In fact, the 1852 is seen less at NGC and so far never in MS-65. The same is true at Professional Coin Grading Service where they have seen 23 examples of the 1851 with one reaching MS-65 and 22 examples of the 1852 with just one reaching MS-65.

Under the circumstances the close prices of the 1851 and 1852 Seated Liberty dollars are certainly justified although a case could potentially be made that the 1852 should perhaps be closer to the 1851 or even higher in price.

What is really significant, however, is that the total numbers graded are very small as in both cases the total is less than 50 at the two services combined. That is a low total for any coin but especially low for a silver dollar, and that is perhaps the most important thing to remember when considering the 1851 and the 1852.

Will the Dollar Collapse?

By Patrick A. Heller April 05, 2011

The price of gold effectively serves as a report card on the state of the U.S. economy, the federal government and the dollar. The price of gold is up more than 400 percent in the past 10 years, while the price of silver is up about 700 percent. Even with that spectacular result, with the U.S. stock markets little changed over the past decade, I believe the greatest increase is yet to come. Last night, if you ignore inflation, the price of gold closed within a whisker of its highest gold price ever. Silver finished at its highest price in more than 31 years, which is also among the 10 highest daily closing prices ever.

When the Far East Asian financial crisis hit in 1997, the country of Indonesia suffered more than other nations. Indonesian citizens who owned gold saw their personal standard of living little changed. Indonesians whose wealth was tied up in paper currency were wiped out. It would take a huge change of political will in the U.S. to avoid a similar currency collapse here.

Safe Coin Investing Online Seminar Learn the safest coins to buy as an investment – and what makes a coin a safe buy! Get your recording today!

U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins, in a press release on March 11, stated that those who buy and sell gold and silver deserve to be considered “domestic terrorists” who “represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.” To me, the danger to America comes from the politicians and bureaucrats who are deceiving the general public about their efforts to destroy the value of the dollar.

Will the U.S. dollar collapse? I think it may already be too late to avoid this fate.

I have been fortunate to earn a decent living by looking for the truth, then sharing it with others. I don’t have a perfect track record, but have been right a lot more times than wrong, even when my conclusions differed from the reports issued from the U.S. government.

If you review the information I have assembled, and then seek independent corroboration of my points, I am confident that you will come to the conclusion that you need to protect your own wealth by including gold and silver as part of your assets. Once you have absorbed this information, it will be up to you to take action. If you wait until there is a panic among the general public attempting to unload their dollars before it is “too late,” you will not have the excuse of “Why didn’t somebody warn me?”

A small but growing percentage of Americans have started to protect themselves and their families. For everyone else, today you have received your wake-up call.

I’m too dramatic, you might ask?

Well, dig into the publicly available information and judge it for yourself.

The “secret” about the U.S. government’s actions to reduce or destroy the value of the U.S. dollar are starting to get some mainstream coverage. It is not so widely covered yet that the public is rushing to bail out of the dollar. But, I’m afraid that that day is coming and it may be here a lot sooner than almost anyone expects.

In my most recent issue of Liberty’s Outlook, I discussed nine current trends that all indicate why the U.S. dollar is destined to continue falling in value relative to other currencies and against safe haven assets like gold and silver. If you don’t have a copy to read, you can view it online at www.libertycoinservice.com.

Since I wrote those words, two significant news reports have appeared that gained some degree of publicity. This publicity is what could hasten the decline of the dollar and bring the greenback closer to a possible collapse.

On March 29 the Conference Board released its monthly report of the Consumer Confidence Index. It fell from 72.0 in February to only 63.4 in March. It takes a reading of 90 to indicate a healthy economy. Even worse, the six months outlook by shoppers fell from a February reading of 97.5 to 81.1. While it is true that consumer expectations for the economy rose from 33.8 in the prior month to 36.9 in March, both figures are horribly gloomy.

The Conference Board noted that the most important reason given by consumers for their reduced confidence was higher inflation expectations, meaning higher consumer prices. The Board noted that the increase in oil prices, by itself, had more than offset the minor increase in personal income in February. In other words, incomes are actually falling.

A day after the Conference Board data, Bill Simon, the CEO of Wal-Mart met with USA Today’s editorial board for an interview. Wal-Mart accounts for 10 percent of all retail sales in the United States. The last thing that Wal-Mart would want to do is scare consumers. Yet, Simon had to admit that U.S. consumers face “serious” price increases in the months ahead for clothing, food and other products. He said that the rate of consumer price increases is “going to be serious.” He also said, “We’re seeing cost increases starting to come through at a pretty rapid rate.” He stated that major factors pushing up prices are steep increases in raw material costs and rising transportation fuel costs.

You wouldn’t have a clue why the general public or the CEO of Wal-Mart are worrying about significant jumps in consumer prices in the near future if you listen to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Their reports of consumer price increases of barely 1 percent per year late last fall prompted some top officials at the Federal Reserve to state that they might have to force consumer prices even higher to support an economic recovery. The Bureau’s February report now claims that consumer prices were rising just over 2 percent per year, which is almost double their rate of increase from a few months earlier.

In your experience, is your cost for a gallon of gasoline only 1-2 percent higher than it was last fall?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics regularly revises the methodologies used to track statistics such as unemployment, money supply, consumer price increases and the like. Invariably, the changes have the effect of making the government look better after the change than before.

Wouldn’t you be interested to know what the U.S. government reports would be today if they used the consistent methodology from years past? Analyst John Williams tries to do exactly this at his www.shadowstats.com website. For instance, using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ methodology used until 1994, the current U.S. unemployment rate would exceed 20 percent! Or using the same consumer price change methodology as in the 1980s, Williams calculated that consumer prices today are about 10 percent higher than a year earlier.

I couldn’t find stories on either the Conference Board report or of the Wal-Mart CEO’s interview in issues of the Lansing State Journal, which surprised me as the Journal is owned by the same company that owns USA Today. I don’t mean to be picking on the Journal in particular, as this lack of important news coverage seems to be par for the course among non-national newspapers.

While I was researching the Journal, I found that it did include a story about a survey released March 30 by the Business Roundtable. The Roundtable’s quarterly survey of top CEOs found that they expected the U.S. economy to expand by 2.9 percent in 2011. This was largely in line with forecasts of other economists. John Engler, the former Michigan governor who became president of the Business Roundtable four months ago was quoted as saying that growth would have to rise to about 3.5 percent annually to drive down the nation’s unemployment rate. The last paragraph of the article did note that the survey was conducted before the impact of the Japanese earthquake, the fighting in Libya and the surge in U.S. gasoline prices.

Let’s dissect this forecast figure of a 2.9 percent growth in the U.S. economy in 2011. If this proves to be accurate and that consumer price increases continue rising at about 10 percent per year, that would mean that the US economy is actually contracting – by roughly about 7 percent. That isn’t information that was included in the Journal’s story or in any other mainstream media report.

The true story is that the U.S. government’s inflation of the money supply, disguised by the use of the term “quantitative easing,” is deliberately destroying the value of the U.S. dollar. I warned my readers and customers last summer that the Federal Reserve would announce a second round of quantitative easing at the end of the Federal Open Market Committee meeting which concluded the day after last November’s elections. Top Federal officials, all the way up to President Obama, tried to pretend that this step was not set in stone, claiming in the weeks before the election that no decision had been made and the more data was needed before a decision could be considered.

The quantitative easing announcement occurred on the very day I forecast. The U.S. dollar has generally been in decline ever since, save for a few short-term instances where the euro had temporary weakness over crises in Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece.

When there is an international crisis, normally there is a flight into the U.S. dollar as a safe haven asset. Well, after the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan on March 11, the dollar actually declined against a market basket of other major currencies. In fact, there was an announced concerted effort by the G-7 Group of Nations on March 18 to intervene to push down the price of the yen and push up the other currencies, including the U.S. dollar. Despite this open intervention, by the close of markets on March 18, the U.S. dollar had fallen to its lowest level since late 2009. It has continued to fall since then.

Both foreign and domestic buyers of U.S. Treasury debt are fearful that 1) this quantitative easing is hurting the future value of the dollar, and 2) the U.S. government will be forced to announce a third program of inflating the money supply after the current program ends on June 30. Even though some presidents of regional Federal Reserve Banks are now stating that they believe that the U.S. economic recovery is solid enough that a third program of quantitative easing won’t be needed, that is just an attempt at public deception similar to what was tried before the elections last fall. I am confident that the next round of QE is already locked into place.

As a result, independent demand for Treasury debt is falling. The only way to try to recapture foreign and domestic investors would be to offer higher interest rates. Unfortunately, that step would accelerate the decline in the value of the dollar, would again clobber the American real estate market, and push up consumer prices even faster than today.

The Federal Reserve is now purchasing 70 percent of all new Treasury debt, which is one more bit of news that the American mainstream media does not consider newsworthy enough to report. In the process, the U.S. government has now become the largest creditor of the U.S. government.

This pattern of the U.S. government printing paper to finance its own debt cannot continue indefinitely. Here’s another news note that didn’t make it into the Lansing State Journal. Last Thursday, potential 2012 Republican presidential contender Gary Johnson, who served as governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, spoke at Michigan State University. During part of his speech, he explained that 43 percent of current federal expenditures are paid by borrowing the money. In his mind, unless the U.S government immediately trims its expenditures by 43 percent, he expects the U.S. dollar to collapse. In fact, he said that the collapse could happen “as early as tomorrow.”

Perhaps the largest problem facing the U.S. government today is for the average American to realize what is being done to destroy the value of the U.S. dollar. The Conference Board report shows that the public is starting to catch on. When the CEO of Wal-Mart finds it necessary to go public about the imminent decline in the U.S. dollar, even more people will realize that it is in their interest to get out of the dollar and their dollar-denominated assets such as stocks and bonds.

Are you catching on, too?

Patrick A. Heller owns Liberty Coin Service and Premier Coins & Collectibles in Lansing, Mich. and writes “Liberty’s Outlook,” a monthly newsletter on rare coins and precious metals subjects. Past newsletter issues can be viewed at http://www.libertycoinservice.com. Other commentaries are available at CoinUpdate (http://www.coinupdate.com). He also writes a bi-monthly column on collectibles for “The Greater Lansing Business Monthly” (http://www.lansingbusinessmonthly.com/articles/department-columns). His radio show “Things You ‘Know’ That Just Aren’t So, And Important News You Need To Know” can be heard at 8:45 a.m. 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).

 

Failed Trade Dollar Now Sought After

By Mike Thorne, Coins Magazine March 30, 2011

This article was originally printed in Coins Magazine.
>> Subscribe today!

China is much in the news today. At the time I’m writing this, for example, the headlines talk about the president of China’s visit to our leaders in Washington. In addition, it sometimes seems as though everything we buy nowadays has a “Made in China” sticker on it. As a consequence, our nation’s trade with China is badly imbalanced in their favor.

Believe it or not, trade with China figured importantly in the desire for a new silver coin in the latter part of the 19th century. I’m referring to the Trade dollar, minted from 1873-1878, and then as proofs only from 1879-1885.

The idea for a trade dollar originated in the late 1860s, according to David Bowers, writing in his monumental encyclopedia, Silver Dollars & Trade Dollars of the United States:

One-Minute Coin Expert Collecting rare coins has become a lucrative global game – learn how to play with this award-winning book! Get your copy today!

“During this time there was extensive commerce between American merchants and banking interests in China. Distrustful of paper currency, Chinese suppliers preferred to receive payment in silver coins.”

Unfortunately for American interests, the Seated Liberty dollar (the “standard” U.S. dollar of the time) weighed 412.5 grains. This was slightly lighter than the then-circulating Mexican eight-reales coins, which Chinese merchants preferred. U.S. silver dollars were accepted, but only at a discount.

With prodding from silver-mining interests in the West, Congress decided that a special coin, a “trade” dollar (or, as it was initially called, a “commercial” dollar) was needed. The specifications called for a greater silver content than in the standard dollar, and the resulting Trade dollar actually contained slightly more silver than the Mexican eight-reales coin.

The Trade dollar was authorized by the Coinage Act of 1873. The Act also made Trade dollars legal tender in the United States, which was fine at first, as the coins contained slightly more than a dollar’s worth of silver. However, as the price of silver declined, enterprising people began to deposit silver bullion in the Treasury, receive Trade dollars in exchange, and then spend the Trade dollars for their face value, which was now greater than the value of the silver bullion in them.

As a result, in 1876, Congress removed the legal-tender status of Trade dollars. As Bowers writes, “After 1876, trade dollars could not legally be spent at face value within the United States.… Nevertheless, employers often flouted the law, putting them into pay envelopes.…”

The Trade dollar was designed by William Barber, chief engraver at the Mint. The obverse is dominated by a seated figure of Liberty. In her left hand, Liberty holds a ribbon inscribed “LIBERTY,” and with her right hand she is extending an olive branch westward toward China. She is seated on a bale of cotton, which is tied with ropes, and at her back is a sheaf of wheat. Below the bale is another ribbon inscribed with the motto, “IN GOD WE TRUST,” and below that is the date.

On the reverse is a perched eagle, holding an olive branch in its left talon, three arrows in its right. Around the top border are the words “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”; around the bottom border, “TRADE DOLLAR”. Immediately above these words are the coin’s specifications: “420 GRAINS, 900 FINE”. Over the eagle’s head, a ribbon declares “E PLURIBUS UNUM”.

So, how did the coin fare in trade with China? If we could believe the Professional Edition of A Guide Book of United States Coins, the Trade dollar was a winner. “Produced in quantity from 1873 through 1878, the trade dollars were a great success, particularly in China, where merchants preferred silver to gold and would not accept paper money of any kind.”

However, perhaps the picture was not as rosy as that account would have us believe. In Chapter 11 of Bowers’ encyclopedia, R. W. Julian writes, “…in China matters were going rather slowly. Despite optimistic reports made in 1873, the progress was not that good.…American consuls and commercial representatives did their best, but it was difficult for them to persuade the Chinese to accept anything new.”

In his mammoth Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins, Walter Breen, who can always be relied upon for an entertainingly negative comment, wrote the following about the Trade dollar:

“The issue of this coin was an expensive mistake its motivation mere greed, its design a triumph of dullness [Breen made similar comments about the designs of William Barber’s son, Charles Barber, who succeeded his father as chief engraver at the Mint], its domestic circulation and legal-tender status a disastrous provision of law leading only to ghastly abuses, its repudiation a source of hardship for Pennsylvania coal miners and other laborers held in virtual peonage by company stores, its recall a long overdue but very mixed blessing, and its collection a source of decades of frustration.”

Success or failure, Trade dollar coinage for circulation came to an end in 1878, with the passage of the Bland-Allison Act. This authorized the purchase of millions of ounces of silver to be made into standard silver dollars, and the Morgan dollar was the result.

Today, Trade dollars can be collected in a number of different ways. For most collectors, obtaining one for a type collection will be sufficient, and the most common dates for this purpose are dollars minted in San Francisco from 1874-1878. Mintages for this group range from 2,549,000 (1874-S) to a whopping 9,519,000 (1877-S).

Although values for Trade dollars in “Coin Market” (Numismatic News) are given beginning with the grade of Good-4, if you’re looking for a coin for a type set, surely you’ll want one with as much of the original detail as possible. A coin in Extremely Fine-40 will have all the major details and most of the minor ones, and a common date should be modestly priced. An EF-40 1877-S, for example, should cost around $225. In About Uncirculated-50, the date lists for $275, and it’s worth $940 in Mint State-60, $1,950 in MS-63, and $13,750 in MS-65.

In MS-65, the least expensive date by a rather large margin is the 1876, which lists for “just” $7,500 in this condition. Bowers notes, “Many Uncirculated coins seen in collections today have deep gray or even black toning and may represent specimens saved by the public as a souvenir of the 1876 centennial year.”

Another way to collect Trade dollars by type is to look for major varieties within the business strike dates. Bowers discusses two different obverse and two different reverse types (obverse Types I and II, reverse Types I and II). Both obverse and reverse types are apparently found on pieces from all three mints (Philadelphia, San Francisco, Carson City) dated 1875 and 1876. Although these types are noted and valued in the A Guide Book of United States Coins, they’re not mentioned in “Coin Market.”

Beyond type collecting, another obvious way to collect Trade dollars is to obtain one of each date and mintmark combination of the dates minted for circulation. Such a collection would consist of 17 different coins: 1873-1877-P, -CC, -S, and 1878-CC and -S (proof-only coins were struck at the Philadelphia Mint in 1878).

In EF-40, only one of the 17 dates is valued above $1,000, and it is from the Carson City Mint (1878-CC, $2,400). Not counting the proof-only issues, the 1878-CC has the lowest mintage of the series, at only 97,000 produced. Even worse from a collector’s standpoint, Bowers reports that 44,148 undistributed Trade dollars were melted in July 1878, and all of these were 1878-CCs. This leaves a total of just 52,852 coins distributed, and Bowers estimates a population in grades of VF-20 and up of between 186 and 365 pieces.

Not counting CC dollars, the range of values in EF-40 of the Trade dollars struck for circulation is from $225 to $590. Actually, all but one of the non-CC dates are close to the bottom figure. The oddball is the 1875, with a mintage of 218,900 pieces. This is the lowest mintage of any of the P-mint issues and the third lowest mintage of any of the circulation-strike dates.

About this date, Bowers writes, “Worn unchopmarked specimens are scarcer than any other Philadelphia Mint business strike Trade dollar. Still, somewhere between 750 and 1,500 coins are believed to exist in grades from VF-20 to AU-58.” Bowers estimates that there are between 190 and 335 uncirculated 1875s.

Yet another way to collect Trade dollars discussed by Bowers is as chopmarked pieces. As defined by the International Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Numismatics, a chopmark (also chop mark) is a “small oriental character or special symbol counterstamped into the surface of a Trade dollar or other large silver coin to show that the coin’s weight and purity had been examined and approved.”

Although Bowers is quite favorably disposed toward collecting chopmarked Trade dollars, collectors and investors today are likely to see such coins as damaged and thus not as valuable as their unchopmarked counterparts. In the past, this wasn’t necessarily true, as “some numismatists paid a premium for chopmarked coins, considering them to be especially historical and valuable.” Rather than considering the coins damaged (or “mutilated,” as the government called them in order not to have to redeem them), “A more enlightened view would be to consider them to be ‘countermarked’ coins with an added bit of history literally two coins in one.”

Of course, the well-heeled collector may choose to collect proof Trade dollars. Such a collection, not counting the two incredibly rare dates at the tail-end of the series (1884 and 1885, which I’ll discuss below), would consist of 11 coins: 1873-1877 and the proof-only dates, 1878-1883.

In Proof-65, these 11 dates range in value from $10,500 to $13,500. Actually, all are valued at $11,000 or less except for the 1878. It’s hard to see why the 1878 is significantly more expensive than the other dates, as its mintage (900) is not the lowest among the proof-only issues. Not counting the two anomalies at the end of the series, the lowest mintage goes to the proof 1877 Trade dollar (510, although Bowers suggests it should probably be 710). Either figure is lower than 900, of course, and Bowers also notes that most of the 1878 mintage has survived, which you would think would make it less expensive than the 1877.

There’s no question of why the 1884 and 1885 Trade dollars are so expensive (“Coin Market” lists a value for the former in AU-50 of $100,000 and a value for the latter in PR-65 of $200,000). Both are incredibly rare, with listed mintages of 10 and five, respectively.

Actually, it’s a mystery to me why “Coin Market” has the 1885 valued at just $200,000 in PR-65, as there’s a note below the listing giving the amount such a coin sold for in 1997 ($907,500). The 2009 A Guide Book of United States Coins prices the 1884 in PR-63 at $450,000 and the 1885 in the same grade at $1,750,000. A Guide Book of United States Coins further notes an auction price in 2005 of $603,750 for the 1884 in PR-65 and a 2004 auction value of $1,006,250 for the 1885 in PR-62.

Obviously, these are not coins that you and I are going to feel we must have, and whenever one comes on the market, it’s a newsworthy event. I see both dates as having the same place in the history of numismatics as the 1804 silver dollar and the 1913 Liberty Head nickel. They were not official Mint products. As Bowers notes, “So far as the government records are concerned, there is no such thing as an 1884 Trade dollar, either in business strike or Proof form (although there is an official record of dies having been made for the issue).”

In his closing commentary about 1884 Trade dollars, Bowers writes:

“Made in limited quantities by Mint personnel and filtered into the collecting community via William Idler, Philadelphia coin dealer. Date(s) when the coins were made unknown. Although such pieces were rumored to exist as early as 1884 (the date on the coins), they were generally unknown to the collecting fraternity until 1908.…”

About the 1885, Bowers writes, “In the year 1885 there was no business strike mintage of trade dollars, nor was there an official Proof coinage.… No Proof 1885 trade dollars are listed in Mint reports or records, and it is supposed that the coinage was unofficial, although not illegal.” Like the 1884 Trade dollar, the 1885 didn’t become known to collectors until 1908.

Whether you collect Trade dollars by type, by date/mintmark combination, by chopmarks, as proofs, or by some combination of these ways, you will find that such collecting is not for the faint of heart. Unless you are willing to settle for heavily circulated pieces, any Trade dollar you buy is likely to be expensive, as you will see if you look at any pricing guide.

In addition, I suspect that the “better” dates are likely to be hard to find. Actually, I should qualify this comment: It’s likely to be hard to find the scarcer dates in decent condition. I just looked on eBay and found at least 15 different dates listed. Unfortunately, many of the coins had problems such as cleaning, damage, stains, and so on. Many of the coins were noted as being rare, even when they were in fact common-date examples. Prices were often “out of sight.”

I’m reminded of Breen’s comment quoted above about the Trade dollar: “its collection a source of decades of frustration.” I can’t promise you “decades of frustration” if you choose to collect Trade dollars, but I think you’ll find accumulating a decent collection quite a challenge. Still, if you have the mental fortitude and the budget for it, I can guarantee that such a collection will be a source of great satisfaction for you. Good luck!

‘O’ Means New Orleans Seated Dimes

By Paul M. Green, Numismatic News January 21, 2011

This article was originally printed in Numismatic News.
>> Subscribe today!

The Seated Liberty dime’s arrival as a new design type and the first production of coins at the New Orleans Mint came at roughly the same time. That began a long string of years of Seated Liberty dime production at New Orleans and the dimes from that period make an interesting group to study and collect today as they were the first branch mint dimes and they reflect both the denomination and the new facility at New Orleans.

The first emission of Seated Liberty dimes at the New Orleans facility was a big event in that city. It must be remembered that the idea of branch mints was totally new for the United States. The approval of the new facilities made sense in the case of Dahlonega, Ga., and Charlotte, N.C., as the two facilities were located in the area where the nation’s first major gold discovery had been made. Rather than shipping that gold all the way to Philadelphia, which was long, costly and dangerous, it was decided to open branch mints to produce only gold coins at Dahlonega and Charlotte. They began production in 1838 as did New Orleans.

2011 US Coin Digest This easy-to-search downloadable pdf is purely focused on U.S dimes Get your copy today!

From the start, the situation in New Orleans was different. New Orleans wanted a mint and to get one an offer was made of a prime piece of real estate where the facility could be located.

There was another good reason to consider New Orleans as a site for a Mint, even more important than a gift of land. As a location, it was critical. It was a transportation center located near the mouth of the Mississippi River on the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the nation’s exports from towns and farms west of the Appalachian Mountains went by river to New Orleans. Imports went up river from New Orleans.

The city could receive gold and silver shipments from all over the world and then send coins out to areas where they were needed with relative ease. A nice piece of land sealed the deal and New Orleans was approved as a facility to produce both gold and silver.

At about the same time officials were in the process of a design change with the dime. With better equipment and progress being made on a national coin shortage there was the luxury of taking time to consider a new design and that design would be the Christian Gobrecht Seated Liberty design.

The first examples of the new Seated Liberty design would be made in Philadelphia and they would have no stars on the obverse. In 1838 the stars would be added to the dimes of Philadelphia.

But in New Orleans where the first production would not take place until 1838, the first dimes would not have the stars. The year-old obverse design already abandoned by Philadelphia was used. An obverse with stars was used for the issues of 1839. The reason other than possibly the fact that things were running behind schedule at New Orleans, which was just opening, is that the dies for all issues were produced in Philadelphia and then had to be shipped to New Orleans.

The 1838-O Seated Liberty dime started as a ceremonial issue with a mintage of 30 pieces representing the first coins to be produced at the new facility. Of the 30 pieces produced on May 7-8, 1838, it is believed that 10 were placed in the cornerstone of the New American Theatre in New Orleans with the other 20 being given out as souvenirs.

In June and July of 1838 an additional 367,434 examples would be struck with 121,600 more being produced in January of 1839, but with the 1838 date.

The assorted mintage results in a total of over 400,000, which makes the 1838-O an available and certainly historic date with a price of $40 in G-4 while an MS-60 is $3,500 and an MS-65 is $21,000. In fact, the 1838-O is also an important type coin as the following year the design was changed, but realistically for type collectors the choice is usually the 1837 Philadelphia piece, which is more available in all but the lowest grades.

In the case of Mint State examples of the 1838-O a suggestion has been made that any are likely from that first group of 30 coins of which 20 were handed out as souvenirs. In fact, that is not the case as some of the original 30 could have easily been mishandled. Based on the story of 10 being put in a cornerstone, 20 would potentially remain and PCGS alone reports a total of 24 examples of the 1838-O called Mint State. At least some of them were not from the original mintage and as there is no way to tell whether a coin was from the original group or not it would be unwise to pay extra assuming the coin you are buying is one of those first 30 struck. It is, however, fair to pay extra for particularly nice examples as they are elusive with PCGS reporting 7 examples of the 1838-O as MS-65 and none better.

In 1839 the New Orleans Seated Liberty dime would have stars added to the obverse although there would still be no drapery on Liberty’s left elbow as that would come with the mintage of 1841. That means two mintages of the star, no drapery type for New Orleans with the 1839-O having a mintage of 1,323,000 while the 1840-O was at 1,175,000 pieces. The two are available in circulated grades at $18.50 for either. The 1839-O is slightly more in MS-60 at $1,250 while the 1840-O is at $975, but the situation is reversed in MS-65 as there the 1840-O is $6,500 while the 1839-O is $6,000. Realistically in Mint State both are excellent deals. Consider the fact that the Professional Coin Grading Service has seen 23 examples of the 1839-O in Mint State with two being MS-65 or better and only 6 examples of the 1840-O in Mint State with none of them being called MS-65. For the prices today based on such numbers if you find a Mint State example of either offered it’s a great value.

In 1841 the final design change for a decade was made with drapery being added to Liberty’s left elbow. As was true with the other changes, that design change had actually been made to the Philadelphia issues the previous year, but again with the time taken to prepare and ship the dies to New Orleans a delay was natural. It was also natural for a branch mint at the time and in fact for decades that followed to use an old die until it was completely worn out. That was seen in San Francisco in the coins of 1866 as even if the dies arrived reflecting a design change, it was common to continue to produce old designs until those dies were worn out. It was a simple cost cutting measure at facilities that couldn’t produce their own dies and were on very tight budgets so New Orleans for whatever reason waited until 1841 to produce its first Seated Liberty dime with drapery at the elbow.

The mintage of the 1841-O was 2,007,500, which makes it an available date in G-4 at $18.50. In MS-60 the 1841-O lists for $1,500 while an MS-65 is $5,000. There is also an 1841-O which had a large “O” and it is significantly more difficult at $600 in G-4 with no price above VF-20 as they are rarely, if ever seen even in upper circulated grades.

In 1842 the mintage would be an almost identical 2,020,000, resulting in another available date with a G-4 price of $18.50. The 1842-O lists for $2,900 in MS-60 and does not even have a price listing in MS-65. The reasons can be seen in a total of 10 examples called Mint State by PCGS with none of the 10 being better than MS-64.

The 1843-O is a different situation. It had a mintage of just 150,000. This was the first year since 1838 that Philadelphia outproduced New Orleans for dimes. That low mintage translates into a G-4 price of $50 and that is an awfully good deal when you consider the fact that the 1843-O had a mintage of more than 100,000 pieces less than the 1916-D. It was also not likely to be saved by collectors over the years as at the time most collectors were worried only about dates.

The collecting of any denomination by date and mint was not becoming even widely recognized until the 1890s. There was also no saving of the 1843-O at the time it was released as there is no price listing in any grade above AU-50 where it currently lists for $2,250. In fact there is good reason for no Mint State listings as PCGS has seen just one, an MS-65, with the next best example seen being an AU-53. That is an enormous spread between the best and second best 1843-O and it should be more than enough to see that MS-65 if ever offered for sale realizes a surprisingly high price.

There would be no New Orleans Seated Liberty dime production in 1844 and the 1845-O while higher than the 1843-O at 230,000 pieces was still a lower mintage date. This results in a G-4 price of $25, although that certainly is not expensive for another date with a lower mintage than the 1916-D, which is close to $800 just in G-4. In Mint State the 1845-O also has no listed price as PCGS has again seen just one and that was an MS-62 with the next best being an AU-55.

It was clear by the low mintages that whatever need there was for dimes in New Orleans, it was being met by the large coinages earlier in the decade. That situation is shown more starkly by the fact that after 1845 the next Seated Liberty dime coinage in New Orleans would not come until 1849 when there would be a mintage of 300,000 pieces. That mintage, while low, does not produce much of a premium in G-4 with the 1849-O being at $21.50, which is just $3 more than an available date of the type. In Mint State the 1849-O has a $2,200 MS-60 price and that appears to be a bargain as PCGS has only seen 8 examples in Mint State with none of them being better than MS-64.

The trend of low mintages would continue in 1850, but at this time there was another reason for the low mintages. By 1850 the price of silver was moving up. The discovery of gold in California had upset the traditional gold to silver ratio. It was rapidly becoming a case where it cost more than their face value to produce a silver coin.

The Congress was slow to act, leaving the Mint in a difficult situation as they could produce coins at a loss and have them hoarded by the public or not produce any coins and leave themselves open to the suggestion they were doing nothing to combat a national coin shortage. A bad compromise of sorts was reached in that mintages until 1853 would be relatively low as there was simply no incentive to make more coins in order to lose more money.

The 1850-O is the first date where such thinking might have played a role as it had a mintage of 510,000, which would be the top total for the period. The 1850-O lists for $21.50 in G-4 today with an MS-60 at $1,250, which is another good deal as PCGS reports just 7 coins in Mint State although 3 of the 7 were MS-65 or better.

The 1851-O would have a mintage of 400,000, although that lower mintage still produces the same $21.50 G-4 price. In MS-60 the 1851-O lists for $1,850 and again it’s an excellent value with PCGS reporting only 4 examples called Mint State and none of the four were MS-65 or better.

The 1852-O would finish the string of low mintages potentially resulting from the silver situation with a mintage of 430,000 although a slightly higher G-4 price of $22.50. In MS-60 the 1852-O lists for $1,800, although in this case there are a few more reported at PCGS with the service having graded a total of 11 examples in Mint State although none was above MS-64.

The Congress finally took action in early 1853 to reduce slightly the amount of silver in the silver coins including the dime. To mark the change, arrows were placed at either side of the date. The arrows would last for two years, making the 1853-O and 1854-O the only years of the type for New Orleans.

The 1853-O mintage was 1,100,000 while the 1854-O was at 1,770,000 and that made both available in circulated grades with a G-4 price of $10 for the 1854-O and $11 for the 1853-O. The Mint State prices are also far lower than the dates prior to the change with the 1854-O at just $600 in MS-60 while the 1853-O is at $900.

The 1853-O does not have large numbers seen in Mint State with PCGS reporting just 7, with one in MS-65 but the 1854-O is a different matter with PCGS reporting 39 including 5 in MS-65. That is a significantly larger total than was seen in the case of earlier dates and is almost high enough to suggest that someone at the time might have set aside a small number as collecting interest did not increase significantly in a few years but our supply of Mint State examples certainly did based on those totals.

In 1856 the arrows were dropped from the date and the 1856-O and 1857-O had mintages just over 1 million pieces each, making both of them readily available at $16 and $14, respectively, in G-4. In Mint State the 1857-O is much less expensive at $375 while the 1856-O is at $625 although prices are well below the levels of Mint State coins from the 1840s. The PCGS totals show higher numbers with the 1856-O having been seen 16 times in Mint State while the 1857-O total in Mint State is very high, topping 70.

The 1858-O mintage would again drop to just 290,000, pushing it to a $19 price in G-4. In MS-60 the 1858-O lists at $800, which is a higher price for dates from the 1850s, but certainly justified as PCGS reports only 9 examples in Mint State.

The 1859-O would have a mintage of 480,000 pieces and that produced a $16 price in G-4 while an MS-60 is at $550 and again we see unusually high totals with PCGS reporting a total of nearly 85 examples called Mint State.

The design would change again in 1860 with the stars on the obverse being replaced by “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” It was an interesting change on the verge of a Civil War. We do not know the reason for the low 40,000 mintage of the 1860-O, but we can almost suspect the impending conflict had something to do with it. There was also a very poor survival rate for the 1860-O. Today just in G-4 the 1860-O lists for $450 and as interesting there is none reported in PCGS in a grade higher than AU-55, so in one year we go from over 80 examples in Mint State for the 1859-O to zero for the 1860-O.

The 1860-O was almost the final New Orleans Seated Liberty dime as the facility would cease coin production after being taken over by the State of Louisiana at the start of the Civil War. There were probably no plans to have the facility begin coin production again once the war was over, but there were a couple factors influencing the situation. One was that there was some movement in New Orleans to take back the facility as the initial agreement with the government had involved a mint that was producing coins and since that was not happening, why shouldn’t the donate land be reclaimed?

The other factor was that legislation was being approved requiring enormous silver dollar mintages. The required mintages saw New Orleans repaired and brought back on line primarily to produce silver dollars. Even so, in 1891 the New Orleans facility produced its final Seated Liberty dime with a mintage of over 4.5 million pieces.

The 1891-O with that mintage is certainly available with an MS-60 at just $175. There is a better 1891-O/horizontal O which starts at $65 in G-4. It’s an interesting coin as for years New Orleans produced Seated Liberty dimes with relatively few errors and varieties but in one year of production over 30 years after the last mintage there was an 1891-O/horizontal O.

With the 1891-O, the days of New Orleans Seated Liberty dimes were over as the design would be changed in 1892 to the new Barber design. The Seated Liberty dimes of New Orleans were certainly an interesting and historic group. They are fun to study, but as seen in case after case they are also great values today and that adds to the enjoyment of collecting the New Orleans Seated Liberty dimes.

New Orleans would go on to produce Barber dimes coins until it closed in 1909.

Marine Corps Dollar Popular – To a Point

By Paul M. Green, Numismatic News January 18, 2011

With secondary market prices that jumped up to the $80 to $90 range for its BU or proof versions shortly after its 2005 issue, the Marine Corps 230th anniversary commemorative silver dollar was a winner.

The fact that collectors purchased 600,000 of them made it a winner. But that sales number also planted the seeds of a less than stellar future. Whatever short-term enthusiasms might occur, long-term value is determined by mintages.

Modern Commemorative Coins Do you know which modern commemoratives have the best potential for profit? Get your copy today!

Quickly moving from selling out all 600,000 coins to a price approaching $100 on the secondary market was a good sign not only for those who bought the Marine Corps dollar directly from the Mint at the lower issue prices, but also those who want a strong modern commemorative silver dollar market.

It’s worth remembering that when the Marine Corps dollar was initially authorized some had what were pretty good reasons to question precisely how well the Marine Corps dollar would do in terms of sales. After all, there were some odd aspects to the proposal starting with the fact that it was commemorating the 230th anniversary of the Marine Corps, rather than the 200th or 250th. As commemorative ideas go, that was a bit peculiar. Centennials are common and bicentennials are regular, but the 230th anniversary of anything is not normally the subject of commemoratives.

There was also a pretty good reason to think in terms of selling fewer than the maximum authorized totals. The reason is very simply that modern commemorative silver dollar tend to struggle to even sell the 500,000 pieces when they are authorized. The only recent issue to reach 500,000 for sales was the American Buffalo silver dollar in 2001 and some could suggest that its sales were primarily thanks to the great James Earle Fraser Buffalo nickel design of 1913 being used on a large silver coin. Collectors are nothing if not nostalgic.

In fairness, those who approved the Marine Corps dollar apparently knew something about Marines and their loyalty. That said, there are not 600,000 current or former Marines collecting coins. If you happen to have been in the Marines or still are in the Marines there is no shortage of things from coffee mugs to coins you can acquire noting your loyalty to the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps dollar had to stand out from all the other items to produce anything close to sales of the authorized pieces.

Historically, we frankly have very little experience with sold- out modern commemoratives and their prices. The $5 Statue of Liberty gold coin sold out its 500,000 authorization and soared to about triple its issue price only to then drop to a level below its issue price and then trading essentially for gold bullion value.

In the case of the 1992 White House silver dollar, which also sold out its 500,000 authorized pieces, you had a similar situation. Its price, not unlike the Statue of Liberty $5, also rose dramatically only to fall back to below its original issue price.

The more recent American Buffalo silver dollar seemed to break the trend. It sold out its 500,000 authorization and then steadily marched to over $100. What makes the American Buffalo dollar different is that its price rose to over $100 and remained there. The Marine dollar has come down again to about issue price of $33 and $37 for the BU and proof, respectively.

Certainly the Mint was concerned enough about reaching the sales level of 600,000 that it created special sets to help push up the original sales numbers. There was a Marine Coin & Stamp Set that sold roughly 50,000 of the BU coins while the American Legacy Collection moved 49,000 proofs to help the total sales to reach 600,000. Regular proofs sold totaled 370,000 and the BU 130,000.

Low Mintages To Create New Modern Rarities

 

Friday, November 26, 2010

2011 Native American Dollar

Newer Posts »