Statistical Analysis Of Key And Semi-Key Morgan Dollars

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

Author	Replies: 9 / Views: 6,225
drdave Pillar of the Community United States 721 Posts	Posted 05/21/2011 7:05 pm For background information, I posted a similar thread on Lincoln Cents: https://goccf.com/t/88992#735292 Now for the Morgan dollars. I only included business strikes (no proofs), and also compare my findings with the current price (as found on numismedia.com for G4.) From the LWC study: key date z-values were found to be -2.2 and less; semi-keys between -2.2 and -1.5. To get a z-value, I determine the relative standard deviation from the mean (log mintage) values. The results for the "top 10" Morgan dollars are as follows: 1893-S -2.69 key 1894 -2.62 key 1885-CC -2.08 semi-key 1881-CC -1.88 semi-key 1893-O -1.87 semi-key 1899 -1.80 semi-key 1889-CC -1.76 semi-key 1893 -1.70 semi-key 1895-S -1.66 semi-key 1895-O -1.57 semi-key I've based my key and semi-key distinctions based on the LWC series. I then compared the price (G4 based on numismedia.com) with these z-values. The graph below shows the log (price) on the y-axis and z-value on the x-axis. These results are similar to other series I've studied this way (LWC, IHC, Mercury dimes, and Walkers). One comment is the 1903-O which seems over-priced for its relative mintage. I don't know much about Morgan dollars, so someone might have some more info on this. Comments? Thanks for reading... Report this Post to the Staff

SsuperDdave Moderator United States 23522 Posts	Posted 05/21/2011 9:01 pm 1903-O is a statistical anomaly - few were released for circulation, but many remained in vaults and were dumped on the market in Mint State in the 60's. Easy to find in MS, rather rare circulated. Given that so many Morgans were melted, mintage figures don't always correlate with demand/rarity. Report this Post to the Staff
Ceylon62 Pillar of the Community United States 1285 Posts	Posted 05/23/2011 06:20 am SD, would VAM premium's if any affect rarity and then subsequently pricing? (Meaning skew the data). Also, does it make sense to pick G4 as a starting point.I am not sure on this one. Thanks Report this Post to the Staff
drdave Pillar of the Community United States 721 Posts	Posted 05/23/2011 10:25 am Thanks for the comments guys. I also did the same analysis using MS-63 prices, and the graph is shown below: Report this Post to the Staff
Bryan1315 Bedrock of the Community United States 14454 Posts	Posted 05/23/2011 5:20 pm I am having a hard time reading that graph to make heads or tails of it. It may be because I am having to use my phone or laptop to connect online right now but those dots don't really speak information to me Report this Post to the Staff
DVCollector Bedrock of the Community United States 10045 Posts	Posted 05/23/2011 6:21 pm The graphs would be more interesting if I could associate each dot with a mintage. Great work! Edited by DVCollector 05/23/2011 6:21 pm Report this Post to the Staff
drdave Pillar of the Community United States 721 Posts	Posted 05/23/2011 9:34 pm Thanks guys. I can generate the same plot but by using the logarithm of the mintage values on the x-axis and the same logarithm of the price on the y-axis: The reason that I am using the z-value on the x-axis on my plots is so that I can compare directly between different coin sets (walkers, IHC, etc.) of different mintages. This is something that I am currently working on. The z-value gives a measure of the relative mintage within a set. The concept of a log-log plot is simple. It gives a sort of macroscopic view of the graph when large numbers are involved. Compare that with the following simple graph which, in my opinion, does not give much useful visual information: Now getting to the other question you raised. When I use the MS-63 prices you see more "floaters" (for lack of a technical term), where a larger proportion of higher mintage coins have been elevated in price. I believe that the G-4 price scale gives a better reflection on price/mintage trends, as opposed to which ones are harder to find in UNC condition. Report this Post to the Staff
Ceylon62 Pillar of the Community United States 1285 Posts	Posted 05/24/2011 08:08 am Quote: mintage figures don't always correlate with demand/rarity More about SD's comment below and my 2 cents. Not sure if you have seen this or not about the melting. Keep in mind the melt was NOT uniform / NOT same percentage of coins for any given year. http://www.pcgs.com/articles/articl...iverseid=313 Theoretically it is possible / probable that large mintage coins in reality could be rather rare. Some Collectors (not to offend anyone here) gravitate towards known rare coins and bid up prices when in fact something else could be rarer. Other collectors go after certain coins thus driving up "interest" in a particular coin which has large mintage but few available in the market for resale thus affecting price. Distinct variables (wild cards) affecting price. I always find Slicing and dicing data fascinating and will follow your work on Morgan's to see how it proceeds. Best wishes. Edited by Ceylon62 05/24/2011 08:10 am Report this Post to the Staff
drdave Pillar of the Community United States 721 Posts	Posted 05/24/2011 12:11 pm Ceylon62 - interesting article. I did know about the melting, but it was nice to read about it again. I will agree with the comment you quoted that mintage figures do not always correlate with demand/rarity, but I'm rather surprised on how well it actually does correlate on a general scale; some type sets better than others. Report this Post to the Staff
eddiespin Pillar of the Community United States 1547 Posts	Posted 05/24/2011 12:44 pm Quote: 1903-O is a statistical anomaly - few were released for circulation, but many remained in vaults and were dumped on the market in Mint State in the 60's. Easy to find in MS, rather rare circulated. Given that so many Morgans were melted, mintage figures don't always correlate with demand/rarity. I'm reminded of the scientist who wanted to determine the effect on a 4-legged flee of cutting its legs off. He devises an experiment whereby he first conditions the flee to jump upon verbal command. Then, he begins the experiment. He cuts off the 1st leg and yells "Jump!" and the flee jumps. So, he records in his notebook, cutting off the 1st leg has no effect. He cuts off the 2nd leg and yells "Jump!" and the flee jumps. So, he records in his notebook, cutting off the 2nd leg has no effect. He cuts off the 3rd leg and yells "Jump!" and the flee jumps. So, he records in his notebook, cutting off the 3rd leg has no effect. He cuts off the 4th leg and yells "Jump!" and the flee doesn't jump. He yells "Jump!" and the flee doesn't jump. He yells "Jump!!" and the flee doesn't jump. So, he records in his notebook, cutting off the 4th leg causes the flee to go deaf. Report this Post to the Staff
	Replies: 9 / Views: 6,225

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

All Forums Category: US Coins and Currency Forums Forum: US Classic and Colonial Coins

The First Dollar, your premier source for bullion and rare coins. See our bullion list on the site and the coin inventory on ebay.

Silver Gold Bull US is the United States leading bullion dealer. We deliver gold coins, gold bars, silver coins, silver bars and precious metals to your door. Order today!

View Last 100 New Topics

View Last 100 Active Topics

Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum

It took 0.46 seconds to rattle this change.