| Author |
 Replies: 25 / Views: 10,725 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9793 Posts |
AU maybe an EF but it sure looks petty nice, maybe a tad weak in strike. For the money you state you can get it for it's a bargin!
"Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Dates other than 1865 are a lot harder to find than their price would indicate. 1865-76 list for close to the same money, but they made 50 times as many 65 as 75, for example.
The 68 isn't as dramatic (29%), but when you consider the 65 was hoarded, the 68 should be worth much more. Obviously, most folks only save this series as a single type coin.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
154 Posts |
And yet the value of the 68 is exactly the same as the 65... point in fact, the entire first decade of values are vitrually identical, another example of inequities within the system.
Coin values should be based on their rarity according to their strike numbers and not based on rumors that have persisted down through the years as to which coins are valuable based on another generations manipulations. Whether coins were hoarded or not, if so many were struck in a particular year, that should be the determining factor for their value and not that over a century ago people hoarded a coin. You can't tell me that in all that time, every single hoarder hung onto his or her coin as if it were gold. Those hoarded coins were let go or sold off decades ago. This idea that coins were hoarded in a particular year and that fact alone should lessen their value and that this idea should pass on from generation to generation is a ridiculous assumption.
Come on, numismatists... we're smarter than that. Things must change. The government has virtually destroyed the current coin market, making US money worthless - it's made from the cheapest metal and 1990's pennies are decaying before our eyes. Only silver and gold special issue coins are worth anything, and they are priced so high that it takes years for them to regain their value. We must change the way we grade and value coins made from silver or coins that are over a hundred years old. If we do not, then we might as well collect scrap metal and be done with it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Netherlands
626 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Cracks like that are common on these early nickel coins and shouldn't affect the value much one way or the other (it's part of their charm, really.) It looks like LIBERTY is not fully readable because of striking issues; the higher areas next to it are not worn away. It's at least XF.  Edited by CaptainFwiffo
02/01/2012 2:26 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3276 Posts |
Still got it at a good price even now. So nothing to worry about.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Your pix make the obverse edge gouge look a lot worse.
You still got a great deal.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:
Coin values should be based on their rarity according to their strike numbers and not based on rumors that have persisted down through the years as to which coins are valuable based on another generations manipulations. You're making a typical beginner's mistake. Here's a few examples of why we need to know more than mintage figgers: Hundreds of millions of Morgans melted in 1918. Shipwrecks containing almost an entire date's production (in both directions--when lost, mintage doesn't recognize scarcity; when found, they've flooded the market.) Squirrel effect and other hoarding. Do you have any three-times-as-common "cents" 1883 nickels you want to swap even-up for rare "no cents" ones of equal grades? Back to this thread: Gold and III cents are mostly collected by type, not date. Being 50 times as rare doesn't matter. An 1861 $20 is almost 100 times as plentiful as a 1902, yet there's little price difference. Popularity: A LWC with 10 million mintage is a semi-key, a III cent with that mintage would be utterly plentiful. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:
You can't tell me that in all that time, every single hoarder hung onto his or her coin as if it were gold. Those hoarded coins were let go or sold off decades ago. So why didn't their price go down? People aren't stupid. When a bunch of "rare" coins hit the market, prices drop. Look at the 1903o dollar in the mid 60s. Also, hoarded coins don't get handled, so when they stop bring hoarded, they tend to be higher grade. |
|
Valued Member
United States
154 Posts |
Fred - you've certainly more experience than I have. Sorry, I got up on my soapbox. I should know better than to pontificate. Back to the Three-cent piece: Nickel, 1865-1889 Based on your new pix, I would say VF 20 or 30 due to wear on the obverse - note the flat hair in 11 o'clock, 1 o'clock, and 5 o'clock positions, as well as above the ear - all high points. XF coins have more detail. That is not due to a poor strike. ( ANA Grading Standards, 6th Edition, page 106; also Bowers, page 107) |
| |
Replies: 25 / Views: 10,725 |
First Page
Posted 01/28/2012 11:42 pm
