|
Roosevelts Give You Bang for Your Buck
 | By Mike Thorne, Coins Magazine
August 05, 2009 |
Imagine it's mid-April 1945, and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's death has just been announced. Roosevelt has brought the nation through multiple crises, first the Great Depression, and then the worst part of World War II. He's just been elected president for his fourth term. What can be done to honor this towering figure of the 20th century?
One tribute is to put him on a circulating coin, but what coin should it be? At the time, the only coins available for design change without congressional action were the Lincoln cent, the Mercury dime, and the Walking Liberty half dollar. According to Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins, "For unknown reasons, officialdom chose the dime."
Other sources disagree with Breen's "unknown reasons," citing Roosevelt's association with the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, which became the March of Dimes. It seems only fitting that the president who had so much to do with founding and facilitating the March of Dimes should have his image placed on a dime.
Roosevelt, who lived from 1882-1945, is widely reported to have had infantile paralysis, or, as it was more commonly known, poliomyelitis or more simply, polio. Recently, however, this diagnosis has been disputed. His symptoms and the age at which he fell prey to the illness (39) suggest another diagnosis: Guillain-BarrĒ syndrome, which is an autoimmune disorder rather than a viral disease. Of course, the correct diagnosis during Roosevelt's life wouldn't have helped him medically, as there were no effective treatments for either disorder.
The design of the Roosevelt dime is attributed to Mint engraver John R. Sinnock, and his initials (JS) appear on the obverse in front of the date. According to Breen, "Sinnock's initials JS proved a source of political controversy from the beginning of issue, like engraver's initials on so many other U.S. coins. Reactionary superpatriots&believing (against all evidence) in Roosevelt's Communist 'leanings,' began spreading stupid, unfounded, and malicious rumors that the JS instead stood for Joseph Stalin. The rumors eventually reached Congress, at which point the Treasury demanded that they be squelched. Accordingly, the Mint issued press releases properly identifying JS as Sinnock - "
But was the design for the coin really Sinnock's, or had he "borrowed" it from someone else without giving the other artist credit? Breen is certainly willing to believe in Sinnock's villainy: "The illustrious black sculptor Selma Burke claimed that Sinnock adapted his design from her bas-relief of Pres. Roosevelt - Considering that Sinnock had also copied and signed John Frederick Lewis's design for the 1926 Sesquicentennial half dollar, Ms. Burke's claim is probably valid."
In an exploration of Burke's claim, the editor of this magazine, Robert R. Van Ryzin, wrote, "Frankly, the passage of time has made discovering what is the truth in the question of Dr. Burke's claim virtually impossible."
Setting aside the controversy about the true originator of the coin's design, I think it's fair to say that the coin's esthetic appeal is not nearly as great as that of its predecessor, the so-called Mercury dime. As a modern series to collect, Roosevelt dimes are sort of a good news/bad news story.
The good news is that it's incredibly easy and inexpensive to assemble a basic date/mintmark set. The bad news, however, is that once you've put together such a set, it's not likely to appreciate much in value over time, and value appreciation is one of the chief reasons that many people collect coins. Over and above the thrill of the hunt, coins have often proven to be a good investment, but this is not true for all coins, all the time, in all grades.
Roosevelt dimes, like Washington quarters, can really be broken into two different collections: the silver issues before 1965 and the clad issues thereafter. In the case of the Roosevelts, there are 48 different date/mintmark silver varieties, with 87 (and counting) nonproof clad issues. There are also proof Roosevelts, in silver and otherwise.
Of the initial 48 silver Roosevelts, none has a low enough mintage to be considered scarce, much less rare. In fact, the 1955 has the lowest mintage, with nearly 12.5 million produced. This date was differentially hoarded because of its "low" mintage, so its survival is much greater than you would expect for its mintage.
Next comes the 1949-S, which is considered the key date in the silver series, with a mintage of slightly more than 13.5 million. In Mint State-65, the 1949-S's value is $65, according to Numismatic News "Coin Market."
Closest to this is the value of the 1950-S, of which nearly 20.5 million were produced. In MS-65, the 1950-S is worth $60. Third highest is the 1949, which lists for $50 in MS-65, despite a mintage of nearly 31 million pieces. The 1951-S (slightly more than 31.5 million) lists for $26, and none of the remaining dates is worth more than $25 in MS-65.
There are two other silver Roosevelts with mintages below 20 million: the 1955-D (almost 14 million) and the 1955-S (slightly more than 18.5 million). Like the 1955, these were hoarded at the time of their issue, so their values are little different from those of the much higher-mintage pieces around them.
One feature you should look for when purchasing Roosevelt dimes is the sharpness of the strike. According to the online site Richard's Roosevelt Review (www.richardsrooseveltreview.net), "Many coin grading services now designate Roosevelt dimes as being 'full torch' or as having 'full split bands.' Dimes designated as having full split bands must have fully and distinct upper and lower crossbands. In general, the upper crossbands are usually more fully struck than the lower crossbands on most non-proof issues. The lower crossbands should be given great scrutiny when searching for, or grading, full split band Roosevelt times. 'Full torch' dimes must exhibit separate and distinct vertical lines in the torch itself, as well as meet the requirements of 'full split bands.'"
If you're interested in buying a silver Roosevelt with full split bands designation and the seller is asking for a steep premium over a "normally struck" specimen, bear in mind that virtually all of the dates exist in multiple roll quantities. Even though a particular date/mintmark combination may currently have a low certified population in a supergrade, there may well be dozens of similar specimens that haven't as yet been submitted to a certification service because they aren't worth enough to justify paying the certification fee. However, this lack of submissions could change overnight if the demand for fully struck specimens should happen to increase.
My point is that paying an exorbitant price for a low-population coin may be justified if the extant population is quite low. It's not reasonable, however, if the extant population is unknown but potentially quite high, as is the case with Roosevelt dimes.
Mintages of the non-proof clad Roosevelts are uniformly high, with virtually all of the dates having mintages of more than 200 million pieces. Beginning in the mid-1990s, mintages of more than a billion pieces are the norm.
As you would expect with such humongous mintages, most of the clad Roosevelts list between $1 and $2 in MS-65. There are some exceptions, however, and their higher values are not the result of smaller mintages. For example, the 1982-P lists for $8.50 in MS-65, despite having a mintage of more than half a billion pieces. The 1983-P, with an even higher mintage, is worth $7 in MS-65. Presumably these are dates that escaped notice until they became hard to find in roll quantity.
Not counting proofs, only two die varieties (e.g., doubled dies, overmintmarks, missing mintmarks) are listed in A Guide Book of United States Coins. The first is a doubled-die reverse found on the 1964-D, and the second is a 1982-P without a mintmark. The doubled-die 1964-D is worth $20 in Extremely Fine-40, $100 in MS-63, and $150 in MS-65, according to the Red Book.
It's not listed in "Coin Market." The 1982-P without mintmark is listed in "Coin Market," where it's worth $125 in MS-60 and $300 in MS-65. I'll have more to say about this variety below.
In the introduction to Roosevelt dimes in Fivaz and Stanton's Cherrypickers' Guide to Rare Die Varieties of United States Coins, the authors note that at the time of the book's writing (2006), there were no coin clubs devoted exclusively to the study of the Roosevelt dime. According to Fivaz and Stanton, "This series is widely collected, both as a series and for varieties. And if you're interested in varieties, this is certainly an area that can hold a pot of gold." Omitting die varieties on proof coins, I counted 58 different listings in the book, most involving silver coins rather than clads. Given the large mintages of clad Roosevelt dimes, I would certainly expect the number of discovered die varieties to increase exponentially in the future.
Looking through the die variety listings in Fivaz and Stanton, I found the mintmark varieties particularly interesting. For example, there's a 1946-S with a repunched mintmark, which the authors describe as "a very strong RPM actually, a triple punched mintmark with the secondary images evident north and north of the primary S." This variety is worth $5 in Extremely Fine-40, $10 in About Uncirculated-50, $20 in MS-60 (vs. $1 for a normal coin), $25 in MS-63, and $35 in MS-65. If you have any rolls of 1946-S Roosevelts in your hoard, it would definitely be worth checking their mintmarks with a magnifying glass. Actually, there are some other mintmark varieties on this date as well, so you should look at Cherrypickers' Guide before examining any 1946-Ss in your possession.
Speaking of overmintmark varieties, Fivaz and Stanton list and picture a couple of 1947-Ss with S/D mintmarks as well as a couple of repunched mintmarks and a die variety with a doubled die on the reverse. This latter coin is described as having "very strong doubling&on all reverse lettering, E PLURIBUS UNUM, on almost all leaves and branches, and especially on the flame." Values range from $10 in EF-40 to $150 in MS-66, which are multiples of the values for this date normally.
There's a 1950-D/S and a 1950-S/D in the Roosevelt series, although these are not Red Book varieties, as you find in Washington quarters of this date. The values assigned to the two varieties are quite high, making them well worth looking for.
Although there is no mention of this in either "Coin Market" or the Red Book, Cherrypickers' Guide pictures and discusses two different versions of the 1982 without a P mintmark. One version features a strong die, with a sharp date, whereas the other involves a weak strike, with dramatic weakness in the last digit of the date. Fivaz and Stanton write, "The strong strike is far more valuable and in demand than the weak strike." Values for the strong strike range from $75 in AU-50 to $600 in MS-66. The corresponding values for the weak strike, which the authors rate as somewhat more common, are from $10 to $95.
The length of the Roosevelt series means that there are quite a few dates that were minted as proofs as well as for circulation, and a collection of proof Roosevelts could be quite interesting. They could also be fun to assemble if you opted for only certified specimens in tiptop condition (e.g., PF-68-70, DCAM, which stands for deep cameo).
Also, such a collection should not be all that expensive, as the list prices are well under $100 apiece, and most are less than $5. There are some exceptions to these low prices, however, four different proof dates missing the S mintmark (1968, 1970, 1975, and 1983).
Breen, whose massive Encyclopedia was published in 1988, wrote that about six of the 1968 "no S" dimes were known. Fivaz and Stanton assign values to this variety ranging from $6,000 in PF-63 to $8,500 in PF-67. Compared to the 1968 coin, the 1970 "no S" proof Roosevelt is almost common, with a mintage of 2,200 coins (one die's worth). It's the only one of the four dates with a value listed in "Coin Market": $1,300 in PR-65.
The 1975 "no S" proof is even rarer than the 1968 variety, with just two known, according to both Breen and Kevin Flynn, writing in The Authoritative Reference on Roosevelt Dimes. Finally, Breen calls the 1983 "no S" proof "presently scarce" and indicates that about 100 had been found. Flynn writes, "This and the 1970 are the more common and easier to obtain."
Of course, none of the "no S" proofs are needed for a basic collection of Roosevelt proofs. In addition to the missing mintmark varieties, die varieties have been found on many of the proof dates of Roosevelt dimes. For example, Fivaz and Stanton report a 1950 with a doubled-die reverse, which they indicate "may be difficult to sell." The picture of the coin suggests that the doubling might be hard to see without extreme magnification.
There's also doubling on the obverse of a 1954 proof Roosevelt, but there's little extra value for this variety over the normal date. Other proof dates with doubling include 1956, 1960, 1963, 1964, and 1968-S. Of these dates, the most dramatic doubling is found on the obverse of the 1960 proof. Fivaz and Stanton write, "Extremely strong doubling is evident on all obverse lettering and on the date." Assigned values range from $200 in PF-63 to $750 in PF-67.
There's also strong doubling on the reverse of a 1963 proof coin, about which Fivaz and Stanton write, "This is likely the most impressive reverse doubled die for the date in Proof." Values range from $175 in PF-63 to $350 in PF-66.
As I hope you can see from what I've written, Roosevelt dimes offer a lot of "bang for the buck," as the saying goes. For the most part, they're inexpensive enough, even in the ultimate grades, that if they never prove to be a good investment you won't be out much. Whether you collect silver Roosevelts, clad Roosevelts, Roosevelt die varieties, or proof Roosevelts, or all of the above, you should find plenty of meat to sink your collecting teeth into.
Add to: del.icio.us digg
With this article: Email to friend Print
Something to add? Notice an error? Comment on this article. | |