|
Collecting the Odd Denominations
 | By Mark Benvenuto, Coins Magazine
September 08, 2009 |
Collectors don't always realize the luxury they have when it comes to collecting U.S. coins. Our system is a fairly straightforward one, with coins that fall into nice, neat fractions of 10 when it comes to face value. The one cent, 10 cent, 50 cent and one dollar coins fit into the mold perfectly.
Even the five-cent and 25-cent coins aren't too tough to figure out. If you take the time to look back, though, it doesn't take long to realize our ancestors had to do a bit more thinking to make change. There are five coins that have been minted in the United States in the past that certainly don't follow the decimal system as neatly as our current coins do. Curiously, all of them qualify as type-set coins for collectors today. That means that although many collectors may have one, most have no more than one. Let's examine this "odd five" and see what potential might lie within such series.
First, the two-cent pieces. Designed by James Longacre, and minted from 1864-1873, one would imagine the two-cent pieces had a significant amount of use, at least at the outset. After all, there were 19.8 million of them produced that first year - a figure that includes a scarce "small motto" variety, as well as a more common "large motto" variety.
But, as we'll see with some of the other odd-denomination coins, the bang at the beginning was followed by a whimper at the end. The mintages decline each year, with some absolutely huge drops, such as the 13.6 million of 1865 declining to 3.1 million in 1866. By 1870, the two-cent output dropped below 1 million coins, and the final year, 1873, saw only 1,100 proofs and no circulating issues.
For collectors, the 1864 with the large motto is usually the coin to add to any type set. One will set a you back about $70 in Mint State-60. If your budget is tighter, try spending $30 or so for a specimen in Fine or Very Fine. Or, if you have the patience, look for a date later than 1864. Several of them are also available for nearly the same prices.
Next is the silver three-cent piece. Assuming you now have a two-cent piece, look for another of Longacre's designs, that of the silver three-cent piece. It is the smallest silver coin the U.S. Mint has ever issued. Minted from 1851-1873, several references point out that most of the circulation-strike pieces dated 1863-1872 were melted in 1873. Since 1862 was the only year in that stretch with a mintage of any consequence, the high prices seen for these years at the end of the series aren't too much of a surprise.
I've already mentioned that the two-cent pieces came in with a roar, but trickled into nothingness. The same pretty much holds true for the silver three-cent pieces. Admittedly, the number rose from 5.4 million in 1851 to 18.6 million the next year. But the slide began immediately after. The 1853 saw 11.4 million, but after that, only three years clawed their way over 1 million. Actually, the only mintmarked coin in this entire series, the 1851-O, is actually a pretty common silver three-cent piece with a total of 720,000 pieces. Overall, that number makes it the seventh highest mintage date/mintmark combination.
If you want an MS-60 silver three-cent piece, to go along with that MS-60 two-cent piece, the cost is going to be $180 to join the club. For $40 you can nab a piece in F.
But where the prices get interesting for the silver three-cent pieces is in some of the later dates of the series. For example, the 1861 had a mintage of only 497,000 pieces, yet it costs the same in MS-60 as the more common early dates. That's quite a sleeper, especially when it is compared to the more common 1851-O, which costs $340 in the same grade. It seems hat if you do want to add a silver three-cent piece to a type set, some patience might pay off handsomely.
Next, how about the nickel three-cent piece? This is yet another Longacre design, though the attractively rendered Liberty on the obverse makes this design far easier on the eyes than the previous two we have looked at.
These coins were minted from 1865-1889. In an all too familiar tale, nickel three-cent pieces were coined in the millions for a few years, then faded into that numismatic oblivion that frustrates so many collectors today. Do you want an 1865 nickel three-cent piece in MS-60? It's not tough to find, and at $100 isn't too pricey, either. In F it's even more palatable, at only $30.
But what about getting your mitts on an 1885? Well, with only 1,000 coins minted for circulation, and only 3,790 made as proofs, you're most likely going to be searching for a while before you can locate one. You will also have to shell out $900 for it in MS-60, or $650 in F.
Strange as it may seem, those prices represent something of a sleeper-like bargain as well. They are nowhere near as high as they could be, if one compared mintages and relative differences in cost. But even so, dropping $900 for a single nickel three-cent piece is probably more than most of us can handle.
Moving up to the 20-cent pieces - this short-lived silver piece is the first I have listed that isn't a Longacre design. The obverse is the seated Liberty of Christian Gobrecht, while the eagle on the reverse is the work of William Barber. Another aspect of this coin that sets it apart is that, although we consider this a rather odd denomination today, it is the first that actually fits in sequence with coins like the cent and the dime.
In this case, the coin was doomed because it was so close in size to the quarter, but other countries have gotten along for decades with the equivalent of a 20-cent coin. For example, the Soviet Union had a system in which 100 kopecks made a ruble. It used a 20-kopeck coin from the 1920s all the way up to 1991.
Whatever the case in other countries, in the United States, the 20-cent piece was only minted from 1875-1878, and the last two years were only produced in proof. The only 20-cent piece that can even be called common is the 1875-S with a mintage of 1.15 million. Everything else is dwarfed by that one date and mintmark. It will take $500 to grab one of these coins in MS-60, but a much more reasonable $120 is the price down in F-12.
A curious set of prices for the 20-cent pieces relates to the other 1875s and the 1876. The next coin for mintages in this series is the 1875-CC, with 133,290 coined. But whether on a dollar coin or a 20-cent piece, that "CC" mintmark comes with a premium. In this case, it's a $1,650 coin in MS-60 and a $475 item in F-12.
But the 1875 made in Philadelphia only had 36,910 coins. So why does it cost $835 in MS-60 and $270 in F-12? For that matter, why does the 1876 from Philadelphia, with its minuscule mintage of 14,640 pieces cost $800 in MS-60 and $285 in F-12?
It's hard to believe that a Carson City mintmark could make that much of a difference in these coins. The two Philadelphia 20-cent pieces, which are much less common coins, cost less than a more common 1875-CC. The trick, of course, is finding one of these two scarce dates. That's one more reason so many collectors just go for a single 20-cent piece for a type coin.
Last, but not least, is the gold $3. Moving to one denomination in gold moves us back to Longacre's design. If ever there was a U.S. gold coin that wasn't needed, the gold $3 has to be it.
I've already mentioned numerous times about a mintage starting out big, then fizzling out. Compared to the other denominations we've looked at, the $3 starts out slow in 1854, gropes and grinds its way along for decades, has one comeback year in 1878, then fades into nothingness in 1889.
But even the 1854s have only 138,618 coins to their total. The "hurrah" year of 1878 totals only 82,304, and all but a handful of the remaining years don't even top at 10,000 coins. This entire series is a nightmare for a person trying to collect it by date. Throw in the painfully rare 1854-D, the 1854-O and the few S-mint dates and you have a series only a millionaire would try to collect.
That's the bad news. If there's good news, it's that the 1854 costs $3,400 in MS-60 but only $700 in a circulated grade like F-12. Yes, these are still expensive pieces, but they are gold, and they are more than 150 years old.
Another crumb of good news for a collector with the money to buy a gold $3 piece is that quite a few of the rare dates cost less than double the MS-60 price of the 1854 and costs about the same in F-12 as the 1854. One can imagine that so few people collect this series that the market can't really reflect the actual rarity of some of the dates.
Now, after that odd quintet of coins, you might be tempted to ask why certain other denominations didn't make my list. Why, for instance, didn't the half cents? Well, when it comes to half cents, they may seem odd today, but they had their use back in the late 1700s and early 1800s.
Perhaps the biggest need for them was because Spanish colonial coins circulated as legal tender in the United States until the 1850s. The large silver coin was the eight reales. There were certainly smaller silver coins from south of the border, but at times people cut the big coins into eight pieces, meaning that a 1/8th piece was worth 12.5 cents. You really did need a half cent to make change.
If the half cent made sense, why didn't the gold $1s make my list? After all, there had been silver dollars since the inception of the Mint. Doesn't a gold dollar qualify as odd? I would argue that this isn't an odd denomination just because the metal changed. Silver, gold and bronze are all acceptable forms for this coin.
Well then, why didn't the $4 Stella make the list? Now that is a good question, as a $4 coin isn't too well aligned with our decimal coinage system. But the reason to leave this off any list is that it never really made it to being a coin. Stellas were patterns.
If you go hunting for any of my fistful of odd denominations, good luck. It's not hard to find the lower value ones, but good-looking pieces can be a challenge. That being said, half the fun is in the hunt.
Add to: del.icio.us digg
With this article: Email to friend Print
Something to add? Notice an error? Comment on this article. | |