Re: 1896 Half-Dollar / Quarters Values?
Mr. Jaggers
> I have a few 1896 Quarters and Half-Dollar coins, they are in VERY
> good shape. What would be a ball-park figure for values?
Cubs 7, Brewers 4, bottom of the 7th (sorry, but your question is terribly
ill-defined).
> Is there a particular year range that are more valuable?
1896 through 1896 can be quite productive, especially if bearing an "S"
mintmark, and really especially if it's the quarter (see above parenthetical
sarcastic comment).
Seriously, all of the questions you have asked here since you've been
posting can be answered in the Guide Book of United States Coins (the
Redbook) by R. S. Yeoman. You need to invest in one before you spend
another cent on coins! It's available by mail or at a fine book store near
you.
James
som...@some.domain
Mr. Jaggers
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:37:58 -0500, "Mr. Jaggers"
> <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote this stuff here :
>
> This is what...1977? oh 2008
>
> Seriously, why the baseball score references?
>
> A lot of attitude in this newsgroup. You'd almost think I was telling
> infant babies to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol.
>
>
> Would it be possible to discuss coins without the attitudes?
>
> I have some coin questions....this is a coin newsgroup...care to talk
> coins?
Of course. As a veteran of 33 years of public school teaching I have always
been careful to handle questions delicately. But you, as a self-defined
student (your screen name "Always Learning) are making it very difficult to
take you seriously. For the most part, the norm around here is that newbies
come on the scene, ask questions, then disappear without so much as an
acknowledgement. In your case, answers were given which you chose to
ignore, then you return with an attitude of entitlement. I expected my
students to read the textbook when pages were assigned. In the post above
you have expressed disdain for my suggestion that you get a Redbook and read
it. When I tell you that your question is vaguely worded, as I clearly did,
even admitting to my sarcasm, take the hint, re-think it, and ask it in a
different way. Education is a two-way street. Part of the responsibility
is yours.
Now, in the spirit of starting with a clean slate, a ball-park figure for
1896 quarters, depending on your definition of VERY good shape, presence or
absence of mintmark, and condition (not grade, but its cosmetics), would
actually be a range of figures, starting tentatively at $25 and going all
the way up to, say, $6000. For the half dollars, the ball park range for
one dated 1896 is narrower - maybe $100 to $1000.
None of the Barber series has a "range" of valuable years; it's all about a
very few date/mintmark combinations. In the quarters, the keys are 1896-S,
1913-S, and especially 1901-S. A few of the Barber halves are more valuable
than the others, but nothing like the magnitude of those three killer
quarters.
James
mazorj
"Always Learning" <noPubl...@this.time> wrote in message
news:a54jd41d1aqiko1r4...@zzz.com...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:37:58 -0500, "Mr. Jaggers"
> <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote this stuff here :
>
>
> This is what...1977? oh 2008
And here we have the crux of your problem. You asked questions and
they were answered here. You claim you missed one - but your crack
about the Red Book shows you're a child of the Internet who prefers to
do your research on the Internet. Which means that unless you have
the attention span of a gerbil, you know how to pull up a thread you
started, and follow all the answers. So either you're too lazy to
follow your own threads and/or to go buy an actual dead-trees book and
read it for the answers... or you're a troll. The kindest
interpretation is that you're a newbie who doesn't know the
difference.
> Seriously, why the baseball score references?
Oops, a third possibility - you really are that dense. My money is
still on the troll/newbie theory, though.
> A lot of attitude in this newsgroup. You'd almost think I was
> telling
> infant babies to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol.
>
> Would it be possible to discuss coins without the attitudes?
"Redbook isn't even available online for a paid subscription? This is
what...1977? oh 2008." It seems you came in here with your own
attitude - one that is not going to generate sympathy from the people
here who have spent years buying and reading the books that have the
answers.
> I have some coin questions....this is a coin newsgroup...care to
> talk coins?
In any newsgroup, a little rough treatment from a few regulars in
response to unacceptable behavior from a newbie is standard fare.
Missing an answer that someone kindly took the trouble to research and
provide you is unacceptable. Complaining about it isn't going to
change their behavior, just get you more of the same. Pay attention
to the answers instead of using them as the basis for your next round
of whining or trolling, and plenty of people here will talk coins with
you.
Peter
Yeesh! Perhaps everyone's blood pressure is already high enough, but
you didn't mention that "VERY good" is not specifically different from
"very good'. Yeomans carefully defines very good for the quarters and
half dollars (some letters in LIBERTY legible). Consequently, before
accepting your response to the question about the ballparks the OP
should be quite sure that he is actually talking about the right
ballpark as far as the grade of the coin is concerned. If he is
holding an "S" coin and his use of "VERY" has an important meaning,
the ballpark value might be significantly different.
Obtaining a copy of Yeomans is clearly excellent advice.