40% Silver Half Comment / Question

[blueberra]

The good news : this week's box contained 11 40% silver halves.

My question : in the year I have been CRHing (at about 1 box of halves per week), I have found 88 40% silver halves; however, none has been a 1965.

According to my math, approximately 7.78% of the 'minted for circulation' 40% silver halves (excluding 1970D and bicentennial 'S' 40%) were 1965, so the chances of my not finding a 1965 in 88 attempts is (1-0.0778)^88 = 0.9222^88 = approximately 0.08% (one in 1246) -- a very small percentage, indeed.

I assume all 40% 'minted for circulation' dated halves have an equal likelihood of being culled from boxes / tellers / etc., so am I just 'unlucky' or am I missing something?

It's not like I'm looking to assemble a date set of Kennedys, but the other dates seem pretty much in line with the mintages -- just the 1965 is the outlier.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Diver_Down]

Your presumption that '65 was minted for a full year with respect to the other years of 40%'ers. Your math of (1-0.0778) should more accurately reflect the number of months halves were minted for each year. The assumption also relies on a total year's mintage produced equally over each month of production. Many people don't realize, but '65 halves were only produced for a half a year (hence the lower mintage approx. 66M). There was so much demand for '64 halves as a keepsake/memorial to the beloved Kennedy that the mint continued production of '64 halves into the spring of '65.

Also "I assume all 40% 'minted for circulation' dated halves have an equal likelihood of being culled from boxes / tellers / etc." is based on faulty logic. Why would you assume a half with a mintage of approx 66M has an equal likelihood of being found over a '67 half with a mintage of 295M? With so much randomization, it would be wrong to assume that for every 5 '67 halves found that one should find 1 '65 half.

 

[Owassokie]

I've noticed fewer 65's as well, especially in the wild. I think some kept them as that was a transition year. As said above, the 64's were a keepsake but I think some kept the 65 as well. Also, there were simply fewer minted:

 

[GMan00001]

The good news : this week's box contained 11 40% silver halves.

My question : in the year I have been CRHing (at about 1 box of halves per week), I have found 88 40% silver halves; however, none has been a 1965.

According to my math, approximately 7.78% of the 'minted for circulation' 40% silver halves (excluding 1970D and bicentennial 'S' 40%) were 1965, so the chances of my not finding a 1965 in 88 attempts is (1-0.0778)^88 = 0.9222^88 = approximately 0.08% (one in 1246) -- a very small percentage, indeed.

I assume all 40% 'minted for circulation' dated halves have an equal likelihood of being culled from boxes / tellers / etc., so am I just 'unlucky' or am I missing something?

It's not like I'm looking to assemble a date set of Kennedys, but the other dates seem pretty much in line with the mintages -- just the 1965 is the outlier.

All 40% halves were likely culled at roughly the same percentage. My results say '65 halves were 7.12% of the 40% Kennedy halves found (101 of 1419). As such, you are correct that you are just unlucky when it comes to finding '65 halves. Your math checks out as does your logic.

 

[Uncleslick18]

Must be nice. I’m on a 4 box skunk streak, which I realize is low compared to some, but still very annoying. Congrats on the nice box

 

[rangermsg1]

I am in a similar boat. Out of about 45 40% silver, have not found a single 1965 either.

Has anyone found a 1970 recently?

 

[blueberra]

Your presumption that '65 was minted for a full year with respect to the other years of 40%'ers. Your math of (1-0.0778) should more accurately reflect the number of months halves were minted for each year. The assumption also relies on a total year's mintage produced equally over each month of production. Many people don't realize, but '65 halves were only produced for a half a year (hence the lower mintage approx. 66M). There was so much demand for '64 halves as a keepsake/memorial to the beloved Kennedy that the mint continued production of '64 halves into the spring of '65.

Also "I assume all 40% 'minted for circulation' dated halves have an equal likelihood of being culled from boxes / tellers / etc." is based on faulty logic. Why would you assume a half with a mintage of approx 66M has an equal likelihood of being found over a '67 half with a mintage of 295M? With so much randomization, it would be wrong to assume that for every 5 '67 halves found that one should find 1 '65 half.

I do assume that if there are 5 times as many '67s minted than '65s, I should find 5 times as many '67s -- in fact, I should find the 40% silvers in roughly the same proportion that their mintage would indicate.

So I should have found 88 * 0.0772 = a little less than 7 '65s so far; unless, for some reason, people started culling '65s right from the start of mintage.

I don't believe there was any reason to set aside the 40% silvers until the price of silver was sufficiently high which I don't believe took place until well after 1969 which is when the last 'for circulation' 40% silver halves were minted; consequently, when people started to cull 40% silvers, they did so from a population that contained a little under 8% 1965 halves.

As best as I can determine, the Hunt brothers didn't begin their attempt to corner the silver market until 1973 and it took them a few years for silver to peak (January, 1980 @ $49.45 / oz.

See the Wikipedia page for silver price history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_as_an_investment

 

[Megalodon]

Must be nice. I’m on a 4 box skunk streak, which I realize is low compared to some, but still very annoying. Congrats on the nice box

After last night, my latest skunk streak reached 7 boxes. But the box before that broke a much longer skunk streak with 4 W.L. halves, including an ender, so can't complain. Hope springs eternal.

 

[weighit]

It has been 10 years since I found the one and only 1970 in my pile. They seem to be pretty scarce.

 

[Sleepy Holow]

Okay...blueberra and the rest of you guys got me curious about my 40%er numbers. Here's how i compare:

Coin	% by Mint Numbers	% of my Finds
1965	7.76%	6.06%
1966	12.84%	13.33%
1967	34.76%	36.36%
1968D	29.09%	29.09%
1969D	15.30%	15.15%
1970D	0.25%	0.00%

I was pleasantly surprised at how spot on the numbers were. Sample size is 165 40%ers, so not impressive from a CRHing point of view, but more importantly - statistically relevant. Odds of getting a 1970D are 1 in 400, as in 1 out of 400 40%ers you find will be of that variety. My number of 40%ers found being much lower than 400 justifies my 0.00% value!

 

[GMan00001]

I was pleasantly surprised at how spot on the numbers were. Sample size is 165 40%ers, so not impressive from a CRHing point of view, but more importantly - statistically relevant. Odds of getting a 1970D are 1 in 400, as in 1 out of 400 40%ers you find will be of that variety. My number of 40%ers found being much lower than 400 justifies my 0.00% value!

For what it's worth, including 1970-D in that list isn't really comparing apples to apples as 1970-D were never issued for circulation, so the odds of finding one are much lower than the mintage numbers as the only ones found must be broken out of mint sets.

 

[Sleepy Holow]

For what it's worth, including 1970-D in that list isn't really comparing apples to apples as 1970-D were never issued for circulation, so the odds of finding one are much lower than the mintage numbers as the only ones found must be broken out of mint sets.

Oh, man! Totally didn't factor that in. Very good point, GMan. I meant 1 in 4000! Haha!

 

[Megalodon]

Oh, man! Totally didn't factor that in. Very good point, GMan. I meant 1 in 4000! Haha!

Who knows? But the presence in mint sets only is a factor that is not quantifiable. Maybe its 1 in 40,000 LOL - with no additional data, the 70-D is conjecture. It also means the excellent table you made should have very slightly higher "expected" % for each date if the 70-D is removed.

I do like to see the "observed" population data. If I was interested in buying high grade Kennedys, then the 70-D would appear to be undervalued based on this sampling of the population.

Your data is striking in showing no apparent significant differences between expected and observed numbers (without running the stats, just eyebaling the data). To me, this suggests that your sample size is sufficient for this comparison.

 

[blueberra]

For what it's worth, including 1970-D in that list isn't really comparing apples to apples as 1970-D were never issued for circulation, so the odds of finding one are much lower than the mintage numbers as the only ones found must be broken out of mint sets.

Ironically, I've found 2 bicentennial 40% silver halves and zero 1965 (and zero 1970D)

 

[Megalodon]

I went back and looked for my numbers for 2018. I found 171 40% halves. Of those, 13 were dated 1965, so that calculates to 7.60%, not significantly different from the "expected" 7.78%. Also, very slightly more 1965's were lost than 1969's just due to time, and the expected %s shown here were calculated entirely by mintages. A tiny % more 65's were probably lost relative to 69's, just by being minted earlier and being handled for more years. That tiny lost % is probably more than offset by differential hoarding by year.

So you asked about "bad luck". If we can quantify bad luck, then I think you had bad luck, LOL. But I also think it can be explained by a sample size that is a little small to be making that conclusion. That is why it was a good idea to post this thread and gather more info about the experiences of others.

 

[Megalodon]

Ironically, I've found 2 bicentennial 40% silver halves and zero 1965 (and zero 1970D)

I found one right off the bat last year and thought for a moment "wow, are these more common than I thought?". And now that's still the only one I have found. So difficult to reach conclusions with small sample sizes. i also have found no 70-D.

 

[Rick K]

I sweated all summer in 1967 at Englehardt Industries in So. Attleboro MA - making the rolls of stock shipped to the Mint for stamping out the clad 50 cent pieces. Last summer in college, graduated in Jan 1968, USAF OTS, then Pilot training Laughlin AFB TX, Class 69-08. still have an ugly scar on the right side of my nose from a machine fault which hit me there with a piece of the scrap from trimming the rolls. The place was incredibly dangerous - 1-2 ambulance runs a week. OSHA (which we didn’t have then) has saved many thousands of lives and limbs!

 

[Megalodon]

I sweated all summer in 1967 at Englehardt Industries in So. Attleboro MA - making the rolls of stock shipped to the Mint for stamping out the clad 50 cent pieces. Last summer in college, graduated in Jan 1968, USAF OTS, then Pilot training Laughlin AFB TX, Class 69-08. still have an ugly scar on the right side of my nose from a machine fault which hit me there with a piece of the scrap from trimming the rolls. The place was incredibly dangerous - 1-2 ambulance runs a week. OSHA (which we didn’t have then) has saved many thousands of lives and limbs!

Thank you for your service. Thanks also for a post that shows us how something that seems so innocuous as a coin required others to sweat and bleed to produce the blanks. I hope the work conditions are better today than they were back then.

As we approach the 4th of July, I remember being dragged to the zoo in Attleboro for fireworks. I like fireworks but hated the idiocy of using a location like a zoo. More than 50 years later, I can still hear the poor animals, hostages really for our amusement, screaming in terror and pain as the fireworks went off over their cages. Inhumanity.

 

[A2coins]

Great post well wrote