Options
Set Completion Has Value Only to the Owner
Coinosaurus
Posts: 9,614 ✭✭✭✭✭
I don't really care if someone's set is 92% or 99% complete when it goes to auction. I'll be interested in only a few coins anyway, and the common stuff will be a complete yawn.
0
Comments
<< <i>I don't really care if someone's set is 92% or 99% complete when it goes to auction. I'll be interested in only a few coins anyway, and the common stuff will be a complete yawn. >>
I think it matters on elite collections. David Hall having 60-70% amazing coins in his Lib set made the buyer buy them all to get the ones he wanted, same with other unique sets. If you can make someone buy the common ones to get at the gems it does make a difference to the seller to the middleman. Even auction houses will sweeten the pot for attractive collections Vs a group of coins but to the end buyer like your self it shouldn't matter.
The majority us over asses the importance of our collections.
Having said that, I think that too much emphasis is placed on rare dates. As a student of history I find that a common date that was made the same year as some major event to be of great interest. Of course when a rare date coincides with an important event, that makes it more interesting, but when a rare date coincides with a "ho-hum date," I know I'm odd, but I don't find that coin interesting at all and won't pay the price for it. I think that the drive for some collectors to buy nothing but rare dates as resulted in the prices that are too high for them relative to their rarity.
Take the 1877 Indian cent for example. I've owned a few, but the only one that really met anything to me was the piece I needed to complete my Indian cent set when I was kid. About the only great thing that happened that year was the resolution to the stolen 1876 presidential election, but I own an 1877-S Trade Dollar which covers that.
<< <i>I don't really care if someone's set is 92% or 99% complete when it goes to auction. I'll be interested in only a few coins anyway, and the common stuff will be a complete yawn. >>
I fully agree. I never made an attempt at full sets because typically a decent percentage of the coins are not really worthy. When examining seated quarters back in the 1970's I felt there were about 2 dozen dates I really wanted to own. The next 2 dozen dates had so-so potential. And everything after that was of little interest to me. I'd rather own the top 1/3 to 1/2 of a set rather than the whole thing. In the Barber quarters for instance I'd pass on the 3 super keys and go after the next 2-3 dozen or so better mint-marked dates. I'd rather own a small pile of 1898-0/S to 1904-0/S Barber quarters rather than have a complete date run of all the common dates.
<< <i>As a student of history I find that a common date that was made the same year as some major event to be of great interest. Of course when a rare date coincides with an important event, that makes it more interesting, but when a rare date coincides with a "ho-hum date," I know I'm odd, but I don't find that coin interesting at all and won't pay the price for it. I think that the drive for some collectors to buy nothing but rare dates as resulted in the prices that are too high for them relative to their rarity.
Take the 1877 Indian cent for example. I've owned a few, but the only one that really met anything to me was the piece I needed to complete my Indian cent set when I was kid. About the only great thing that happened that year was the resolution to the stolen 1876 presidential election, but I own an 1877-S Trade Dollar which covers that. >>
Bill, you're unusual. I mean that in a good way.
Lance.
are actually investors not collectors
Or key date type set collectors--but once you have multiple
examples of the key of a series, the type set
scenario goes out the window
<< <i>I don't really care if someone's set is 92% or 99% complete when it goes to auction. I'll be interested in only a few coins anyway, and the common stuff will be a complete yawn. >>
I don't think the common 'stuff' in the Simpson/Sunnywood Morgan $ collection are a yawn. Of course, monster toners help make it more uncommon.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
<< <i>It could be said that those that only acquire key dates
are actually investors not collectors
Or key date type set collectors--but once you have multiple
examples of the key of a series, the type set
scenario goes out the window >>
That's sort of why I excluded the big 3 Barber quarters because they are "key" dates. But then you have a 2nd and 3rd tier of coins in the F-AU range that are generally very underrated in problem free condition. If you acquire duplicates of some of those, they can be used for trade bait on the ones you aren't able to find. I like several dozen Barber quarters from the 4th to 50th positions. The ones after that are fine if found nice and at type coin prices.
At one time I had 8 1867-s quarters in VF-XF (6 from a single hoard). I had no problem using those to get after other dates I wanted.
<< <i>I'd rather own a small pile of 1898-0/S to 1904-0/S Barber quarters rather than have a complete date run of all the common dates. >>
I 100% concur with you RR - and this is the direction my collection has taken the past year or so ... Although I would extend back to include the 97-O/S .. and incorporate other dates like the 14-S and 95-S .. Really almost all of the O and S MM barring a couple anomalies are worthy of my $$
Hoard the keys.