Home U.S. Coin Forum

How do you define dreck?

2»

Comments

  • RYKRYK Posts: 35,798 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Why do I/we have to define “dreck” at all? Assuming we are not using the term in conversation, coin-related or otherwise, why is it incumbent on the forum denizens to define it? There are plenty of words that I do not use and do not know the definition.

    “Dreck” is not part of the standard numismatic vernacular (how do you define, “vernacular”, BTW?). QDB does not write about it. I have never seen DWN or CRO mention it (in good company, anyway ;) ). I do not mention it in my blog or in my coin descriptions. None of us do. So why do we need a rehearsed, 30 second elevator speech about dreck? It’s really pretty silly, if you take a step back and think about it.

  • BaleyBaley Posts: 22,663 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 15, 2019 3:17PM

    Do some folks describe others' houses as "hovels", their cars as "jalopies", their wives as "slatterns"? That would seem rude.

    Why would we need precise definitions of those terms in order to have the decency not to use them to disparage others?

    Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry

  • ReadyFireAimReadyFireAim Posts: 1,828 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not worth sending to a TPG.

  • mustangmanbobmustangmanbob Posts: 1,890 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A green Ogre from the Movies?

    My 3 yrs granddaughter knows him well.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RYK said: "I did define it in the concurrent thread about dreck. My definition was widely acclaimed as the definitive definition of dreck. ;) Let me rephrase the question: why must define “dreck” multiple times each day? :D"

    "Concurrent " is not in my vocabulary. Would you please post it again here?

  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 31,131 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RYK said:

    @ColonelJessup said:
    There has been an established taxonomic hierarchy for generations.
    Gem
    Choice
    schlock aka "stuff"
    dreck
    scheisse

    And of course it's judgmental and elitist >:)

    Straight-up over-grading is not enough. An original coin over-graded half a point is not dreck

    Colonel, may I ask, sir, where in this taxonomy does the “widget” fit?

    An 1881-S Morgan in ms66 isn't usually dreck [tho it could look like it] but it's a widget because there are so many. Dreck is a state of something where widget usually refers to amount.

    theknowitalltroll;
  • CharlotteDudeCharlotteDude Posts: 3,068 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Dreck - in terms of early or branch mint gold = market acceptable.

    Got Crust....y gold?
  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 44,444 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My inventory is made up of dreck, schlock and widgets. I buy most of it from common collectors. It sells on eBay for less.

  • yosclimberyosclimber Posts: 4,829 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 15, 2019 4:47PM

    In my view:
    dreck = widget = coins easily available that I do not happen to be interested in.

    Most people have coins they are interested in, and other coins they ignore unless they can easily flip them for a significant profit (including the value of their time in the profit calculation).

  • edited January 15, 2019 5:24PM
    This content has been removed.
  • lkeneficlkenefic Posts: 8,169 ✭✭✭✭✭

    One of Websters definitions is "something of very poor quality". In English slang, this can be quite disparaging, so I typically don't use the term.

    It does beg the question though, do basal state coins fall into this category? The rare PO-1? I've seen more than a few threads asking if something might holder at this lowest grade...

    Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;

    Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
  • BillDugan1959BillDugan1959 Posts: 3,821 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TwoSides2aCoin said:
    My inventory is made up of dreck, schlock and widgets. I buy most of it from common collectors. It sells on eBay for less.

    I like that word 'schlock'. Like it a lot. iMHO, It is the 'dreck plus' that @topstuf was talking about.

    Gem, widgets, schlock, dreck. Illustrative.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 15, 2019 6:04PM

    Double post

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 15, 2019 6:03PM

    @tradedollarnut said:

    @RYK said:
    Why do we have to define it every six months? The definition has not changed.

    Because some peeps continually insist on getting their panties in a wad over what they erroneously perceive to be an elitist slant to the word.

    I agree with them that it has an elitist slant to it in the way that Laura uses it. Most people would use the term to describe an over graded coin or a problem coin. All of the 1804 dollars are over graded, and the Dexter-Legend example has graffiti on it notwithstanding a lofty grade of PF65. Would she consider it dreck or "expensive dreck?" I don't think so. That is not a cheap shot at you. I think @specialist and most here would call a common date business strike Peace Dollar in a straight graded holder with graffiti on it dreck; however, I think a very small percentage of them would describe the Dexter coin or any of the other 1804 dollars to be dreck. Value and prestige of the coin obviously have a role in it.

  • ctf_error_coinsctf_error_coins Posts: 15,433 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I know it when I see it.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ErrorsOnCoins said:
    I know it when I see it.

    It does have a Potter Stewart like quality about it.

  • FranklinHalfAddictFranklinHalfAddict Posts: 680 ✭✭✭✭✭

    To me, it is something that is just totally uninspiring, common and is completely lacking in eye appeal. Price does not matter.

  • BillDugan1959BillDugan1959 Posts: 3,821 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Potter Stewart said that he regretted that he said that. He regretted that after a long and successful career in jurisprudence, that would likely be the number one thing (perhaps the only thing) that he would be remembered for.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BillDugan1959 said:
    Potter Stewart said that he regretted that he said that. He regretted that after a long and successful career in jurisprudence, that would likely be the number one thing (perhaps the only thing) that he would be remembered for.

    If I were him, I would regret the vague language used in other opinions that he wrote or joined more.

  • mr1931Smr1931S Posts: 6,257 ✭✭✭✭✭

    When David Hall was getting started in the business back in the day he heavily promoted what would be considered dreck today by the high priests of numismatics.

    Gem uncirculated 1938-D Buffalo Nickels worth about $10 at the time. Anyone other than me remember that?

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @tradedollarnut said:

    @mr1874 said:
    When David Hall was getting started in the business back in the day he heavily promoted what would be considered dreck today by the high priests of numismatics.

    Gem uncirculated 1938-D Buffalo Nickels worth about $10 at the time. Anyone other than me remember that?

    Dude - that’s widgets, not dreck

    It's hard to know as there were no CAC stickers back then. >:)

  • ColonelJessupColonelJessup Posts: 6,442 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RYK said:

    @ColonelJessup said:
    There has been an established taxonomic hierarchy for generations.
    Gem
    Choice
    schlock aka "stuff"
    dreck
    scheisse

    And of course it's judgmental and elitist >:)

    Straight-up over-grading is not enough. An original coin over-graded half a point is not dreck

    Colonel, may I ask, sir, where in this taxonomy does the “widget” fit?

    A white 1881-S $1 PCGS MS67 CAC is not dreck, but it is surely a widget. Seems to fall within the schlock/"stuff" category.

    A white 1881-S $ PCGS MS68 non-CAC is a schlocky widget. With a sticker, a "classy" widget.

    All MCMVII $20's below 65+ CAC are likely widgets, but many are surely "classy".

    Now, about those darkish MS63 1884-O Morgans…….

    note: past perusals of this poster's coins indicates he may be intuitively averse to widgets, as his coins tend toward individuality. Let us, this once, excuse his innocence :#

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
  • Cougar1978Cougar1978 Posts: 8,386 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 16, 2019 7:06AM

    I view it as a hypothetical superficial term lnvented by certain marketeers usually to serve their agenda.

    I know dealers who deal in problem material and do well - details Coins etc. problem is described on slab or Holder.

    The reality is it all adds up. At a recent show a lady w 5 tables of albums of raw collector coins < $50 each did $5000.

    Coins & Currency
  • RYKRYK Posts: 35,798 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ColonelJessup said:

    @RYK said:

    @ColonelJessup said:
    There has been an established taxonomic hierarchy for generations.
    Gem
    Choice
    schlock aka "stuff"
    dreck
    scheisse

    And of course it's judgmental and elitist >:)

    Straight-up over-grading is not enough. An original coin over-graded half a point is not dreck

    Colonel, may I ask, sir, where in this taxonomy does the “widget” fit?

    A white 1881-S $1 PCGS MS67 CAC is not dreck, but it is surely a widget. Seems to fall within the schlock/"stuff" category.

    A white 1881-S $ PCGS MS68 non-CAC is a schlocky widget. With a sticker, a "classy" widget.

    All MCMVII $20's below 65+ CAC are likely widgets, but many are surely "classy".

    Now, about those darkish MS63 1884-O Morgans…….

    note: past perusals of this poster's coins indicates he may be intuitively averse to widgets, as his coins tend toward individuality. Let us, this once, excuse his innocence :#

    Crap, now we have to add the new "classy" category! This gives me a great idea for a thread?

  • BroadstruckBroadstruck Posts: 30,497 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I looked up Dreck in the dictionary and saw this photo ;)

    To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
  • ColonelJessupColonelJessup Posts: 6,442 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 16, 2019 7:31AM

    You're lucky crap and dreck are synonymous. The omnifurcation is almost Hydra-like. It's like a virus eating our collective brains. It's a good thing Martin Luther didn't collect coins, or we might be using scheisse with less discrimination, more conflation (not coinflation) of terms, blurring of categories and the rampant chaos of insalubrious nomenclature further abounding. If all that doesn't give you agita, trying to decode this patently unhelpful post is useless unless you aptly apply the discontinuous equations so often found useful in chaos theory. We are lost in the conundrum so eloquently characterized by Winston Churchill as England and America being two great cultures separated by a common language.

    Also, check out Kurt Vonnegut on foma

    This gives me a terrible idea for a thread ! :p

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
  • ashelandasheland Posts: 23,335 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I consider problem coins and coins lacking eye appeal to be dreck. 1881-S Morgans in MS65 with eye appeal, widgets, etc.
    Like many of the others, I won't call someones coins dreck in front of them... Offending other collectors is not something I enjoy.

  • ashelandasheland Posts: 23,335 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My collection is mostly widgets, I suppose. I like eye appeal, I don't care how common it is...

  • ctf_error_coinsctf_error_coins Posts: 15,433 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ColonelJessup said:
    You're lucky crap and dreck are synonymous. The omnifurcation is almost Hydra-like. It's like a virus eating our collective brains. It's a good thing Martin Luther didn't collect coins, or we might be using scheisse with less discrimination, more conflation (not coinflation) of terms, blurring of categories and the rampant chaos of insalubrious nomenclature further abounding. If all that doesn't give you agita, trying to decode this patently unhelpful post is useless unless you aptly apply the discontinuous equations so often found useful in chaos theory. We are lost in the conundrum so eloquently characterized by Winston Churchill as England and America being two great cultures separated by a common language.

    Also, check out Kurt Vonnegut on foma

    This gives me a terrible idea for a thread ! :p

    Dang, where's my Thesaurus :o:o:o

  • This:

    A very nice person gave it to me and I appreciate him but ugh...

    It's a 1880 O and the other side is painted completely gold. Tried everything to remove the paint...

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file