An above post includes transition to clad coinage. I doubt many US collectors think of it this way (I don't) but the change in the monetary system is more tangible than the connection the vast majority of coins have to any event. Other than existing, most coins have no "important" connection to any event, either from the year it was struck or subsequently.
President Lyndon B. Johnson gift based on Public Law 89-31, An Act to provide coinage of the United States, July 23, 1965 (S. 2080), Coinage Act of 1965.
"...freshly minted quarter." reference by in November 3, 1965 White House Letter. The first US clad coinage to be gifted by a sitting US President.
@Boosibri said:
I would submit the 1861-D G$1 as historically important. Aside from being a civil war issue, it is proven to have been struck exclusively by the confederates after taking the Dahlonega mint.
Splitting hairs but historically significant and important are two different things. Crap produced by traitors attempting to split the republic to preserve evil, form a facility they seized to fund said evil is not any more import than coins made by any other illegitimate government. A significant artifact of that shameful history sure but not important. The weird fetishization and ionization of confederate artifacts speaks to the sick sympathy for that cause which has been systematically taught and spread by the descendants of that war in a semi-successful attempt to rebrand it into something positive or noble. I can’t think of a more low IQ concept then to consider the confederates anything but anti-abolitionists who rather kill their own country men than do hard work themself and treat all people as humans.
There isn’t much of a gap between the confederate artifacts/flags and the worst parts and people of our country. A dollar made by them isn’t important, it’s sad reminder of a pathetic group and horrible time
reading this and looking at your avatar is confusing
Ron Guth:
The 1838-O Half Dollar was the first coin struck at the New Orleans Mint and one of the first branch mint coins of any denomination. Apparently, only 20 coins were made as Proofs. Today, less than a dozen have been traced, making this one of the most important American rarities.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Historic vs. Historical. Historic describes something momentous or important in history. Historical simply describes something that belongs to an earlier period of history.
When these terms are used in our hobby in the United States:
Historic numismatic specimen describes a specimen that was momentous or important to US history. Historical numismatic specimen describes a specimen that belongs to a specific period of US history.
The definition used above is why I don't consider hardly any coin of historic significance. Numismatic significance is something else entirely, of interest to some proportion of coin collectors and maybe a very low number who study a specific aspect of the time but almost never more than that.
An above post includes transition to clad coinage. I doubt many US collectors think of it this way (I don't) but the change in the monetary system is more tangible than the connection the vast majority of coins have to any event. Other than existing, most coins have no "important" connection to any event, either from the year it was struck or subsequently.
There is a difference between liking a coin (what seems to be actually described most of the time) and this subject. If there are supposedly so many historic significant coins (numismatic or generally), this dilutes it to the point where it is essentially meaningless.
In the above example of clad coinage, I'd consider a manuscript of the legislation (if it is unique or one of a few) of historic significance; the object itself is historic. Claiming it for any one of over a billion 1965 dimes and quarters, no.
Good to know and note that numerous examples here use the historical term:
@WCC said:
The most historically significant coinage to me is the 66-70 CE First Jewish Revolt coinage.
and
@SmEagle1795 said:
This is arguably the most historically important ancient coin, minted by Brutus commemorating his assassination of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March (Eid Mar), 44BC.
and
@BillJones said:
The historical part is that is shows that the Renaissance period had reached British coinage.
If I’m interested in a certain event in history, then any coins in any condition associated with the topic could be seen as important to me. Getting others to be interested or agree is likely a matter of exposure and promotion.
Maybe a high budget movie comes out I would imagine interest would grow too. Maybe a mentor says check this out! Maybe a presentation piece held and documented at the Smithsonian. I have some low value holes coins my grandfather brought back from his WWII service that are historically significant. I’m not wrong. Whenever I’m considering buying an antique or collectible I try to remember to not pay for the “story”. If a coin had a great life and around during noteworthy events but no one cares or is even aware of the events is it still historical? In order for historical significance to add resale value, there would have to be some sort of mass popularity or appeal and to me that rounds back to exposure and promotion. This is a before coffee musing
A lot of coins and collections are historically interesting, but few I can think of are important at least individually. I think most historical importance comes from the archaeology of how they were found. Like finding a pot of Islamic gold coins in Finland (I made that up) - that would be historically important because it would show that there was a trade connection there, and if they ever find some otherwise unexplainable Finnish genetics in north africa, or vice versa, the pot of gold coins fills in part of a story.
Even I have one of these tokens. Just how historic can it be.
A coin can be historic without being rare.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The 250th anniversary of our country is coming up, then the 300th birthday of George Washington. So what do you think of the 1776-1976 Bicentennial coinage and the 1982 half dollars (the first modern 90% silver commemoratives)?
@carabonnair said:
The 250th anniversary of our country is coming up, then the 300th birthday of George Washington. So what do you think of the 1776-1976 Bicentennial coinage and the 1982 half dollars (the first modern 90% silver commemoratives)?
I kind of like the Bicentennial coinage because that was the year I graduated high school, and it brings back memories of the time. Having been born in 1959, it was also the first time in my life that there was a design change (other than metal content) in the circulating coinage, which was rather cool. There was just a lot of ballyhoo about the milestone at the time, with Bicentennial Minutes on TV and such. I also remember the entire class each getting a special bicentennial medallion at my graduation ceremony.
The 1982 Washington commems flew under my radar, and have no special significance to me.
EDIT: I forgot about the Kennedy half in 1964. So it was the second design change in my lifetime.
Lets see...
1792 Getz/Perkins Washington patterns...George decides not to be king
1792 silver centered cent....Americans learn to use the practical over the complex
1792 half dime United States makes it first circulating coin
1814 platinum half dollar....scientist in the government run amok....shadowing of what's to come
1838-O half dollar New Orleans makes the scene America expanding rapidly
1849 Mormon $20 - the first $20 coin in the United States, beat out the federal government by a few months
1870 Carson City 25c, 50c, $1, $5, $10, and $20 - First year of Carson City coinage
@Boosibri said:
I would submit the 1861-D G$1 as historically important. Aside from being a civil war issue, it is proven to have been struck exclusively by the confederates after taking the Dahlonega mint.
That's a really interesting fact, but is there anything more significant about it? Was gold use to buy war materials? Did they need gold coins to continue to circulate in the South?
Or is it just that people who worked at the Mint producing coins for the USA one day showed up to work another day and did the same job for the CSA?
I think that the abundance of coins mentioned in just this one thread justifies the opening comment by the OP:
“One of my pet peeves is how quick people are to call a coin ‘historically important’".
When so many different coins are mentioned as candidates for so many different reasons, it severely dilutes the meaning of “historically important”. Can someone come up with a narrow enough definition so that the term “historically important” means something more “important” to a greater population?😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
First and last from Charlotte. While the mint also produced $1 and $2 1/2 denominations, the Half Eagle started it all and was the only denomination struck in '61. The mint reopened as an assay office in 1867, due to substantial amounts of gold still coming out of the surrounding area, but never struck any coins. In 1873, the North Carolina General Assembly petitioned Congress to reopen the mint for coinage operations, however that request was denied.
I love that 1861-C half eagle, @CharlotteDude! I looked for one in AU for a few years, but all of the pieces I found were cleaned and beat-up.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@MFeld said:
I think that the abundance of coins mentioned in just this one thread justifies the opening comment by the OP:
“One of my pet peeves is how quick people are to call a coin ‘historically important’".
When so many different coins are mentioned as candidates for so many different reasons, it severely dilutes the meaning of “historically important”. Can someone come up with a narrow enough definition so that the term “historically important” means something more “important” to a greater population?😉
Good luck coming up with a definition of "historically important" that everyone agrees with. The term "historically important" is in the eye of the beholder. What I consider to be historically important may not to be historically important to others.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@MFeld said:
I think that the abundance of coins mentioned in just this one thread justifies the opening comment by the OP:
“One of my pet peeves is how quick people are to call a coin ‘historically important’".
When so many different coins are mentioned as candidates for so many different reasons, it severely dilutes the meaning of “historically important”. Can someone come up with a narrow enough definition so that the term “historically important” means something more “important” to a greater population?😉
I wonder if the number of historically important coins approximates the number of rare coins
@Boosibri said:
I would submit the 1861-D G$1 as historically important. Aside from being a civil war issue, it is proven to have been struck exclusively by the confederates after taking the Dahlonega mint.
That's a really interesting fact, but is there anything more significant about it? Was gold use to buy war materials? Did they need gold coins to continue to circulate in the South?
Or is it just that people who worked at the Mint producing coins for the USA one day showed up to work another day and did the same job for the CSA?
My understanding is they used up the planchets and gold that was on hand and then shut down operations. I read that the 1862 gold dollars are very common because they were mass produced to be issued to Union field commanders to buy supplies in the field such as cattle, pigs, produce, lumber, rope, canvas, leather, etc. Of course, field commanders were later issued paper currency to buy necessary provisions in the field.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@Boosibri said:
I would submit the 1861-D G$1 as historically important. Aside from being a civil war issue, it is proven to have been struck exclusively by the confederates after taking the Dahlonega mint.
That's a really interesting fact, but is there anything more significant about it? Was gold use to buy war materials? Did they need gold coins to continue to circulate in the South?
Or is it just that people who worked at the Mint producing coins for the USA one day showed up to work another day and did the same job for the CSA?
I suppose by that logic if martians took over the world and began minting coins in West Point we would discard the significance of the fact that they were the only coins definitively known to be minted by the martians because of the same metals were used and where the coins circulated was no different than before?
@Boosibri said:
I would submit the 1861-D G$1 as historically important. Aside from being a civil war issue, it is proven to have been struck exclusively by the confederates after taking the Dahlonega mint.
That's a really interesting fact, but is there anything more significant about it? Was gold use to buy war materials? Did they need gold coins to continue to circulate in the South?
Or is it just that people who worked at the Mint producing coins for the USA one day showed up to work another day and did the same job for the CSA?
I suppose by that logic if martians took over the world and began minting coins in West Point we would discard the significance of the fact that they were the only coins definitively known to be minted by the martians because of the same metals were used and where the coins circulated was no different than before?
Perhaps only if the Martians were beat back to Mars.
If the Martians wiped out the US, we'd just be a footnote of history.
Interesting perspective. So would you consider my 1861-S Paquet Reverse historic by your standards or not?
I'd have to read more about the coin to know why the design change occurred. Based upon what I know, I don't consider the coin nearly as important or desirable as the general US collector popular. It's in the Red Book and this is presumably the only reason most US collectors know anything about it. To me, it's no more than another die variety.
@Boosibri said:
I would submit the 1861-D G$1 as historically important. Aside from being a civil war issue, it is proven to have been struck exclusively by the confederates after taking the Dahlonega mint.
That's a really interesting fact, but is there anything more significant about it? Was gold use to buy war materials? Did they need gold coins to continue to circulate in the South?
Or is it just that people who worked at the Mint producing coins for the USA one day showed up to work another day and did the same job for the CSA?
Mormon gold is an interesting example. I still don't consider it to have much to do with the events of the time (founding of Salt Lake City and Utah territory) but it's a lot more tangible than most others. I do agree the coins are historically significant in a numismatic context.
@cccoins said:
1849 Mormon $20 - the first $20 coin in the United States, beat out the federal government by a few months
1870 Carson City 25c, 50c, $1, $5, $10, and $20 - First year of Carson City coinage
Here is one from my collection:
Is this the coin which was recently discovered? I forget the back story.
@cccoins said:
1849 Mormon $20 - the first $20 coin in the United States, beat out the federal government by a few months
1870 Carson City 25c, 50c, $1, $5, $10, and $20 - First year of Carson City coinage
Here is one from my collection:
Is this the coin which was recently discovered? I forget the back story.
Yes, it came out of Ohio, to several intermediaries, to me.
Here's a pair of coins from 1914 and 1923 that has a history lesson to teach.
In 1914, you could get a 1 Mark coin. In 1923, you could get a 1 Billion Mark coin. 1 Billion Marks might seem like a lot, but in 1923 one US Dollar was worth 4.2 Trillion Marks or 4200 of these 1 Billion Mark coins.
Luckily, we've never had to learn this lesson first hand in the US.
The top coin is from my collection. the second found on CoinFacts.
@Boosibri said:
I would submit the 1861-D G$1 as historically important. Aside from being a civil war issue, it is proven to have been struck exclusively by the confederates after taking the Dahlonega mint.
That's a really interesting fact, but is there anything more significant about it? Was gold use to buy war materials? Did they need gold coins to continue to circulate in the South?
Or is it just that people who worked at the Mint producing coins for the USA one day showed up to work another day and did the same job for the CSA?
Mormon gold is an interesting example. I still don't consider it to have much to do with the events of the time (founding of Salt Lake City and Utah territory) but it's a lot more tangible than most others. I do agree the coins are historically significant in a numismatic context.
President Brigham Young requested the coins be made as they were needed for trade to grow the young town. Salt Lake City might not have been built were it not for the coins. Check out this thread for the history.
I think an historically important coin is one where the coin itself evokes an interesting story around its reason for existing.
In early New England, wampum was a recognized medium of exchange valued at 6 for a penny for any sum under 12 pence. Wampum obviously didn't suffice for transactions above that limit, and I suspect not all colonists were really so keen to accept wampum. Aside from wampum only coins imported from Europe were available as legal tender. Unfortunately most of those went right back to Europe to pay for European goods. So the colonists were in a bit of a bind, and it only got worse from 1642 to 1651 when the English Civil War left the colonies somewhat to their own devices. So they granted themselves the authority to strike what we now call the New England Shilling to satisfy the need for coinage.
Comments
From a numismatic point of view perhaps this one as the first widely accepted error coin-
And this one as the first widely accepted doubled die-
Hard to beat the 1848 CAL quarter eagle.
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
President Lyndon B. Johnson gift based on Public Law 89-31, An Act to provide coinage of the United States, July 23, 1965 (S. 2080), Coinage Act of 1965.
"...freshly minted quarter." reference by in November 3, 1965 White House Letter. The first US clad coinage to be gifted by a sitting US President.
Unheard of US-Mexico medal struck by the US Mint and issued at the Chamizal special event.
And its gets better...most were destroyed.
Kennedy half dollar March 24, 1964 release announcement by the Treasury Department.
President Johnson's March 24, 1964 gift of a 1964-P Kennedy half dollar. A thoughtful First Day of Issue gift.
reading this and looking at your avatar is confusing
Ron Guth:
The 1838-O Half Dollar was the first coin struck at the New Orleans Mint and one of the first branch mint coins of any denomination. Apparently, only 20 coins were made as Proofs. Today, less than a dozen have been traced, making this one of the most important American rarities.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
These coins are forgotten.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Year_of_the_Child
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I would say all the 1792 patterns are historically quite important.
Good to know and note that numerous examples here use the historical term:
and
and
If I’m interested in a certain event in history, then any coins in any condition associated with the topic could be seen as important to me. Getting others to be interested or agree is likely a matter of exposure and promotion.
Maybe a high budget movie comes out I would imagine interest would grow too. Maybe a mentor says check this out! Maybe a presentation piece held and documented at the Smithsonian. I have some low value holes coins my grandfather brought back from his WWII service that are historically significant. I’m not wrong. Whenever I’m considering buying an antique or collectible I try to remember to not pay for the “story”. If a coin had a great life and around during noteworthy events but no one cares or is even aware of the events is it still historical? In order for historical significance to add resale value, there would have to be some sort of mass popularity or appeal and to me that rounds back to exposure and promotion. This is a before coffee musing
@Zoins breifly mentioned it.
The 1921 Peace Dollar. Designed to commemorate peace after the first ever World War. It was also minted in high relief.
A lot of coins and collections are historically interesting, but few I can think of are important at least individually. I think most historical importance comes from the archaeology of how they were found. Like finding a pot of Islamic gold coins in Finland (I made that up) - that would be historically important because it would show that there was a trade connection there, and if they ever find some otherwise unexplainable Finnish genetics in north africa, or vice versa, the pot of gold coins fills in part of a story.
Even I have one of these tokens. Just how historic can it be.
A coin can be historic without being rare.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I consider this to be mildly historic:
Early gold rush, territorial gold from North Carolina, 1840’s:
My YouTube Channel
The 250th anniversary of our country is coming up, then the 300th birthday of George Washington. So what do you think of the 1776-1976 Bicentennial coinage and the 1982 half dollars (the first modern 90% silver commemoratives)?
Pacific Northwest Numismatic Association
I kind of like the Bicentennial coinage because that was the year I graduated high school, and it brings back memories of the time. Having been born in 1959, it was also the first time in my life that there was a design change (other than metal content) in the circulating coinage, which was rather cool. There was just a lot of ballyhoo about the milestone at the time, with Bicentennial Minutes on TV and such. I also remember the entire class each getting a special bicentennial medallion at my graduation ceremony.
The 1982 Washington commems flew under my radar, and have no special significance to me.
EDIT: I forgot about the Kennedy half in 1964. So it was the second design change in my lifetime.
Lets see...
1792 Getz/Perkins Washington patterns...George decides not to be king
1792 silver centered cent....Americans learn to use the practical over the complex
1792 half dime United States makes it first circulating coin
1814 platinum half dollar....scientist in the government run amok....shadowing of what's to come
1838-O half dollar New Orleans makes the scene America expanding rapidly
I have a little bias as to era...
1849 Mormon $20 - the first $20 coin in the United States, beat out the federal government by a few months
1870 Carson City 25c, 50c, $1, $5, $10, and $20 - First year of Carson City coinage
Here is one from my collection:
That's a really interesting fact, but is there anything more significant about it? Was gold use to buy war materials? Did they need gold coins to continue to circulate in the South?
Or is it just that people who worked at the Mint producing coins for the USA one day showed up to work another day and did the same job for the CSA?
I think that the abundance of coins mentioned in just this one thread justifies the opening comment by the OP:
“One of my pet peeves is how quick people are to call a coin ‘historically important’".
When so many different coins are mentioned as candidates for so many different reasons, it severely dilutes the meaning of “historically important”. Can someone come up with a narrow enough definition so that the term “historically important” means something more “important” to a greater population?😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
First and last from Charlotte. While the mint also produced $1 and $2 1/2 denominations, the Half Eagle started it all and was the only denomination struck in '61. The mint reopened as an assay office in 1867, due to substantial amounts of gold still coming out of the surrounding area, but never struck any coins. In 1873, the North Carolina General Assembly petitioned Congress to reopen the mint for coinage operations, however that request was denied.
I love that 1861-C half eagle, @CharlotteDude! I looked for one in AU for a few years, but all of the pieces I found were cleaned and beat-up.
Good luck coming up with a definition of "historically important" that everyone agrees with. The term "historically important" is in the eye of the beholder. What I consider to be historically important may not to be historically important to others.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I wonder if the number of historically important coins approximates the number of rare coins
My understanding is they used up the planchets and gold that was on hand and then shut down operations. I read that the 1862 gold dollars are very common because they were mass produced to be issued to Union field commanders to buy supplies in the field such as cattle, pigs, produce, lumber, rope, canvas, leather, etc. Of course, field commanders were later issued paper currency to buy necessary provisions in the field.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I suppose by that logic if martians took over the world and began minting coins in West Point we would discard the significance of the fact that they were the only coins definitively known to be minted by the martians because of the same metals were used and where the coins circulated was no different than before?
Latin American Collection
Perhaps only if the Martians were beat back to Mars.
If the Martians wiped out the US, we'd just be a footnote of history.
I'd have to read more about the coin to know why the design change occurred. Based upon what I know, I don't consider the coin nearly as important or desirable as the general US collector popular. It's in the Red Book and this is presumably the only reason most US collectors know anything about it. To me, it's no more than another die variety.
Mormon gold is an interesting example. I still don't consider it to have much to do with the events of the time (founding of Salt Lake City and Utah territory) but it's a lot more tangible than most others. I do agree the coins are historically significant in a numismatic context.
Is this the coin which was recently discovered? I forget the back story.
Latin American Collection
Yes, it came out of Ohio, to several intermediaries, to me.
https://www.coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/rare-1870-cc-coronet-double-eagle-brought-to-coin-shop
Here's a pair of coins from 1914 and 1923 that has a history lesson to teach.
In 1914, you could get a 1 Mark coin. In 1923, you could get a 1 Billion Mark coin. 1 Billion Marks might seem like a lot, but in 1923 one US Dollar was worth 4.2 Trillion Marks or 4200 of these 1 Billion Mark coins.
Luckily, we've never had to learn this lesson first hand in the US.
The top coin is from my collection. the second found on CoinFacts.
The first (and last) Bitcoins ?
President Brigham Young requested the coins be made as they were needed for trade to grow the young town. Salt Lake City might not have been built were it not for the coins. Check out this thread for the history.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1052744/mormon-gold-the-deseret-mint-and-its-mint-master-john-moburn-kay#latest
I think an historically important coin is one where the coin itself evokes an interesting story around its reason for existing.
In early New England, wampum was a recognized medium of exchange valued at 6 for a penny for any sum under 12 pence. Wampum obviously didn't suffice for transactions above that limit, and I suspect not all colonists were really so keen to accept wampum. Aside from wampum only coins imported from Europe were available as legal tender. Unfortunately most of those went right back to Europe to pay for European goods. So the colonists were in a bit of a bind, and it only got worse from 1642 to 1651 when the English Civil War left the colonies somewhat to their own devices. So they granted themselves the authority to strike what we now call the New England Shilling to satisfy the need for coinage.
from Heritage
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album