Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

Your Favorite Coin Year?

2»

Comments

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,694 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BloodMan said:
    1873

    HXB

    Ah, good old Harry X "No Period" Boosel! Mr. 1873! He did have fun with that year.

    The morning after the night he passed away he was supposed to meet with me and a couple he was friends with who had some coins to sell. Before they got there Harry's son called me to give me the sad news, and I had to break it to his friends. Eventually I helped his wife and son dispose of the leftovers of his 1873 collection, miscellaneous tokens and medals plus a lot of stuff dated 1973.

    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • USSID17USSID17 Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 11, 2021 7:07AM

    Sorry, you're all wrong! The correct answer should be: The year we each "started" collecting. ;)

    For me? June 7th, 1960 @ 3:04pm, my 8th birthday party when I opened my first 1909-1940 Whitman folder. :D

  • BloodManBloodMan Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PerryHall said:

    @BloodMan said:
    1873

    HXB

    What is HXB?

    Harry X Boosel, also known as Mr. 1873. He wrote a book on the open and closed 3 varieties of that year.

  • BloodManBloodMan Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭✭✭

    CaptHenway beat me to the answer

  • brianc1959brianc1959 Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Crypto said:
    In this respective order
    1839
    1876
    1795

    1934

    So, you're the one who keeps bidding up those 1839 coins I try to get!

  • brianc1959brianc1959 Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BillJones said:
    1795.

    It’s the one year I have an example of every denomination and design the mint issued that year.

    I would like to do that with 1796, but the half cent and the $5 and $10 gold coins are stoppers for me. I suppose I would have to get both types of cents and a 1796 With Stars $2.50 to make it complete, which would make it even harder. Some big collectors have tried to form a 1796 “Proof set” in the past. That involves some very heavy lifting.

    I also like 1795, and have a "mini-me" set (no gold, nothing uncirculated). But the 1795 $5 Heraldic reverse is a pretty scary coin!

  • JRGeyerJRGeyer Posts: 150 ✭✭✭

    1875

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 34,758 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I also like 1795, and have a "mini-me" set (no gold, nothing uncirculated). But the 1795 $5 Heraldic reverse is a pretty scary coin!

    It has a scary price for sure, but it took me less than a minute to decide on this one. It as one of the fastest buying decisions I ever made on an expensive coin. It popped up at a Baltimore show.

    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 ... ?
  • jesbrokenjesbroken Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @koynekwest said:
    Yeah, Jim. I agree. That was a pretty good year, too. And 1938 was a bad year.

    38 was the worst year.
    Jim


    When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 34,758 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This 1796 Bust Dollar was dipped at one point, but I have always liked the look of it.

    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 ... ?
  • brianc1959brianc1959 Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BillJones said:

    I also like 1795, and have a "mini-me" set (no gold, nothing uncirculated). But the 1795 $5 Heraldic reverse is a pretty scary coin!

    It has a scary price for sure, but it took me less than a minute to decide on this one. It as one of the fastest buying decisions I ever made on an expensive coin. It popped up at a Baltimore show.

    I was actually thinking of the other 1795 version with the large eagle reverse, but that small-eagle 1795 of yours is beautiful!

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 34,758 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I was actually thinking of the other 1795 version with the large eagle reverse, but that small-eagle 1795 of yours is beautiful!

    Thank you! the large eagle version is above my pay grade.

    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 ... ?
  • thefinnthefinn Posts: 2,657 ✭✭✭✭✭

    For some reason 1859. It is Antebellum (before the Civil War destroyed so much), and a 1859-O silver dollar is an available and impressive thing to hold.

    thefinn
  • Nederveit2Nederveit2 Posts: 153 ✭✭✭

    1837...bust to seated and Civil War era coins are my favorites. That said, it won't stop my from buying coins unrelated to those years!

  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 10,048 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jesbroken said:

    @koynekwest said:
    Yeah, Jim. I agree. That was a pretty good year, too. And 1938 was a bad year.

    38 was the worst year.
    Jim

    Seems we lost all of our coin artistry from 1931 thru 1948.

  • DavideoDavideo Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭✭
    1. I can feel it's going to be a big year...

    Actually I'll go with 1916. I always thought it was sort of neat that it has key dates for two different series but of the same denomination (quarter).

  • JimTylerJimTyler Posts: 3,707 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I gotta go with 1796

  • ColonelJessupColonelJessup Posts: 6,442 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2021 8:25AM

    I always suggest to beginning collectors that they start with an 1816 year set. Easy to complete, :#

    I'll go with 1792, 1916 next

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
  • 1630Boston1630Boston Posts: 14,111 ✭✭✭✭✭

    1652 and MDCXXX for me

    Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko

    Bad transactions with : nobody to date

  • Dave99BDave99B Posts: 8,683 ✭✭✭✭✭

    '1950' - Can't really explain why...I just think it looks ultra cool.

    Dave

    Always looking for original, better date VF20-VF35 Barber quarters and halves, and a quality beer.
  • lkeneficlkenefic Posts: 8,544 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've been looking at a lot of 17xx dated coins, but the date I gravitate towards most is 1795... other dates are more unobtainium for me...

    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.
  • The_Dinosaur_ManThe_Dinosaur_Man Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭✭✭

    100 years before I was born, last year of the Seated Liberty Design and first year of New Orleans' return to minor silver coinage. There are a couple of New Orleans proofs for the dime and quarter out there too.

    The image is a screencap of a project I spent a few months researching and compiling, where I looked into what the U.S. Mint put out each year. Quite often I'll come across an individual asking what coins were made during which years, and the project answers that. And this thread, and everyone citing their favorite coin year, really reminds me of that.

    Here's the project, and you can navigate to any year that you like. https://coinsandstamps.com/www.collect1.coinsandstamps.com/uscoins/Coins_by_the_Year/coinsByYearIndex.php#1891

    Custom album maker and numismatic photographer.
    Need a personalized album made? Design it on the website below and I'll build it for you.
    https://www.donahuenumismatics.com/.

  • crazyhounddogcrazyhounddog Posts: 14,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My mother’s birth year, 1921.

    The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
  • coinnutcoinnut Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭✭✭

    1839
    1793

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,776 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ColonelJessup said:
    I always suggest to beginning collectors that they start with an 1816 year set. Easy to complete, :#

    I'll go with 1792, 1916 next

    I don’t dare look. Is there an 1816 registry set option?😄

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • pocketpiececommemspocketpiececommems Posts: 6,046 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have always liked the date design of the 1938 Jefferson nickel

  • 1northcoin1northcoin Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 13, 2021 4:12PM

    Looks like 1849 and1850 haven't been claimed yet.

    How many years get to have a whole numismatic book written about them? :)

    There is so much history tied with the 1849 and 1850 coinages given their association with the emergence of the American West and its included gold discoveries.

    My 1850

  • ɹoʇɔǝlloɔɹoʇɔǝlloɔ Posts: 1,436 ✭✭✭✭✭

    whatever the current year is

  • 1northcoin1northcoin Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It merits adding with regard to the 1849 $20 in the Smithsonian, Moran and Garrett wrote in their book "1849" (at page 185) that this singular coin is "The undisputed king of the U.S. Mint Cabinet, which became the National Numismatic Collection, owes its rarity as a single coin to its unsuitability for mass production. Its relief would not sufficiently coin up. Yet the design clearly had merit; with subsequent adjustments to lower the relief of the obverse, it would take its place within the circulating specie of the realm and become an icon of newfound U.S. economic wealth."

    Given its provenance tying it back to having been in the personal collection of its designer James B. Longacre, this 1850 may well have been the first of the above referenced "circulating specie" to have been minted:

  • WeissWeiss Posts: 9,942 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Numismatically the answer is 1883. You could do a whole collection off of the 1883 coinage. I know: I tried.

    We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last.
    --Severian the Lame
  • BaleyBaley Posts: 22,663 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In my type set, several years are represented by 3 or more denominations, 1795, 1805, 1812, 1838, 1855, 1867. but if I had to pick a favorite year and just collect that one, it would probably be 1797.

    Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry

  • 1northcoin1northcoin Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Cool!

Leave a Comment

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