In my likely worthless opinion I feel, maybe, the question was posed in more of a collectible numismatic set context. I "assume" this because of the reference to PCGS/NGC populations, not manufactured quantity.
"If" I am correct in my assumption then mintage is irrelevant. Additionally so is cost, as that is just a personal limiting factor.
In my opinion, which is rooted in the well being of the hobby and business of numismatics above all else, I feel something like minimum of 8 or 10 "bona-fied" examples of any coin or variety thereof should be available in order to be part of any non-specifically special, published competitive set. If a coin or variety there of is below these numbers and part of a "special" set and more are discovered then the item is removed from the special set and included in the parent set. Everyone wins.
After all, should not the goal of all collectors and the business of numismatics be, above all else, to invite and increase participation? This is the food that feeds every single sector of both the hobby and business.
But, certainly there are many professionals in this numismatic game far wiser than I am!
@SmEagle1795 said:
Minimum: I try to keep track of who owns which coins to know if they're unlikely to come back to market.
Maximum: If there are ~100 suitable examples of a type, I probably won't buy that coin unless it is truly superb. The opportunity cost is too great as I could instead wait around for a rarer coin which represented a more unique opportunity.
Being a Type and Variety collector, as long as there is one available, I would consider it collectable. Unless there is documentation which could prove otherwise of being ultra-rare, like the 1849 Double Eagle, and it can be found outside the mint, I would consider it to be collectable.
I have a couple of coin varieties that have a population of one, in PCGS holders, but that does not mean it is unique, just the first one attributed.
I am not sure if this scale is accurate, but anything below URS-2 should be considered collectable, if it was released officially by the mint.
Universal Rarity Scale
Number of Coins
URS-1 1 known, unique
URS-2 2 known
URS-3 3 or 4 known
URS-4 5 to 8 known
URS-5 9 to 16 known
URS-6 17 to 32 known
URS-7 33 to 64 known
URS-8 65 to 125 known
URS-9 125 to 250 known
URS-10 251 to 500 known
URS-11 501 to 1,000 known
URS-12 1,001 to 2,000 known
URS-13 2,001 to 4,000 known
URS-14 4,001 to 8,000 known
URS-15 8,001 to 16,000 known
URS-16 16,001 to 32,000 known
URS-17 32,001 to 65,000 known
URS-18 65,001 to 125,000 known
URS-19 125,001 to 250,000 known
URS-20 250,001 to 500,000 known
Is the Mona Lisa not collectible because she is unique?
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because she is a person, and also dead.
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because it is owned by the Louvre.
Class dismissed.
You're confusing collectible with acquire-able. Art is collectible, but some art is pretty much unacquire-able. The presence of a "stopper" in a series is something of a turn-off for me. There aren't any "stoppers" in the Walker series if you're satisfied with having some in lower grades.
So you want to define a painting (Mona Lisa) that has zero chance of being made available in anybody's lifetime as "collectible". Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
It seems difficult to know if an item is truly unique or just how rare it is. Unique items are very collectible. A large portion of fine art deals in almost exclusively unique items. It's all your frame of reference. If you collect in an area with a lot of unique items, then you will just have to define your collection in more general terms because you never know what will be available. You have to give yourself a wide swath of unique items to pursue.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
To me, it's all collectable but the question is - is it attainable for the average collector? Capped bust halves are my favorite series, but I consider the 1817/4 and the 1839 Small Letters as unobtainable by the average collector (me included), each have only a handful known. I'll always be 2 short of completing the Major Varieties registry set because of this.
If more get found, then bring them on!
What's your definition of "average collector"?
I ask because by mine, I don't think more than a relatively low percentage can "comfortably afford" (subjective I know) the full set even by date. The 1807, 1815, 1836 RE, and 1839-O are above most collectors price points even in average circulated grades like VF.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
To me, it's all collectable but the question is - is it attainable for the average collector? Capped bust halves are my favorite series, but I consider the 1817/4 and the 1839 Small Letters as unobtainable by the average collector (me included), each have only a handful known. I'll always be 2 short of completing the Major Varieties registry set because of this.
If more get found, then bring them on!
What's your definition of "average collector"?
I ask because by mine, I don't think more than a relatively low percentage can "comfortably afford" (subjective I know) the full set even by date. The 1807, 1815, 1836 RE, and 1839-O are above most collectors price points even in average circulated grades like VF.
Average collector on this forum is different.
Yeah, an "average collector" here is different than out on Facebook or a coin club for sure. When I was a younger collector, coins like the 1909-S VDB were way out of range, now I have 2 of them. As for the bust halves, I'm very fortunate to have the 1815/2 and the 1839-O. I do keep watch for the bearded goddess 1807, 1812/1 large 8, 1830 large letters and the 1836 RE, I want to be choosy (and have the money) when I take the plunge. While scarce, all of the coins are attainable within reason. I don't put the 1817/4 or 1839 small letters in the same category.
A solid wallet doesn't hurt, but even that may not help if you want to own something like the 1817/4.
I think, but may be thinking of something else, that the question was based on "What should the minimum population of a coin be in order to be included in a registry set?"
That is much different than to collect. Every note is unique by serial number. I think anything is collectible. Not by all, but by at least one.
When the 6th edition of the "Cherry Pickers" guide came out, it included the 1906 FS-801 DDR Liberty Nickel.
The text stated it was a recent discovery and at the time of printing was unique. When I first tried to get them to add the slot in the registry, they said they would not as it was unique. (I had 2 at that time, and the one in the Cherry Pickers guide was graded by PCGS as well).
I then waited until I got one graded and was then able to add it. So, it would seem PCGS will not allow unique coins into regular registry sets. (Now super specific sets, like the Top 100, they have unique and unobtainable coins listed as required)
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Isn't it nice to see (regular) Registry Set metrics dictate what collectors should collect? Just like coin albums and the Red Book. Sheeple, follow me.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
@gumby1234 said:
It all comes down to supply and demand. If there is only 1 example but nobody wants it then the collectability of that coin is zero. If there are 10000 but 50000 people want it then its highly collectable.
This is a great point. For example, I own both of these Top Pop coins and there were less than five graded the last time I checked yet I couldn't give it away on the BST. Rare? Yes. Collectible? Apparently not.
The population is only one factor for me. I am interested in anything that has a great story surrounding it. Even if it's common, if it has a great story that interests me, I will collect 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 ... ?
@gumby1234 said:
It all comes down to supply and demand. If there is only 1 example but nobody wants it then the collectability of that coin is zero. If there are 10000 but 50000 people want it then its highly collectable.
This is a great point. For example, I own both of these Top Pop coins and there were less than five graded the last time I checked yet I couldn't give it away on the BST. Rare? Yes. Collectible? Apparently not.
If you're giving it away, I would certainly collect it.
Is the Mona Lisa not collectible because she is unique?
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because she is a person, and also dead.
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because it is owned by the Louvre.
Class dismissed.
You're confusing collectible with acquire-able. Art is collectible, but some art is pretty much unacquire-able. The presence of a "stopper" in a series is something of a turn-off for me. There aren't any "stoppers" in the Walker series if you're satisfied with having some in lower grades.
So you want to define a painting (Mona Lisa) that has zero chance of being made available in anybody's lifetime as "collectible". Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
col·lect·i·ble
/kəˈlektəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of an item) worth collecting; of interest to a collector.
"his books became increasingly collectible classics"
2.
able to be collected.
"a surplus collectible as rent by the landowner"
noun
an item valued and sought by collectors.
"the auction attracted professional dealers trading in quality small collectables"
Is the Mona Lisa "worth collecting"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "able to be collected"? No
Is the Mona Lisa "an item valued....by collectors"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "an item...sought by collectors"? Maybe
@gumby1234 said:
It all comes down to supply and demand. If there is only 1 example but nobody wants it then the collectability of that coin is zero. If there are 10000 but 50000 people want it then its highly collectable.
This is a great point. For example, I own both of these Top Pop coins and there were less than five graded the last time I checked yet I couldn't give it away on the BST. Rare? Yes. Collectible? Apparently not.
If you're giving it away, I would certainly collect it.
Lol - OK, that was a figure of speech. I believe the final asking price was $150 for the package, much less than I had into it and not a single nibble:
For me it's a combination of population and demand because those two things establish pricing and pricing is what can ultimately shut the door on whether something is collectable.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Is the Mona Lisa not collectible because she is unique?
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because she is a person, and also dead.
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because it is owned by the Louvre.
Class dismissed.
You're confusing collectible with acquire-able. Art is collectible, but some art is pretty much unacquire-able. The presence of a "stopper" in a series is something of a turn-off for me. There aren't any "stoppers" in the Walker series if you're satisfied with having some in lower grades.
So you want to define a painting (Mona Lisa) that has zero chance of being made available in anybody's lifetime as "collectible". Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
col·lect·i·ble
/kəˈlektəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of an item) worth collecting; of interest to a collector.
"his books became increasingly collectible classics"
2.
able to be collected.
"a surplus collectible as rent by the landowner"
noun
an item valued and sought by collectors.
"the auction attracted professional dealers trading in quality small collectables"
Is the Mona Lisa "worth collecting"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "able to be collected"? No
Is the Mona Lisa "an item valued....by collectors"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "an item...sought by collectors"? Maybe
Class dismissed
The tedium of your "arguments" is exceeded only by their irrelevance here. The entire premise of the thread would make no sense if one simply declares that anything rare and of value is de facto "collectible".
I think to answer Mark’s original question it depends on the subset of collectors vying for the coins. I would answer the question as someone else basically posed “will the average collector be able to obtain this coin in a reasonable amount of time”. So for a Whitman folder one might not even include a spot (or mark it “RARE”) for something like a 1916 SLQ given that the vast majority of such collectors will not get one. For a registry set of SLQs, I suspect many will get (or at least try to get) the 1916 so it makes sense to include it. Extending further, for a top 100 coins registry, anything that is publicly available seems fair game (that would exclude anything currently in a museum). For the generic registry I think 10 is a reasonable number and I like the idea of an elite superset that includes those coins while the main ones don’t.
@jmlanzaf said:
col·lect·i·ble
/kəˈlektəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of an item) worth collecting; of interest to a collector.
"his books became increasingly collectible classics"
2.
able to be collected.
"a surplus collectible as rent by the landowner"
noun
an item valued and sought by collectors.
"the auction attracted professional dealers trading in quality small collectables"
Is the Mona Lisa "worth collecting"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "able to be collected"? No
Is the Mona Lisa "an item valued....by collectors"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "an item...sought by collectors"? Maybe
Class dismissed
The Mona Lisa can't be collected. However, works Leonardo DaVinci are able to be collected. The Mona Lisa is a work by Leonardo DaVinci. Therefore the Monica Lisa can be collected and cannot be collected.
Is the Mona Lisa not collectible because she is unique?
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because she is a person, and also dead.
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because it is owned by the Louvre.
Class dismissed.
You're confusing collectible with acquire-able. Art is collectible, but some art is pretty much unacquire-able. The presence of a "stopper" in a series is something of a turn-off for me. There aren't any "stoppers" in the Walker series if you're satisfied with having some in lower grades.
So you want to define a painting (Mona Lisa) that has zero chance of being made available in anybody's lifetime as "collectible". Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
col·lect·i·ble
/kəˈlektəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of an item) worth collecting; of interest to a collector.
"his books became increasingly collectible classics"
2.
able to be collected.
"a surplus collectible as rent by the landowner"
noun
an item valued and sought by collectors.
"the auction attracted professional dealers trading in quality small collectables"
Is the Mona Lisa "worth collecting"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "able to be collected"? No
Is the Mona Lisa "an item valued....by collectors"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "an item...sought by collectors"? Maybe
Class dismissed
The tedium of your "arguments" is exceeded only by their irrelevance here. The entire premise of the thread would make no sense if one simply declares that anything rare and of value is de facto "collectible".
You're the one who picked the nit...er argument complaining that I said Mona Lisa instead of 1933 DE. Even more tedious and irrelevant, you picked an argument over my referring to a painting as a "she" rather than "it".
You're looking in the mirror, buddy. How do you like the look?
Mark, as I avoid registry set material, my biggest problem is finding what interests me, rather than its pops. As an example, it took me eight years to find an acceptable Heraldic Eagle Bust $ in AU with original skin. And that was with help from someone you know. It took about as long to find a nice Capped Bust Half in MS 64. Ditto re an MS 65 Coronet Head Large Cent. I can usually find a particular series, denomination and date of a coin I am looking for. One I like is a different story.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
What I would like to collect in some cases has a NGC/PCGS population of 0, because not all R-8 rarity Overton and Bass-Dannreuther varieties are included. Some unique varieties have never been slabbed.
Realistically, I collect through R-6 rarity die marriages (13-30 known all conditions), as the R-7 and R-8's get expensive. I ignore the NGC/PCGS pops on these because many were graded without attribution service, so instead of inflated numbers for varieties the TPG's actually show less on the pops because variety attribution is a fairly recent development and not all submitters want to pay $18 for an Overton number on the slab.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Is the Mona Lisa not collectible because she is unique?
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because she is a person, and also dead.
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because it is owned by the Louvre.
Class dismissed.
You're confusing collectible with acquire-able. Art is collectible, but some art is pretty much unacquire-able. The presence of a "stopper" in a series is something of a turn-off for me. There aren't any "stoppers" in the Walker series if you're satisfied with having some in lower grades.
So you want to define a painting (Mona Lisa) that has zero chance of being made available in anybody's lifetime as "collectible". Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
col·lect·i·ble
/kəˈlektəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of an item) worth collecting; of interest to a collector.
"his books became increasingly collectible classics"
2.
able to be collected.
"a surplus collectible as rent by the landowner"
noun
an item valued and sought by collectors.
"the auction attracted professional dealers trading in quality small collectables"
Is the Mona Lisa "worth collecting"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "able to be collected"? No
Is the Mona Lisa "an item valued....by collectors"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "an item...sought by collectors"? Maybe
Class dismissed
The tedium of your "arguments" is exceeded only by their irrelevance here. The entire premise of the thread would make no sense if one simply declares that anything rare and of value is de facto "collectible".
You're the one who picked the nit...er argument complaining that I said Mona Lisa instead of 1933 DE. Even more tedious and irrelevant, you picked an argument over my referring to a painting as a "she" rather than "it".
You're looking in the mirror, buddy. How do you like the look?
Is the Mona Lisa not collectible because she is unique?
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because she is a person, and also dead.
The Mona Lisa is not collectible because it is owned by the Louvre.
Class dismissed.
You're confusing collectible with acquire-able. Art is collectible, but some art is pretty much unacquire-able. The presence of a "stopper" in a series is something of a turn-off for me. There aren't any "stoppers" in the Walker series if you're satisfied with having some in lower grades.
So you want to define a painting (Mona Lisa) that has zero chance of being made available in anybody's lifetime as "collectible". Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
col·lect·i·ble
/kəˈlektəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of an item) worth collecting; of interest to a collector.
"his books became increasingly collectible classics"
2.
able to be collected.
"a surplus collectible as rent by the landowner"
noun
an item valued and sought by collectors.
"the auction attracted professional dealers trading in quality small collectables"
Is the Mona Lisa "worth collecting"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "able to be collected"? No
Is the Mona Lisa "an item valued....by collectors"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "an item...sought by collectors"? Maybe
Class dismissed
The tedium of your "arguments" is exceeded only by their irrelevance here. The entire premise of the thread would make no sense if one simply declares that anything rare and of value is de facto "collectible".
You're the one who picked the nit...er argument complaining that I said Mona Lisa instead of 1933 DE. Even more tedious and irrelevant, you picked an argument over my referring to a painting as a "she" rather than "it".
You're looking in the mirror, buddy. How do you like the look?
Probably better than you do......... LOL!
What a handsome fella! I hear he likes coins, too.
@MFeld said:
This topic came up in another thread yesterday and I'm curious about what others think. Please base your answer upon the combined PCGS/NGC population, with the understanding that the population numbers can be inflated, due to resubmissions.
Did you mean maximum? I’ve owned coins pop 1 in all grades so there is no real minimum.
In the context of NC large cents, the concept is whether the variety would be obtainable by several collectors.
Whether it should be included in a "completable set".
This seems valid.
We know that PCGS Registry Sets often exclude unique or extremely rare coins from the set definition,
like the 1870-s half dime and the 1876-CC 20c.
I feel the quantity is around 4.
Of course, the related question is how confident you are about the population estimate.
@MFeld said:
This topic came up in another thread yesterday and I'm curious about what others think. Please base your answer upon the combined PCGS/NGC population, with the understanding that the population numbers can be inflated, due to resubmissions.
Did you mean maximum? I’ve owned coins pop 1 in all grades so there is no real minimum.
No, I meant minimum. I don’t think of coins that are pop 1 for all grades combined, as being collectible. But after seeing many of the replies here, I see that different can people have very different ideas regarding the meaning of “collectible”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A rule of thumb for created collectibles (without regard to coins) has been suggested to me as 500 or less. In other words, "limited editions" of say 2,000 are not exactly "collectible."
While commems and recent U.S. Mint issues would qualify as "created collectibles" this rule of thumb would appear to have less applicability to say historic high relief Saints and other coins from the past.
Sadly, I've turned my focus to early pre-1840 patterns and pre-1840 silver proofs. In the early Judd numbers up to about 110, I would venture that around 30% ofvthe patterns have only one or two available and not uncommonly, one in private hands and one in a museum. The ultimate noncollectible is one known only in a museum. So few collectors try to put sets together, although historically a few brave or foolhardy souls have assembled pretty cool early pattern sets including Partrick's 1792 patterns and Simpson's pre-1840 portion of his astounding pattern set most recently.
As further example of this labor of love in the wilderness is Capped Bust Proof Quarters. Four proof quarters are unique in private hands: 1818, 1820 small O, 1823/2 and 1824/2. So little or no choices whatsoever when building the set. Uncollectable - yes indubitably - i call that misguided adventure the "Mission Impossible Set".
But there is some good news. Interestingly, some noncollectible coins are not very expensive, certainly compared to there rarity and historic significance, as no one is really looking much for them. And you don't need to lock horns trying to buy a MS68 FB mercury dime with ferocious competition and perilous auction fever.
Low pop is nice, but is the next rarer thing a person who cares? A coin with high pop like the 09SVDB is very collectible because there are more that one reason collectors value it, like childhood desire, good story, hole filler, dealer promotion to name a few. That may hold, may not, as the currently large collector base that sees it as “magic” retires from life. Mix that example with condition rarity and unique toning and something can become more “collectible”. If nobody knows about something or isn’t taught why it’s special, well, that coin will be holding its own hand at the beach.
Populations grow larger and collector interest changes. Marketing moves interest, fickle trend followers get pickier and move the scale, there are economic factors that can influence pricing. Instead of looking at one population number to decide, one has to keep their eye on a fast moving ball. With a few exceptions, Specialists prevail.
All coins that exist are collectable. Don't confuse "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable". A unique coin impounded in a museum is theoretically collectable even though it is currently unobtainable. Or maybe I just don't understand the English language.
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
@PerryHall said:
All coins that exist are collectable. Don't confuse "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable". A unique coin impounded in a museum is theoretically collectable even though it is currently unobtainable. Or maybe I just don't understand the English language.
I don’t think I’m confusing "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable. I believe that they’re interrelated and that if a given coin isn’t affordable, or obtainable, its collectibility is impacted. As an example, sure, a unique coin in a museum might become available for sale someday. But unless or until it does, I don’t consider it collectible. And if a coin is so rare and/or valuable that the potential number of buyers is minuscule, I don’t really consider it collectible, either.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PerryHall said:
All coins that exist are collectable. Don't confuse "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable". A unique coin impounded in a museum is theoretically collectable even though it is currently unobtainable. Or maybe I just don't understand the English language.
I don’t think I’m confusing "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable. I believe that they’re interrelated and that if a given coin isn’t affordable, or obtainable, its collectibility is impacted. As an example, sure, a unique coin in a museum might become available for sale someday. But unless or until it does, I don’t consider it collectible. And if a coin is so rare and/or valuable that the potential number of buyers is minuscule, I don’t really consider it collectible, either.
A coin may not be collectable by YOU but it is still collectable.
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
@PerryHall said:
All coins that exist are collectable. Don't confuse "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable". A unique coin impounded in a museum is theoretically collectable even though it is currently unobtainable. Or maybe I just don't understand the English language.
I don’t think I’m confusing "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable. I believe that they’re interrelated and that if a given coin isn’t affordable, or obtainable, its collectibility is impacted. As an example, sure, a unique coin in a museum might become available for sale someday. But unless or until it does, I don’t consider it collectible. And if a coin is so rare and/or valuable that the potential number of buyers is minuscule, I don’t really consider it collectible, either.
A coin may not be collectable by YOU but it is still collectable.
Literally, that's true. But using that line of reasoning, every coin and every thing could be considered "collectible" and I choose to apply the word more sparingly.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PerryHall said:
All coins that exist are collectable. Don't confuse "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable". A unique coin impounded in a museum is theoretically collectable even though it is currently unobtainable. Or maybe I just don't understand the English language.
I don’t think I’m confusing "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable. I believe that they’re interrelated and that if a given coin isn’t affordable, or obtainable, its collectibility is impacted. As an example, sure, a unique coin in a museum might become available for sale someday. But unless or until it does, I don’t consider it collectible. And if a coin is so rare and/or valuable that the potential number of buyers is minuscule, I don’t really consider it collectible, either.
A coin may not be collectable by YOU but it is still collectable.
Literally, that's true. But using that line of reasoning, every coin and every thing could be considered "collectible"......
Bingo! I think the meaning of words should be taken literally.
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
Comments
It is interesting the direction threads can go!
In my likely worthless opinion I feel, maybe, the question was posed in more of a collectible numismatic set context. I "assume" this because of the reference to PCGS/NGC populations, not manufactured quantity.
"If" I am correct in my assumption then mintage is irrelevant. Additionally so is cost, as that is just a personal limiting factor.
In my opinion, which is rooted in the well being of the hobby and business of numismatics above all else, I feel something like minimum of 8 or 10 "bona-fied" examples of any coin or variety thereof should be available in order to be part of any non-specifically special, published competitive set. If a coin or variety there of is below these numbers and part of a "special" set and more are discovered then the item is removed from the special set and included in the parent set. Everyone wins.
After all, should not the goal of all collectors and the business of numismatics be, above all else, to invite and increase participation? This is the food that feeds every single sector of both the hobby and business.
But, certainly there are many professionals in this numismatic game far wiser than I am!
Fully agree
Latin American Collection
Being a Type and Variety collector, as long as there is one available, I would consider it collectable. Unless there is documentation which could prove otherwise of being ultra-rare, like the 1849 Double Eagle, and it can be found outside the mint, I would consider it to be collectable.
I have a couple of coin varieties that have a population of one, in PCGS holders, but that does not mean it is unique, just the first one attributed.
I am not sure if this scale is accurate, but anything below URS-2 should be considered collectable, if it was released officially by the mint.
Universal Rarity Scale
Number of Coins
URS-1 1 known, unique
URS-2 2 known
URS-3 3 or 4 known
URS-4 5 to 8 known
URS-5 9 to 16 known
URS-6 17 to 32 known
URS-7 33 to 64 known
URS-8 65 to 125 known
URS-9 125 to 250 known
URS-10 251 to 500 known
URS-11 501 to 1,000 known
URS-12 1,001 to 2,000 known
URS-13 2,001 to 4,000 known
URS-14 4,001 to 8,000 known
URS-15 8,001 to 16,000 known
URS-16 16,001 to 32,000 known
URS-17 32,001 to 65,000 known
URS-18 65,001 to 125,000 known
URS-19 125,001 to 250,000 known
URS-20 250,001 to 500,000 known
https://www.providentmetals.com/knowledge-center/collectible-coins/universal-rarity-scale.html#:~:text= Universal Rarity Scale ,to 8 known 16 more rows
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
So you want to define a painting (Mona Lisa) that has zero chance of being made available in anybody's lifetime as "collectible". Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
It just needs to exist. Even if only one person can collect it, it's still collectible.
I don't want to collect unique items - too much drama.
So I am more interested in coins that have a minimum of at least 100 or so pieces.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
ONE!
Being unique is special
It seems difficult to know if an item is truly unique or just how rare it is. Unique items are very collectible. A large portion of fine art deals in almost exclusively unique items. It's all your frame of reference. If you collect in an area with a lot of unique items, then you will just have to define your collection in more general terms because you never know what will be available. You have to give yourself a wide swath of unique items to pursue.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
What's your definition of "average collector"?
I ask because by mine, I don't think more than a relatively low percentage can "comfortably afford" (subjective I know) the full set even by date. The 1807, 1815, 1836 RE, and 1839-O are above most collectors price points even in average circulated grades like VF.
Average collector on this forum is different.
Maybe ten. But ultimately it comes down to cost.
Yeah, an "average collector" here is different than out on Facebook or a coin club for sure. When I was a younger collector, coins like the 1909-S VDB were way out of range, now I have 2 of them. As for the bust halves, I'm very fortunate to have the 1815/2 and the 1839-O. I do keep watch for the bearded goddess 1807, 1812/1 large 8, 1830 large letters and the 1836 RE, I want to be choosy (and have the money) when I take the plunge. While scarce, all of the coins are attainable within reason. I don't put the 1817/4 or 1839 small letters in the same category.
A solid wallet doesn't hurt, but even that may not help if you want to own something like the 1817/4.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
The lower the population the better.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
In the world of sports cards 1/1 cards are very collectable.
I think, but may be thinking of something else, that the question was based on "What should the minimum population of a coin be in order to be included in a registry set?"
That is much different than to collect. Every note is unique by serial number. I think anything is collectible. Not by all, but by at least one.
When the 6th edition of the "Cherry Pickers" guide came out, it included the 1906 FS-801 DDR Liberty Nickel.
The text stated it was a recent discovery and at the time of printing was unique. When I first tried to get them to add the slot in the registry, they said they would not as it was unique. (I had 2 at that time, and the one in the Cherry Pickers guide was graded by PCGS as well).
I then waited until I got one graded and was then able to add it. So, it would seem PCGS will not allow unique coins into regular registry sets. (Now super specific sets, like the Top 100, they have unique and unobtainable coins listed as required)
Isn't it nice to see (regular) Registry Set metrics dictate what collectors should collect? Just like coin albums and the Red Book. Sheeple, follow me.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Are you talking about a card that's literally, unique, or just the top graded example of one?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The answer, obviously, is 42.
The question, as we have seen in this thread already, is obviously much harder to pin down.
This is a great point. For example, I own both of these Top Pop coins and there were less than five graded the last time I checked yet I couldn't give it away on the BST. Rare? Yes. Collectible? Apparently not.
I like coins with 125 or less known survivors. They're usually somewhat affordable, but not easily found...
My YouTube Channel
The population is only one factor for me. I am interested in anything that has a great story surrounding it. Even if it's common, if it has a great story that interests me, I will collect it.
What is so exciting about the error coin field is that all major error coin collections have unique coins with a population of one.
Adds to the coolness factor
This is one of the main reasons I have always believed that major error coins are way, way undervalued .
If you're giving it away, I would certainly collect it.
col·lect·i·ble
/kəˈlektəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of an item) worth collecting; of interest to a collector.
"his books became increasingly collectible classics"
2.
able to be collected.
"a surplus collectible as rent by the landowner"
noun
an item valued and sought by collectors.
"the auction attracted professional dealers trading in quality small collectables"
Is the Mona Lisa "worth collecting"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "able to be collected"? No
Is the Mona Lisa "an item valued....by collectors"? Yes
Is the Mona Lisa "an item...sought by collectors"? Maybe
Class dismissed
Lol - OK, that was a figure of speech. I believe the final asking price was $150 for the package, much less than I had into it and not a single nibble:
For me it's a combination of population and demand because those two things establish pricing and pricing is what can ultimately shut the door on whether something is collectable.
The tedium of your "arguments" is exceeded only by their irrelevance here. The entire premise of the thread would make no sense if one simply declares that anything rare and of value is de facto "collectible".
I think to answer Mark’s original question it depends on the subset of collectors vying for the coins. I would answer the question as someone else basically posed “will the average collector be able to obtain this coin in a reasonable amount of time”. So for a Whitman folder one might not even include a spot (or mark it “RARE”) for something like a 1916 SLQ given that the vast majority of such collectors will not get one. For a registry set of SLQs, I suspect many will get (or at least try to get) the 1916 so it makes sense to include it. Extending further, for a top 100 coins registry, anything that is publicly available seems fair game (that would exclude anything currently in a museum). For the generic registry I think 10 is a reasonable number and I like the idea of an elite superset that includes those coins while the main ones don’t.
The Mona Lisa can't be collected. However, works Leonardo DaVinci are able to be collected. The Mona Lisa is a work by Leonardo DaVinci. Therefore the Monica Lisa can be collected and cannot be collected.
Your class was not sufficiently thorough.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
400 thousand or less.
You're the one who picked the nit...er argument complaining that I said Mona Lisa instead of 1933 DE. Even more tedious and irrelevant, you picked an argument over my referring to a painting as a "she" rather than "it".
You're looking in the mirror, buddy. How do you like the look?
.
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All Of Us
ANA LM
LSCC
EAC
FUN
Mark, as I avoid registry set material, my biggest problem is finding what interests me, rather than its pops. As an example, it took me eight years to find an acceptable Heraldic Eagle Bust $ in AU with original skin. And that was with help from someone you know. It took about as long to find a nice Capped Bust Half in MS 64. Ditto re an MS 65 Coronet Head Large Cent. I can usually find a particular series, denomination and date of a coin I am looking for. One I like is a different story.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
What I would like to collect in some cases has a NGC/PCGS population of 0, because not all R-8 rarity Overton and Bass-Dannreuther varieties are included. Some unique varieties have never been slabbed.
Realistically, I collect through R-6 rarity die marriages (13-30 known all conditions), as the R-7 and R-8's get expensive. I ignore the NGC/PCGS pops on these because many were graded without attribution service, so instead of inflated numbers for varieties the TPG's actually show less on the pops because variety attribution is a fairly recent development and not all submitters want to pay $18 for an Overton number on the slab.
Probably better than you do......... LOL!
What a handsome fella! I hear he likes coins, too.
I'll go with the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
.
.
.
.
Of course, I do own a few items that have mintages that are much, much lower . . .
Z
Busy chasing Carr's . . . . . woof!
Successful BST transactions with: Bullsitter, Downtown1974, P0CKETCHANGE, Twobitcollector, AKbeez, DCW, Illini420, ProofCollection, DCarr, Cazkaboom, RichieURich, LukeMarshall, carew4me, BustDMs, coinsarefun, PreTurb, felinfoal, jwitten, GoldenEgg, pruebas, lazybones, COCollector, CuKevin, MWallace, USMC_6115, NamVet69, zippcity, . . . . who'd I forget?
Unique - one printed. There are hundreds of different 1/1 cards, but all are unique.
Thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Did you mean maximum? I’ve owned coins pop 1 in all grades so there is no real minimum.
In the context of NC large cents, the concept is whether the variety would be obtainable by several collectors.
Whether it should be included in a "completable set".
This seems valid.
We know that PCGS Registry Sets often exclude unique or extremely rare coins from the set definition,
like the 1870-s half dime and the 1876-CC 20c.
I feel the quantity is around 4.
Of course, the related question is how confident you are about the population estimate.
No, I meant minimum. I don’t think of coins that are pop 1 for all grades combined, as being collectible. But after seeing many of the replies here, I see that different can people have very different ideas regarding the meaning of “collectible”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A rule of thumb for created collectibles (without regard to coins) has been suggested to me as 500 or less. In other words, "limited editions" of say 2,000 are not exactly "collectible."
While commems and recent U.S. Mint issues would qualify as "created collectibles" this rule of thumb would appear to have less applicability to say historic high relief Saints and other coins from the past.
Sadly, I've turned my focus to early pre-1840 patterns and pre-1840 silver proofs. In the early Judd numbers up to about 110, I would venture that around 30% ofvthe patterns have only one or two available and not uncommonly, one in private hands and one in a museum. The ultimate noncollectible is one known only in a museum. So few collectors try to put sets together, although historically a few brave or foolhardy souls have assembled pretty cool early pattern sets including Partrick's 1792 patterns and Simpson's pre-1840 portion of his astounding pattern set most recently.
As further example of this labor of love in the wilderness is Capped Bust Proof Quarters. Four proof quarters are unique in private hands: 1818, 1820 small O, 1823/2 and 1824/2. So little or no choices whatsoever when building the set. Uncollectable - yes indubitably - i call that misguided adventure the "Mission Impossible Set".
But there is some good news. Interestingly, some noncollectible coins are not very expensive, certainly compared to there rarity and historic significance, as no one is really looking much for them. And you don't need to lock horns trying to buy a MS68 FB mercury dime with ferocious competition and perilous auction fever.
How I was taught to look at it….
Population vs collector base
Low pop is nice, but is the next rarer thing a person who cares? A coin with high pop like the 09SVDB is very collectible because there are more that one reason collectors value it, like childhood desire, good story, hole filler, dealer promotion to name a few. That may hold, may not, as the currently large collector base that sees it as “magic” retires from life. Mix that example with condition rarity and unique toning and something can become more “collectible”. If nobody knows about something or isn’t taught why it’s special, well, that coin will be holding its own hand at the beach.
Populations grow larger and collector interest changes. Marketing moves interest, fickle trend followers get pickier and move the scale, there are economic factors that can influence pricing. Instead of looking at one population number to decide, one has to keep their eye on a fast moving ball. With a few exceptions, Specialists prevail.
All coins that exist are collectable. Don't confuse "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable". A unique coin impounded in a museum is theoretically collectable even though it is currently unobtainable. Or maybe I just don't understand the English language.
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
“Everything that’s not uncollectible” makes sense.
I don’t think I’m confusing "collectable" with "obtainable" or "affordable. I believe that they’re interrelated and that if a given coin isn’t affordable, or obtainable, its collectibility is impacted. As an example, sure, a unique coin in a museum might become available for sale someday. But unless or until it does, I don’t consider it collectible. And if a coin is so rare and/or valuable that the potential number of buyers is minuscule, I don’t really consider it collectible, either.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A coin may not be collectable by YOU but it is still collectable.
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
Literally, that's true. But using that line of reasoning, every coin and every thing could be considered "collectible" and I choose to apply the word more sparingly.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Bingo! I think the meaning of words should be taken literally.
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