@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.
That's your prerogative. If we were to do that, there would certainly be less to talk about - like which coins are "collectible"? All of them. Which have "value"? All of them. Which copper coins are "RD"? None of them. Edited to add: I suppose there are some "RD" colorized coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Very simple. It's collectible when I want to add it to my collection. Pops have nothing to do with it.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
@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.
"What's the minimum required population of a particular coin for you to consider it "collectible"?"
Maybe you both can be right... Mark did use the word "consider" in his original statement. I guess that allows us to let go of the literal sense of the word for this discussion. I also think Mark and many of the posts agree that in a broader sense affordability and obtainability are a real consideration for most.
@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.
We're back to semantics. There are currently no 1913 liberty nickels available for sale. It seems silly, however, to say that such coins are not "worthy of being collected" which is one definition of collectible.
If you are going to substitute obtainable as the definition for collectible, you could then label every currently owned coin as not collectible.
It's a useless semantic argument which is obscuring the actual question that prompted this thread: how many obtainable examples should there be before a coin is considered to be part of a complete set or a registry set.
We are all collecting coins. Yes? So any coin that any of us have collected must be collectable. They only requirement is that somebody wants it for their collection. Could be 20 million pop it doesn't matter.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@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.
We're back to semantics. There are currently no 1913 liberty nickels available for sale. It seems silly, however, to say that such coins are not "worthy of being collected" which is one definition of collectible.
If you are going to substitute obtainable as the definition for collectible, you could then label every currently owned coin as not collectible.
It's a useless semantic argument which is obscuring the actual question that prompted this thread: how many obtainable examples should there be before a coin is considered to be part of a complete set or a registry set.
Speaking of semantics, please define "obtainable" in such a way that everyone would agree?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If everyone gets to have their own definition of what "collectible" means they how are you going to come to a conclusion here? Or is that the point of the discussion, no conclusion?
If I can own something, then it is collectible. My son has some baseball cards that are 1 of 1 (mentioned by others). Does that mean he can't consider himself a "collector"?
To be collectible, there needs to be only one inexistence of the item to be collected. To each their own, but I think analyzing population reports for the collector to decide what to collect is a waste of time and energy. One should pick a series of interest and collect that series with vigor and enthusiasm in the grade or grades desire, population reports be darned.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@pcgscacgold said:
If everyone gets to have their own definition of what "collectible" means they how are you going to come to a conclusion here? Or is that the point of the discussion, no conclusion?
If I can own something, then it is collectible. My son has some baseball cards that are 1 of 1 (mentioned by others). Does that mean he can't consider himself a "collector"?
I was curious about what "collectible" means to different people. There's a far greater variance than I'd anticipated.
If your son's a collector, he's a collector. It doesn't matter which cards he has.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@mr1874 said:
To be collectible, there needs to be only one inexistence of the item to be collected. To each their own, but I think analyzing population reports for the collector to decide what to collect is a waste of time and energy. One should pick a series of interest and collect that series with vigor and enthusiasm in the grade or grades desire, population reports be darned.
Knowledgeable collectors do this. Others, not so much if at all. I agree with you but many will not knowingly choose a series if they consider it too hard to buy.
My primary interest is a non-US series. It's four denominations from two different mints with about 100 coins. To most US collectors, it's effectively not "collectible".
Recently (the last few years), I have seen two mostly complete sets at auction (maybe 80% complete) but virtually none were in a quality anyone here will want. Not a single "high quality" numerical grade eligible coin. Overwhelmingly, heavily worn with surface issues or some damage. In US coinage, it's most comparable to Liberty Seated but noticeably scarcer most of the time.
Is it literally collectible? Yes
Is it practical to complete in any "reasonable" timeframe? No, it isn't.
I've bought most of my coins at auction, a few on eBay and a few from a handful of dealers. Most of the other coins I know exist (about 100 for all date/mint/denominations) meeting my quality standards, I have never seen for sale in over 10 years of diligent search. An unknown additional number out there that aren't common knowledge but price level inhibits availability.
I was curious about what "collectible" means to different people. There's a far greater variance than I'd anticipated.
It's a good topic.
It's my inference that it isn't uncommon for collectors to choose an area of interest that they either can't actually afford or become discouraged by lack of (affordable) supply.
I'm going to be generic in answering. Probably no less than 3,000 examples. For me I want to see an active market with several per year, typically, being exchanged. I like a healthy market and not one so slim than the buyer pool is nearly non-existent.
bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
For the purposes of registry set collecting I think the number of 100 seems reasonable, at that level many collectors will have an opportunity to acquire one. However even at that number some will be shut out due to cost. I consider this largely a moot point though as those who have very low pop coins; say under 5: want those coins listed in a registry set definition as that is a big factor in keeping the prices very high.
If you are not addressing this to registry sets then really the number does not matter as even a one of one can be considered collectable in the general sense.
@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.
Since everything is collectible, I've decided to collect statues and monuments. The Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty are at the head of my wantlist! Wish me luck in their acquisition. Imagine how impressed folks will be at my future BBQs!
Also, humans can fly! Literally, every living animal can fly, we/they just have to flap harder!
@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.
Not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if a coin with a population that is too high thus not considered a collectible? Or too low that it is too difficult to acquire?
@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.
Not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if a coin with a population that is too high thus not considered a collectible? Or too low that it is too difficult to acquire?
Initially, I was trying to ask something along the lines of the second question you mentioned above. But now that you brought up your first question, too, if you feel like doing so, how would you answer each of them?
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" and I choose to apply the word more sparingly.
We're back to semantics. There are currently no 1913 liberty nickels available for sale. It seems silly, however, to say that such coins are not "worthy of being collected" which is one definition of collectible.
If you are going to substitute obtainable as the definition for collectible, you could then label every currently owned coin as not collectible.
It's a useless semantic argument which is obscuring the actual question that prompted this thread: how many obtainable examples should there be before a coin is considered to be part of a complete set or a registry set.
Speaking of semantics, please define "obtainable" in such a way that everyone would agree?
Lol. Others have argued that museum pieces are unobtainable.
I'm still confused.
When I looked and some of the other members came back with an answer of "1" or some other ridiculous low number I counted myself out.
I collect Two Cent Pieces, are my coins still "collectible" with all of the coins minted?
I'm definitely not a condition rarity person, and if that was the case I would not collect at all.
I'm to poor to collect the coins that I can't afford.
Does that answer your question Mark?
@Raybo said:
I'm still confused.
When I looked and some of the other members came back with an answer of "1" or some other ridiculous low number I counted myself out.
I collect Two Cent Pieces, are my coins still "collectible" with all of the coins minted?
I'm definitely not a condition rarity person, and if that was the case I would not collect at all.
I'm to poor to collect the coins that I can't afford.
Does that answer your question Mark?
Yes, it does, thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Raybo said:
I'm still confused.
When I looked and some of the other members came back with an answer of "1" or some other ridiculous low number I counted myself out.
I collect Two Cent Pieces, are my coins still "collectible" with all of the coins minted?
I'm definitely not a condition rarity person, and if that was the case I would not collect at all.
I'm to poor to collect the coins that I can't afford.
Does that answer your question Mark?
Yes, it does, thank you.
Thanks for your answer Mark, your question did throw me off big time.
I believe Sheldon had some number in mind for his “NC” varieties but I don’t what it is. But in any case number extant may be less relevant than availability. 1804 dollars don’t have a large mintage but they seem to come up for sale about once a year so I would say they are fairly easily collectable. By contrast some minor varieties or 19th century proof dates likely have more survivors but they only arise for sale once a decade as there’s not the same financial incentive to sell.
High pop is not a deal breaker to me if I can buy it right or move it quickly. Certainly I like low pop material and constantly seek it out. Collectible is a subjective concept varying between individuals. For example If I win a MS 70 PCGS Silver Panda or Eagle for $15 - $20 over melt that’s good enough for me regardless of pop. I have many graded coins and notes with single digit pops many of them top pop. However if I can’t get what I want for them that does me no good.
Look at how slabbed generic dollars (high pop) have increased.
Per Mark Feld:
Initially, I was trying to ask something along the lines of the second question you mentioned above. But now that you brought up your first question, too, if you feel like doing so, how would you answer each of them
Reply:
Any older coin including the ones of low value such as wheat reverse lincoln cent would now be considered as a collectible especially if found in circulation. Not a collectible as far as buying or selling but a collectible as far as the purposeful “hunt” or accidental find.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, while most collectors would consider the pop 1 coin as not being a collectible even sitting in a museum there usually is one collector that dares to dream of acquiring such coin. It is not necessarily an affordability issue but possibly an unobtainable issue by reputation or common knowledge such as a census report. To that collector who dares to dream, such coin is considered a collectible while others think he or she is nuts.
Setting aside the debate of the meanings of words to the point of sophistry,... my answer is generally a surviving population of around 18-200 pieces extant, in all conditions. R7 and R8 coins are called extremely rare and unique or nearly so for good reason
@Baley said:
Setting aside the debate of the meanings of words to the point of sophistry,... my answer is generally a surviving population of around 18-200 pieces extant, in all conditions. R7 and R8 coins are called extremely rare and unique or nearly so for good reason
I interpreted collectible to be primarily whether the coins are available to be bought.
The number in existence is one factor.
Collector preference is another, as it impacts the holding period and the frequency it is placed for sale. Coins with a (very) high preference are (much) harder to buy than those with a low(er) one.
The price is another. Scarce or rare coins of (roughly) equivalent scarcity are frequently (much) harder to buy if the price is "low". There isn't as much incentive to sell it. This is the primary reason expensive US coins are easier to buy than comparably scarce non-US.
A post above mentions the 1804 dollar. It's rare but contrary to the apparent consensus among US collectors, I don't believe the preference is as high as generally believed. Same for the 1913 LHN. If it is, then it shouldn't be available as often since I presume the buyers can almost always afford to keep it. The average holding periods for both are (a lot) lower than other much cheaper coins.
@Baley said:
Setting aside the debate of the meanings of words to the point of sophistry,... my answer is generally a surviving population of around 18-200 pieces extant, in all conditions. R7 and R8 coins are called extremely rare and unique or nearly so for good reason
I interpreted collectible to be primarily whether the coins are available to be bought.
Exactly, so was I.
I don't consider coins in museums, or that cost a million dollars, or are so rare but have no appreciable demand, to be generally "collectable"
And on the other hand, coins with a mintage of half a billion, but "this is the pop 1 only coin in "in this certain slab with that sticker and the other pedigree and and wow autographed radar serial number certificate" to be widely or generally "collectible" either, although of course some do.
Speaking for me as a mid range collector of 200+ year old UScoins, R3 to R6 is the sweetest spot, I'm lucky enough to have a couple R7s and of course also have many R1s with pops above 1000.
Setting aside the debate of the meanings of words to the point of sophistry,... my answer is generally a surviving population of around 18-200 pieces extant, in all conditions. R7 and R8 coins are called extremely rare and unique or nearly so for good reason
I do not look at the population of a numismatic object to deem it as a "collectible".
It's when a numismatic object gains my interest or I see its historic value then my "urge" to collect a particular numismatic object arises.
Examples of my interest. My dad collected Morgan and Peace silver dollars, and this sparked my initial interest to coin collecting. My interest changed to DMPL Morgan dollars after being bitten by the bug when Uncle Same stationed me in the "big sky country". It then jumped to draped bust half dollars with heraldic eagle reverse. Then to Humbert $50 slugs and so on and so forth.
I'm currently a thematic collector of historic numismatic objects. Examples of historic value: King Kalakaua coronation medals, Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy appreciation medals, and POTUS gifts of US Mint coins and medals.
Why do I collect these numismatic objects? These numismatic object are tied to an important: person, a specific time/period, and/or event.
It's also opens up a new realm of numismatic coin/medal collecting, owning sets of historic numismatic artifacts. In my case: Kingdom of Hawaii coronation of their last King, US Mint medals made specifically for use by sitting US Presidents as an discretionary award/gift, and US Mint coins and medals gifted by a sitting POTUS.
A few examples in my collection
King Kalakaua Coronation Medal
President Eisenhower Class 2 Appreciation Medals
(Who remembers that the 1960 Paris Summit failed due to a US spy plane was shot down in the USSR airspace? This also caused a number of these unissued medals to be sent back to the US for destruction) .
President Nixon gift of a 1971-S uncirculated Eisenhower silver dollar
(An unsung first day of issue)
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
It all depends, but to think it's collectable only based solely on it's population is kind of silly.
I think usually of a potentially collectable item as at least 50. Why? I'm not sure.
I also think it's nice to be collecting in the top 100 extant for the issue (either by date/mint or main variety/attribution), so maybe the number is north of 100.
Based on those definitions, is the 1913 Liberty Nickel or 1894-S Barber Dime a collectable? Not really. But either would surely be a highlight of the collection in which the resided.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
@pursuitofliberty said:
It all depends, but to think it's collectable only based solely on it's population is kind of silly.
I think usually of a potentially collectable item as at least 50. Why? I'm not sure.
I also think it's nice to be collecting in the top 100 extant for the issue (either by date/mint or main variety/attribution), so maybe the number is north of 100.
Based on those definitions, is the 1913 Liberty Nickel or 1894-S Barber Dime a collectable? Not really. But either would surely be a highlight of the collection in which the resided.
I think @tradedollarnut and @ianrussell would argue the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1894-S Barber Dime are collectable
@pursuitofliberty said:
It all depends, but to think it's collectable only based solely on it's population is kind of silly.
I think usually of a potentially collectable item as at least 50. Why? I'm not sure.
I also think it's nice to be collecting in the top 100 extant for the issue (either by date/mint or main variety/attribution), so maybe the number is north of 100.
Based on those definitions, is the 1913 Liberty Nickel or 1894-S Barber Dime a collectable? Not really. But either would surely be a highlight of the collection in which the resided.
Don't confuse collectable with affordable. Two different things.
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
Clearly my post did not ring through. Being (or servicing) a serious collector who collects the finest known and and rarest pieces of popular collectables like rare coins helps make all pieces of numismatics collectable (to one extent or the other).
Without the whole, they would be much less collectable, to the point of potentially obscure.
To wit, to me at least, it must have enough of a population to gain "collectable exposure". Certainly there are smaller numbers than 50 that could be used, but usually they are part of a greater whole.
For example, original paintings are unique, although usually there are enough by the artist to reach a following where there can become a group of collectors of the artist.
.
@PerryHall said:
Don't confuse collectable with affordable. Two different things.
I don't think I did. But if everything about collecting was for the ultra wealthy buyers only, the collectable ability would not be what it is today, and 99% of us wouldn't or couldn't participate.
Collectable exposure requires some greater participation, and numismatics in particular is benefitted from a much greater mass participation than many collectables.
If it was only the 1894-S issue, and no other Barber Dimes of any type, date or mint ... they would still be collectable, but I bet they would have a MUCH smaller audience, and therefore much less of "collector exposure" and following.
Just like if there was only one Rembrandt. He probably wouldn't even be famous.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Clearly my post did not ring through. Being (or servicing) a serious collector who collects the finest known and and rarest pieces of popular collectables like rare coins helps make all pieces of numismatics collectable (to one extent or the other).
It did ring through but it seems like you may be changing your meaning? You specifically mentioned the following:
@pursuitofliberty said:
Based on those definitions, is the 1913 Liberty Nickel or 1894-S Barber Dime a collectable? Not really.
Are you saying the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1894-S Barber Dime are collectable now?
Without the whole, they would be much less collectable, to the point of potentially obscure.
To wit, to me at least, it must have enough of a population to gain "collectable exposure". Certainly there are smaller numbers than 50 that could be used, but usually they are part of a greater whole.
For example, original paintings are unique, although usually there are enough by the artist to reach a following where there can become a group of collectors of the artist.
@PerryHall said:
Don't confuse collectable with affordable. Two different things.
I don't think I did. But if everything about collecting was for the ultra wealthy buyers only, the collectable ability would not be what it is today, and 99% of us wouldn't or couldn't participate.
Collectable exposure requires some greater participation, and numismatics in particular is benefitted from a much greater mass participation than many collectables.
If it was only the 1894-S issue, and no other Barber Dimes of any type, date or mint ... they would still be collectable, but I bet they would have a MUCH smaller audience, and therefore much less of "collector exposure" and following.
Just like if there was only one Rembrandt. He probably wouldn't even be famous.
To me the "whole" for Mark's thread here could be "U.S. coins". There are quite a few examples of unique coins and patterns that are collectable because they were issued by the U.S. Mint, and there happen to be collectors for U.S. Mint issues.
The interesting thing about ultra rare, expensive coins, is that they can trade hands often, so they may actually be "more collectable" than less expensive coins that are put away, if collectable means opportunity for ownership.
For example, check out how many people are in the Eliasberg 1913 Liberty Head Nickel pedigree in the following thread:
Comments
That's your prerogative. If we were to do that, there would certainly be less to talk about - like which coins are "collectible"? All of them. Which have "value"? All of them. Which copper coins are "RD"? None of them. Edited to add: I suppose there are some "RD" colorized coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As I'm mostly an old gold collector, I'll agree with @Boosibri with 50 as a minimum...otherwise the price is most likely out of my reach...
Very simple. It's collectible when I want to add it to my collection. Pops have nothing to do with it.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
"What's the minimum required population of a particular coin for you to consider it "collectible"?"
Maybe you both can be right... Mark did use the word "consider" in his original statement. I guess that allows us to let go of the literal sense of the word for this discussion. I also think Mark and many of the posts agree that in a broader sense affordability and obtainability are a real consideration for most.
We're back to semantics. There are currently no 1913 liberty nickels available for sale. It seems silly, however, to say that such coins are not "worthy of being collected" which is one definition of collectible.
If you are going to substitute obtainable as the definition for collectible, you could then label every currently owned coin as not collectible.
It's a useless semantic argument which is obscuring the actual question that prompted this thread: how many obtainable examples should there be before a coin is considered to be part of a complete set or a registry set.
We are all collecting coins. Yes? So any coin that any of us have collected must be collectable. They only requirement is that somebody wants it for their collection. Could be 20 million pop it doesn't matter.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Speaking of semantics, please define "obtainable" in such a way that everyone would agree?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If everyone gets to have their own definition of what "collectible" means they how are you going to come to a conclusion here? Or is that the point of the discussion, no conclusion?
If I can own something, then it is collectible. My son has some baseball cards that are 1 of 1 (mentioned by others). Does that mean he can't consider himself a "collector"?
Successful BST with drddm, BustDMs, Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
To be collectible, there needs to be only one inexistence of the item to be collected. To each their own, but I think analyzing population reports for the collector to decide what to collect is a waste of time and energy. One should pick a series of interest and collect that series with vigor and enthusiasm in the grade or grades desire, population reports be darned.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I was curious about what "collectible" means to different people. There's a far greater variance than I'd anticipated.
If your son's a collector, he's a collector. It doesn't matter which cards he has.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Knowledgeable collectors do this. Others, not so much if at all. I agree with you but many will not knowingly choose a series if they consider it too hard to buy.
My primary interest is a non-US series. It's four denominations from two different mints with about 100 coins. To most US collectors, it's effectively not "collectible".
Recently (the last few years), I have seen two mostly complete sets at auction (maybe 80% complete) but virtually none were in a quality anyone here will want. Not a single "high quality" numerical grade eligible coin. Overwhelmingly, heavily worn with surface issues or some damage. In US coinage, it's most comparable to Liberty Seated but noticeably scarcer most of the time.
Is it literally collectible? Yes
Is it practical to complete in any "reasonable" timeframe? No, it isn't.
I've bought most of my coins at auction, a few on eBay and a few from a handful of dealers. Most of the other coins I know exist (about 100 for all date/mint/denominations) meeting my quality standards, I have never seen for sale in over 10 years of diligent search. An unknown additional number out there that aren't common knowledge but price level inhibits availability.
It's a good topic.
It's my inference that it isn't uncommon for collectors to choose an area of interest that they either can't actually afford or become discouraged by lack of (affordable) supply.
I would add that the population reports, even flawed as they are, might serve as somewhat of a guide for what NOT to collect.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I'm going to be generic in answering. Probably no less than 3,000 examples. For me I want to see an active market with several per year, typically, being exchanged. I like a healthy market and not one so slim than the buyer pool is nearly non-existent.
bob
For the purposes of registry set collecting I think the number of 100 seems reasonable, at that level many collectors will have an opportunity to acquire one. However even at that number some will be shut out due to cost. I consider this largely a moot point though as those who have very low pop coins; say under 5: want those coins listed in a registry set definition as that is a big factor in keeping the prices very high.
If you are not addressing this to registry sets then really the number does not matter as even a one of one can be considered collectable in the general sense.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Since everything is collectible, I've decided to collect statues and monuments. The Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty are at the head of my wantlist! Wish me luck in their acquisition. Imagine how impressed folks will be at my future BBQs!
Also, humans can fly! Literally, every living animal can fly, we/they just have to flap harder!
Not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if a coin with a population that is too high thus not considered a collectible? Or too low that it is too difficult to acquire?
Initially, I was trying to ask something along the lines of the second question you mentioned above. But now that you brought up your first question, too, if you feel like doing so, how would you answer each of them?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Lol. Others have argued that museum pieces are unobtainable.
I'm still confused.
When I looked and some of the other members came back with an answer of "1" or some other ridiculous low number I counted myself out.
I collect Two Cent Pieces, are my coins still "collectible" with all of the coins minted?
I'm definitely not a condition rarity person, and if that was the case I would not collect at all.
I'm to poor to collect the coins that I can't afford.
Does that answer your question Mark?
Yes, it does, thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks for your answer Mark, your question did throw me off big time.
I believe Sheldon had some number in mind for his “NC” varieties but I don’t what it is. But in any case number extant may be less relevant than availability. 1804 dollars don’t have a large mintage but they seem to come up for sale about once a year so I would say they are fairly easily collectable. By contrast some minor varieties or 19th century proof dates likely have more survivors but they only arise for sale once a decade as there’s not the same financial incentive to sell.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
High pop is not a deal breaker to me if I can buy it right or move it quickly. Certainly I like low pop material and constantly seek it out. Collectible is a subjective concept varying between individuals. For example If I win a MS 70 PCGS Silver Panda or Eagle for $15 - $20 over melt that’s good enough for me regardless of pop. I have many graded coins and notes with single digit pops many of them top pop. However if I can’t get what I want for them that does me no good.
Look at how slabbed generic dollars (high pop) have increased.
Per Mark Feld:
Initially, I was trying to ask something along the lines of the second question you mentioned above. But now that you brought up your first question, too, if you feel like doing so, how would you answer each of them
Reply:
Any older coin including the ones of low value such as wheat reverse lincoln cent would now be considered as a collectible especially if found in circulation. Not a collectible as far as buying or selling but a collectible as far as the purposeful “hunt” or accidental find.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, while most collectors would consider the pop 1 coin as not being a collectible even sitting in a museum there usually is one collector that dares to dream of acquiring such coin. It is not necessarily an affordability issue but possibly an unobtainable issue by reputation or common knowledge such as a census report. To that collector who dares to dream, such coin is considered a collectible while others think he or she is nuts.
Setting aside the debate of the meanings of words to the point of sophistry,... my answer is generally a surviving population of around 18-200 pieces extant, in all conditions. R7 and R8 coins are called extremely rare and unique or nearly so for good reason
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I interpreted collectible to be primarily whether the coins are available to be bought.
The number in existence is one factor.
Collector preference is another, as it impacts the holding period and the frequency it is placed for sale. Coins with a (very) high preference are (much) harder to buy than those with a low(er) one.
The price is another. Scarce or rare coins of (roughly) equivalent scarcity are frequently (much) harder to buy if the price is "low". There isn't as much incentive to sell it. This is the primary reason expensive US coins are easier to buy than comparably scarce non-US.
A post above mentions the 1804 dollar. It's rare but contrary to the apparent consensus among US collectors, I don't believe the preference is as high as generally believed. Same for the 1913 LHN. If it is, then it shouldn't be available as often since I presume the buyers can almost always afford to keep it. The average holding periods for both are (a lot) lower than other much cheaper coins.
Exactly, so was I.
I don't consider coins in museums, or that cost a million dollars, or are so rare but have no appreciable demand, to be generally "collectable"
And on the other hand, coins with a mintage of half a billion, but "this is the pop 1 only coin in "in this certain slab with that sticker and the other pedigree and and wow autographed radar serial number certificate" to be widely or generally "collectible" either, although of course some do.
Speaking for me as a mid range collector of 200+ year old UScoins, R3 to R6 is the sweetest spot, I'm lucky enough to have a couple R7s and of course also have many R1s with pops above 1000.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Baley said:
https://thoughtco.com/sophistry-definition-1691974
I do not look at the population of a numismatic object to deem it as a "collectible".
It's when a numismatic object gains my interest or I see its historic value then my "urge" to collect a particular numismatic object arises.
Examples of my interest. My dad collected Morgan and Peace silver dollars, and this sparked my initial interest to coin collecting. My interest changed to DMPL Morgan dollars after being bitten by the bug when Uncle Same stationed me in the "big sky country". It then jumped to draped bust half dollars with heraldic eagle reverse. Then to Humbert $50 slugs and so on and so forth.
I used the term historic AND NOT historical in describing value. See this definition/differences. https://thoughtco.com/historic-and-historical-1689568#:~:text=1%20%E2%80%9CHistorical%22%20has%20more%20letters%20than%20%22historic%2C%22%20just,3%20%E2%80%9CHistorical%E2%80%9D%20ends%20with%20the%20letter%20L.%20
I'm currently a thematic collector of historic numismatic objects. Examples of historic value: King Kalakaua coronation medals, Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy appreciation medals, and POTUS gifts of US Mint coins and medals.
Why do I collect these numismatic objects? These numismatic object are tied to an important: person, a specific time/period, and/or event.
It's also opens up a new realm of numismatic coin/medal collecting, owning sets of historic numismatic artifacts. In my case: Kingdom of Hawaii coronation of their last King, US Mint medals made specifically for use by sitting US Presidents as an discretionary award/gift, and US Mint coins and medals gifted by a sitting POTUS.
A few examples in my collection
King Kalakaua Coronation Medal
President Eisenhower Class 2 Appreciation Medals
(Who remembers that the 1960 Paris Summit failed due to a US spy plane was shot down in the USSR airspace? This also caused a number of these unissued medals to be sent back to the US for destruction) .
President Nixon gift of a 1971-S uncirculated Eisenhower silver dollar
(An unsung first day of issue)
I need to say one, especially if it's for aliens
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1073986/if-aliens-are-watching-us-from-space-they-must-think-error-coins-are-more-common-than-non-errors#latest
Three (3)
Any coin is collectable by someone.
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
Here are two unique, collectible coins
Of course, if 3 is the magic number, there's always this one these three
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1056628/i-really-really-really-like-ike-3-piece-eisenhower-dollar-sells-for-over-100-000/p1
It all depends, but to think it's collectable only based solely on it's population is kind of silly.
I think usually of a potentially collectable item as at least 50. Why? I'm not sure.
I also think it's nice to be collecting in the top 100 extant for the issue (either by date/mint or main variety/attribution), so maybe the number is north of 100.
Based on those definitions, is the 1913 Liberty Nickel or 1894-S Barber Dime a collectable? Not really. But either would surely be a highlight of the collection in which the resided.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
I think @tradedollarnut and @ianrussell would argue the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1894-S Barber Dime are collectable
Don't confuse collectable with affordable. Two different things.
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
Clearly my post did not ring through. Being (or servicing) a serious collector who collects the finest known and and rarest pieces of popular collectables like rare coins helps make all pieces of numismatics collectable (to one extent or the other).
Without the whole, they would be much less collectable, to the point of potentially obscure.
To wit, to me at least, it must have enough of a population to gain "collectable exposure". Certainly there are smaller numbers than 50 that could be used, but usually they are part of a greater whole.
For example, original paintings are unique, although usually there are enough by the artist to reach a following where there can become a group of collectors of the artist.
.
I don't think I did. But if everything about collecting was for the ultra wealthy buyers only, the collectable ability would not be what it is today, and 99% of us wouldn't or couldn't participate.
Collectable exposure requires some greater participation, and numismatics in particular is benefitted from a much greater mass participation than many collectables.
If it was only the 1894-S issue, and no other Barber Dimes of any type, date or mint ... they would still be collectable, but I bet they would have a MUCH smaller audience, and therefore much less of "collector exposure" and following.
Just like if there was only one Rembrandt. He probably wouldn't even be famous.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
It did ring through but it seems like you may be changing your meaning? You specifically mentioned the following:
Are you saying the 1913 Liberty Nickel and 1894-S Barber Dime are collectable now?
To me the "whole" for Mark's thread here could be "U.S. coins". There are quite a few examples of unique coins and patterns that are collectable because they were issued by the U.S. Mint, and there happen to be collectors for U.S. Mint issues.
I guees it all depends upon your budget!!
The interesting thing about ultra rare, expensive coins, is that they can trade hands often, so they may actually be "more collectable" than less expensive coins that are put away, if collectable means opportunity for ownership.
For example, check out how many people are in the Eliasberg 1913 Liberty Head Nickel pedigree in the following thread:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1040148/1913-liberty-nickel-pedigrees
With varieties, I would find it doubtful that only "one" exists. However, I have the only 1887-S 10C F-119 PCGS attributed.
PUP: the flag of the 1 within the shield lines, below the R of LIBERTY.
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,...