Do Lesser Condition Pieces Harm the Pedigree?

Zoins

We've heard some perspectives that say having lesser quality pieces in a collection harms the reputation of the collection, but I'm wondering how true this is.

For example, the following collections have lesser quality pieces with associated pedigree, but they are still considered top quality collections.

• Eric Pfeiffer Newman
• Louis Edward Eliasberg, Sr.
• Roy Edgar (Ted) Naftzger, Jr.

How much "greater" would these collections be considered if the lower condition pieces weren't associated with the pedigree. And if there is a reputation change, would it be material or not?

jmlanzaf

Depends on whether higher quality pieces were available. It also depends on whether you're talking about the core collection.

If Eliasberg had a bag of circulated wheat cents, that has no bearing on the reputation of the core collection. On the other hand, if his Lincoln run had an XF 1919 cent and an XF 1941, for example, it would make his collection appear sloppy or haphazard.

Pittman has a ton of widgets. He liked coins and collected the world. That hardly undermines his accomplishment in any way.

Project Numismatics

I think collections with a lot of problem coins hurts the pedigree - which doesn’t apply to your three examples. I can think of several pedigreed collections in either PCGS or NGC holders that I actively avoid because so many of the coins are cleaned or messed with or have very low eye appeal. Conversely, there are also pedigrees I actively seek because the collector clearly had a discriminating eye and the coins are top quality for the grade.

cameonut2011

Unless the majority of the coins are lackluster, widgets, or dreck, most collectors are remembered for the trophy coins, keys, and other stand outs. Does anyone really care or think about Eliasberg’s common date wheat cents? No.

cameonut2011

Also think of it this way: It is easy to remove a coin from a collection. It is not always easy to add the right coin for a well matched set.

shorecoll

For some specialty collections, many known examples are problem coins...so it's a trade-off.

Broadstruck

They all formed their collections prior to the internet and had to make greater exceptions on locating some examples.

PerryHall

Eliasberg had a couple of original rolls of 1883 No Cents nickels. When his collection was auctioned, some dealer bought them as a lot and had each one slabbed with the Eliasberg name on the label and marketed them to those who wanted a coin from this famous collection.

Lakesammman

I tried the same thing with low grade large cents from Eliasberg - turns out no one wanted low grade common large cents in spite of the provenance.

MrEureka

@cameonut2011 said:
Unless the majority of the coins are lackluster, widgets, or dreck, most collectors are remembered for the trophy coins, keys, and other stand outs. Does anyone really care or think about Eliasberg’s common date wheat cents? No.

That’s probably right for a lot of people. But the more coins you see from a collection, especially if you’ve seen them in hand, the more your impression of a collector can change.

keets

some perspectives that say having lesser quality pieces in a collection harms the reputation of the collection

I don't know if that's true, but adding lower quality pieces to my collection places me on a slippery slope, making it easier to add other lower quality pieces. for that reason I resist the temptation as much as I can. to me, it makes more sense to do without, exercise a little patience and enjoy what I already have vs. buying lower quality to own something I'll eventually be unsatisfied with in the end. I don't know how other collectors feel, but that's me in a nutshell. less can be more.

burfle23

Interesting question; I certainly do not think less of some of these giants of the Hobby having a piece or two down at my level ; actually how I afforded an example for my low grade ("slippery slope")set:

Pioneer1

@keets said:

I don't know if that's true, but adding lower quality pieces to my collection places me on a slippery slope, making it easier to add other lower quality pieces. for that reason I resist the temptation as much as I can. to me, it makes more sense to do without, exercise a little patience and enjoy what I already have vs. buying lower quality to own something I'll eventually be unsatisfied with in the end. I don't know how other collectors feel, but that's me in a nutshell. less can be more.

I collect exonumia (so-called dollars (SCDs), medals, and tokens). When discussing this subject in that area of collecting, I think "exercise a little patience" will work for some medals and not for others. Some SCDs are "once in a lifetime" buys, and others are every decade, and a lot are every month. Of course, once something sells for a good price, other collectors might want to sell a piece to try to cash in. There are tons of common Exonumia pieces of course.

What I have been doing is upgrading when I can, but the prices as of late have skyrocketed, so if I "set a new record" buying something, what will by duplicate sell for ? The problem is my duplicate could be dreck. So.... is is better NEVER to have bought the problem coin to begin with ?? That's an interesting question. My textbook answer is NO, DON'T buy it as it probably won't sell well. Of course, one can play the "submit and crackout" games on the problem coin. In the end, is a worn coin something with character ? Maybe, but it seems finding the right home for it is the question.

Another entirely different argument is to own multiple examples of something. If I buy a rare SCD, and then a better one comes on the market, and I buy it, why sell the problem coin? Just keep buying the exact same thing and you don't lose, right ? .... but then no one else gets the chance to own it, and there becomes no market for it. Maybe donate the problem coin to a museum for a tax write-off ? Is that a thing ?

keets

you present some interesting points.

currently, I only collect SC$'s and other Exposition/Fair medals. I don't subscribe to the notion of buying something now because I may never see it again, everything eventually shows up. to that end, I've been looking for some medals for 20+ years, seen an example or two and rejected them. my available capital is limited and so is my time to collect, so I tend to buy things I'm looking for in grades I've determined I'll settle on. I don't have any desire to own duplicates when I can just as readily buy something I don't have rather than another that I do, and I also don't see any reason to buy something that is lower grade than what I really appreciate. I have already made those mistakes in the past. perhaps I have arrived at a point where I don't think I need to have something just because I don't already have it.

whatever a collector's thinking on these matters, I believe it's a point they should figure out sooner rather than later.