What Is Your Least Favorite Date In Your Collecting Series?

Manifest_Destiny

For me, it's the 1840-o No Drapery. The odd transitional design, short dentils, and narrow rims look strange compared to the other coins in the set. I love the New Orleans mint and should like their first quarter issue, but I just can't seem to develop an appreciations for it.

Zach98

If nothing else it still is a gorgeous example! They can’t all be favorites though!

fastfreddie

Maybe try the large O version at the right price. Do you collect varieties?

fastfreddie

I like mine.

For me it's business strikes from 1879-1890. I only go after business strikes. This range was mainly treated like proofs (saved and hoarded) I just can't garner that much interest. The only date I have in that range is an ANACS 1886 AU58.

alaura22

Series? I have many being mostly a type collector. With that said I think for my Lincolns it would be 1909 for sure. Still way over priced as far as I'm concerned. It would probably be the last coins I add to that set

Manifest_Destiny

@fastfreddie said:
Maybe try the large O version at the right price. Do you collect varieties?

I had that variety but sold it. I've narrowed things down to the 108 piece registry set. I did keep my 42-o small date though, and my 73 open 3.

epc

1846 half dime... To my knowledge, there are only three in mint state. All three have been available at auction over the last several years. I've been the under-bidder on two of them, and completely blown away on the other. So, I'm left with an AU55, the only non-MS in my registry set. Aside from that, I think the date digits are poorly done.

Crepidodera

For me it's the 1873-CC no arrows quarter. I'll never own an example and it shouldn't be included in the PCGS everyman Liberty Seated Quarter set.

Doug

alaura22

@Crepidodera said:
For me it's the 1873-CC no arrows quarter. I'll never own an example and it shouldn't be included in the PCGS everyman Liberty Seated Quarter set.

Doug

I agree with you but it' is a coin that is part of the set.
Like adding a 1792 dime to the Everyman type set, That's one coin that "everyman" will not own

Married2Coins

1955/55 1c because I'll never own one to finish my Lincoln's in VF-XF.

FlyingAl

1941. No Cameos.

PerryHall

1921 Morgan dollar
1904 Liberty double eagle
1924 St. Gaudens double eagle
1932 Indian eagle
1909-D Indian half eagle
All are extremely common. If you buy a "random date" gold coin from a major gold dealer, you will most likely get one of these dates.

coastaljerseyguy

For Morgans, agree 1921. Besides common, do not like the redesign, esp the reverse Eagle bug eye, breast feathers, and fat legs.

Walkerguy21D

The 38D walker.
It’s fairly common in all ms grades, but priced significantly higher than others that are scarcer.
And many examples have heavy die polish lines that are unappealing.

Catbert

Does not compute! I like'em all!

cladking

The '80-D is definitely an odd ball for me. The quarter which is my favorite series is very common in Gem so uninteresting while the half dollar is very scarce in Gem because it got shallow scrapes being placed in the mint set packaging. Curiously enough the dime which is very common in Gem is rare in superb Gem with FB. The SBA isn't too tough in high grade.

This makes '80-D one of my least favorite in every clad series. It's least favorite until I find a special one anyway.

Crepidodera

@alaura22 said:

@Crepidodera said:
For me it's the 1873-CC no arrows quarter. I'll never own an example and it shouldn't be included in the PCGS everyman Liberty Seated Quarter set.

Doug

I agree with you but it' is a coin that is part of the set.
Like adding a 1792 dime to the Everyman type set, That's one coin that "everyman" will not own

My point is that the 1873-CC no arrows quarter shouldn't be included in the everyman Liberty Seated Quarter set because there are 0 PCGS graded coins in the P1-AU58 grade range. For the 1792 half disme there are 80 grading events from P1-AU58 and certainly dozens of individual coins, so a dedicated collector could easily fill that slot if they had enough funds. The "everyman" moniker refers to a grade range, not affordability.

Doug

Manifest_Destiny

I don't consider the 73-cc NA quarter (5 known) to have been released for circulation and not necessary for a complete set. Same issue with the 73-cc NA dime (1 known) and 76-cc 20c (about 20 known).

For the dime, PCGS omits it altogether from the registry sets. For the 20c they have two registry sets, one with it and one without. They need to at least do the quarter set like the 20c set and have two different registry sets. There's no consistency with how they do these and it's annoying.

seatedlib3991

 My opinion is probably not the popular one, but the date I like least is 1853.  I collect all the Seated denominations and I hate 1853 for a number of reasons.  The first one, is that there are so many 1853 coins I think a vast number of people think of 1853 as the "poster child" of Seated coins.  I think this makes many people take this over crowded second serving of Seated coins as the only version.
 My favorite coins in all the Seated series are from the early years.   My all time favorites are the no star half dime and dime.  Plus I love the early "Julia Roberts" profile coins way more than the "Aunt Bee" from the Andy Griffith show figure.  I love the small letter half dollars from 39-42.
 Once upon a time I tried to make a list of ALL the dealers on the internet that offered Seated coins or claimed to have them in their inventory.  I found over 150 dealers, but here is the thing, over 120 offered only one date. 1853.  James

seatedlib3991

Anyone know why my posts appear in a weird box?

lermish

1884 and 1885. Unattainable proof trade dollars...the set will never truly be complete.

Fraz

@seatedlib3991 said:
Anyone know why my posts appear in a weird box?

When that happens you have to host a giveaway. It’s just a random thing.

I do not like the Lincoln twenty-two no D pock in my albums.

Walkerfan

I love ALL Walkers BUT I'm not a big fan of the 1917, 1943 & 1946 Philadelphia coins.

This is only because they are soo common.

Pnies20

1835. I don’t like the small date and letters and there are no rarities or interesting varieties.

Connecticoin

1935-D Buffalo Nickels, because most of then are horribly struck

yosclimber

@seatedlib3991 said:
Anyone know why my posts appear in a weird box?

It is because you started the first line with 5 spaces.
If you remove those spaces, it will look fine, although it will not have an indent.

The forum software uses something called Markdown format,
which is a way of formatting things like

• bullet list items (line starts with - )

and block quotes (line starts with > )

But often this yields unexpected results for users that do not know about Markdown, like:

1 list item (line started with # )

WAYNEAS

I am not looking to open up a new discussion here but being a Kennedy man, the 1964 SMS is my least favorite date coin as I will never own one in this lifetime or next. 😢
Wayne

logger7

The 1904 $20.

seatedlib3991

@yosclimber. thanks for that information. James

MapsOnFire

1835 half cent. Too many nice ones around, many of them pretty nice. Boooooooring!

Goldminers

2024

NeophyteNumismatist

1796 Half Cent - Impossible for me to afford anything more that an ugly lump of copper.

fastfreddie

...

lkenefic

Middle Date Large Cents... 1821 and 1823 are difficult to find nice but they're out there, just expensive. I had a particularly tough time finding a nice VF/XF 1825...

Morgan Dollars... I have a disdain for the 1921. There's just too damn many of them and the earlier dates yield better specimens for Type if you're not collecting the whole series...

Lincoln Cents... 1922 "Plain". I never understood why this was a hole in the Date/MM set. It's an error coin and not a regular issue. But, using the same logic, the 1955 DDO would fall into the same category and it's just a cool coin with a storied history.

OKbustchaser

1815...only 1 die marriage for the year and although considered scarce it is reasonably easily found in most grades if one has the funds.

Boring.

lkenefic

@NeophyteNumismatist said:
1796 Half Cent - Impossible for me to afford anything more that an ugly lump of copper.

I don't think there's ANY Liberty Cap Half Cent that's an easy score. I bought a scratched VG for my Type Set... yeah, I feel your pain...

DisneyFan

@lkenefic said:

Lincoln Cents... 1922 "Plain". I never understood why this was a hole in the Date/MM set. It's an error coin and not a regular issue. But, using the same logic, the 1955 DDO would fall into the same category and it's just a cool coin with a storied history.

Imagine back in the 1950's finding a Lincoln cent dated 1922 and there was no space for it in your coin folder.

DisneyFan

The 1913-S Barber quarter. In MS64 is the 20th scarcest Barber quarter and at $24,500 is the 3rd most expensive. Not that I will ever own one.

alaura22

I see "never" said a lot on these forums,
I'm the eternal optimist, never say never

alaura22

@yosclimber said:

@seatedlib3991 said:
Anyone know why my posts appear in a weird box?

It is because you started the first line with 5 spaces.
If you remove those spaces, it will look fine, although it will not have an indent.

The forum software uses something called Markdown format,
which is a way of formatting things like

• bullet list items (line starts with - )

and block quotes (line starts with > )

But often this yields unexpected results for users that do not know about Markdown, like:

1 list item (line started with # )

WOW
You have waaaayyyy to much time on your hands

yosclimber

.

@alaura22 said:

@yosclimber said:

@seatedlib3991 said:
Anyone know why my posts appear in a weird box?

It is because you started the first line with 5 spaces.
If you remove those spaces, it will look fine, although it will not have an indent.

The forum software uses something called Markdown format,
which is a way of formatting things like

• bullet list items (line starts with - )

and block quotes (line starts with > )

But often this yields unexpected results for users that do not know about Markdown, like:

1 list item (line started with # )

WOW
You have waaaayyyy to much time on your hands

Only if you think the 5 minutes that took was really needed on something else.

alaura22

Some people it takes 5 minutes, and some people it would take forever..................

willy

Hate that my Type set needs both 1907 $10 Indians. Rolled Edged and Wired Edge. Both coins are expensive. Besides needing a 1907 No Motto which is reasonable.

seatedlib3991

@yosclimber. All I can say is thanks again. Not sure why anyone would be bothered you helped someone with poor computer skills. however I have had people yell at me for holding a door open for them. go figure. James

Fairlaneman

1942/41 and 1916D Mercury dimes. Both over hyped and over priced for coins that are not rare.

Ken

BillJones

The 1802 half dime. I have been fascinated with the early half dimes since I was a YN in the 1960s. I have built a “Red Book” set since the 1970s. The 1802 is the last one, and it’s pretty much out of my reach now.

There was a VG that Northeast Numismatics offered for over a year. It didn’t sell because the asking price was too high by $20 to $30 thousand. Finally it was consigned to action where it sold for a fair price, but I was not in the position to buy it.

The only thing about the coin is that’s a rare date. It has no great story surrounding it, like the 1792 half disme. It’s just rare, expensive and unobtainable.

brianc1959

@Pnies20 said:
1835. I don’t like the small date and letters and there are no rarities or interesting varieties.

You've just insulted one of my chosen ones!
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/mint-sets/1835-mint-set-gold-major-varieties/album/170960
Now I'm going going to have a bad day for sure.

Pnies20

@brianc1959 said:

@Pnies20 said:
1835. I don’t like the small date and letters and there are no rarities or interesting varieties.

You've just insulted one of my chosen ones!
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/mint-sets/1835-mint-set-gold-major-varieties/album/170960
Now I'm going going to have a bad day for sure.

JUST KIDDING

I love the 1835. I was just jealous everyone else’s are nicer than mine.

BillJones

@lkenefic said:

Lincoln Cents... 1922 "Plain". I never understood why this was a hole in the Date/MM set. It's an error coin and not a regular issue. But, using the same logic, the 1955 DDO would fall into the same category and it's just a cool coin with a storied history.

The 1922 Plain Lincoln Cent is really a die state; it’s not an error coin. It’s made from worn die that was polished to help keep it going.

The 1955 doubled die is really a die variety. There was an error committed when the die was made, but the coin was struck as it should have been. Therefore it is not an error as coin collectors define them.

renomedphys

I’ll go with 1815. Insanely hard to find one cent coins in that date, Ive never even seen one that was worth a flip. 😜