Home U.S. Coin Forum

Would you include 1976 Bicentennial Coins in a Modern Commemorative Collection?

MWallaceMWallace Posts: 4,095 ✭✭✭✭✭

I have a collection of Classic and Modern Commemorative coins. I'm not looking to have complete sets. Basically I include in both sets coins that I personally like. However, it hit me the other day that the 1976 Bicentennial coins might be a nice edition to the modern set. I'd include the Quarter, Half, and Dollar only. They are however commemoratives. I wouldn't want to include, for example, a 1932 Washington Quarter. It is a commemorative but virtually the same design was used for 66 years.

Knowing this board, many people, and I wouldn't disagree, will say "Collect what you like". I'm looking to find out what YOU would do. Thank you for your participation.

Would you include 1976 Bicentennial Coins in a Modern Commemorative Collection?

Sign in to vote!
This is a private poll: no-one will see what you voted for.

Comments

  • JBKJBK Posts: 15,571 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here's my reasoning as to why they could be included...

    The Bicentennial designs were mandated for a two-year celebratory period, after which the coins' designs reverted to the previous ones.

  • Not. I’d draw the line at modern commemoratives released for circulation.

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,142 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I remember when they came out. They were intended as a commemorative coin. They are a commemorative coin. They are modern, so they are modern commemorative coins. Period.

    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 11,296 ✭✭✭✭✭

    These were minted for circulation, so for me I would not consider them as commemorative coins.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • JBKJBK Posts: 15,571 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 22, 2024 9:39AM

    I remember when Non-Circulating Legal Tender got no respect, but now circulating commemorative coins aren't considered legitimate collectibles by some people. 🤔

  • WCCWCC Posts: 2,571 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's legitimate to consider the bicentennials commemoratives. I still wouldn't include it.

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I voted no because I'd limit a collection like that to non circulating coins.

  • CopperindianCopperindian Posts: 1,449 ✭✭✭✭✭

    While they were intended as commemorative issues, many of them ended up being circulated. If not for that, I would have voted yes.

    “The thrill of the hunt never gets old”

    PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
    Copperindian

    Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
    Copperindian

  • MWallaceMWallace Posts: 4,095 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @usmnterorrs said:
    Not. I’d draw the line at modern commemoratives released for circulation.

    How about the silver and proof issues?

  • JBKJBK Posts: 15,571 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Copperindian said:
    While they were intended as commemorative issues, many of them ended up being circulated. If not for that, I would have voted yes.

    Almost all of them (the clad versions) were circulated. They were made for circulation.

    Some of the early commemorative half dollars also saw some or even a lot of circulation.

  • MWallaceMWallace Posts: 4,095 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JBK said:

    @Copperindian said:
    While they were intended as commemorative issues, many of them ended up being circulated. If not for that, I would have voted yes.

    Almost all of them (the clad versions) were circulated. They were made for circulation.

    Some of the early commemorative half dollars also saw some or even a lot of circulation.

    Probably the biggest example were Columbian Expo Halves.

  • lermishlermish Posts: 2,906 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MWallace said:

    @JBK said:

    @Copperindian said:
    While they were intended as commemorative issues, many of them ended up being circulated. If not for that, I would have voted yes.

    Almost all of them (the clad versions) were circulated. They were made for circulation.

    Some of the early commemorative half dollars also saw some or even a lot of circulation.

    Probably the biggest example were Columbian Expo Halves.

    Those are only halves, surely the Lafayette dollars were bigger?

    😉😂

  • Jacques_LoungecoqueJacques_Loungecoque Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It’s a tough one. Technically, most all coins were created with a commemoration in mind. Whether it be to commemorate the person, their birth, or death. That includes most, if not all, circulating coins. Most true commemoratives were/are issued as a one off, or at least were supposed to be.

    While I voted no, I don’t see anything wrong with including the silver-clad non-circulating issues. It’s always hard when assembling any kind of commemorative or type set to figure out where to draw the line. Good thing is you can always expand your parameters!

    Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.

  • MWallaceMWallace Posts: 4,095 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Jacques_Loungecoque said:
    It’s a tough one. Technically, most all coins were created with a commemoration in mind. Whether it be to commemorate the person, their birth, or death. That includes most, if not all, circulating coins. Most true commemoratives were/are issued as a one off, or at least were supposed to be.

    While I voted no, I don’t see anything wrong with including the silver-clad non-circulating issues. It’s always hard when assembling any kind of commemorative or type set to figure out where to draw the line. Good thing is you can always expand your parameters!

    I agree 100%. My opinion is what makes the bicentennial issues possibl onclusions in a modern commemorative set is that it was issued only two years. Commemoratives like the 1909 Lincoln 1c and 1932 Washington 25c designs were used for decades virtually unchanged.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,173 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 22, 2024 11:50AM

    Nope. As others have said, pretty much all coins commemorate something.

    To me, aside from the fact that these coins were intended to circulate, is the fact that they were not sold at a premium to benefit an organization, as all commemoratives going back to the Columbian Exhibition coins were. They circulated in the billions, just like every other coin of the respective denomination during the era.

    They were circulating coins with a bicentennial theme. They were not special coins commemorating the bicentennial, sold at a premium to benefit some bicentennial sponsoring organization.

    Whatever they are, they are not modern commemoratives in the same vein as the 2024 Harriett Tubman coins, and should not be lumped into the same category of coinage. Similarly, is anyone also thinking about considering 2009 Lincoln cents modern commemoratives?

  • @MWallace said:

    @usmnterorrs said:
    Not. I’d draw the line at modern commemoratives released for circulation.

    How about the silver and proof issues?

    Not saying the ‘76 Bicentennials don’t belong in the set. I’m just not crazy about the design and justifying me not having to include them. Same goes for Westward Nickels and Lincoln Bicentennial Cents.

  • OverdateOverdate Posts: 7,008 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Question for those who voted to include 1976 bicentennial coins in a modern commemorative collection:

    Would you include all state, ATB and American Women quarters in a modern commemorative collection?

    My Adolph A. Weinman signature :)

  • CRHer700CRHer700 Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, but only the 40% sets, not the clad ones that were basically just regular circulation coins.

    God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,173 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Overdate said:
    Question for those who voted to include 1976 bicentennial coins in a modern commemorative collection:

    Would you include all state, ATB and American Women quarters in a modern commemorative collection?

    Excellent point!!! Sorry I didn't think of it myself!! 😀

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,142 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Overdate said:
    Question for those who voted to include 1976 bicentennial coins in a modern commemorative collection:

    Would you include all state, ATB and American Women quarters in a modern commemorative collection?

    Don't forget the Lewis & Clark nickels and the Presidential dollars.

    And what about the 2016 gold dime, quarter and half whoziwhatsis!

    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • MWallaceMWallace Posts: 4,095 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thank you guys for all of the great opinions. I respect them all.

  • WCCWCC Posts: 2,571 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 22, 2024 1:25PM

    @NJCoin said:

    @Overdate said:
    Question for those who voted to include 1976 bicentennial coins in a modern commemorative collection:

    Would you include all state, ATB and American Women quarters in a modern commemorative collection?

    Excellent point!!! Sorry I didn't think of it myself!! 😀

    I see both commemorative series (modern and classic) as artificial. Yes, the coins were made to commemorate something and share denominations, but otherwise both are actually a random assortment of unrelated coins.

    This is evident in the relative popularity (actually preference) of both, where a very low proportion have a much higher preference and prices due to theme or design even where the mintage resembles others.

    Most collectors buy those they like and ignore the rest which is most. That's what I would do if I collected either.

  • MWallaceMWallace Posts: 4,095 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @WCC said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @Overdate said:

    Most collectors buy those they like and ignore the rest which is most. That's what I would do if I collected either.

    In the words of @CaptHenway , "I resemble that".

  • SapyxSapyx Posts: 2,205 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Most countries don't have this weird disconnect that America has between "circulating coins" and "commemorative coins".

    If a coin is issued specifically to commemorate a person or event, then by logical definition, it is a "commemorative coin", whether NCLT or not. Thus the Bicentennial coins are commemorative coins. For many years after 1976, the bicentennial coins stood alone as the only US "circulating commemoratives", so US collectors didn't really know how to classify them, but they have been joined in the current millennium by others: the four 2009 cent designs, and the 2004 and 2005 nickels. I would draw the line at the various post-1998 quarters, simply because they don't really commemorate anything other than "this state/park/whatever exists". The 2021 Crossing the Delaware quarter looks like it's a commemorative, as its entire design commemorates a specific historic event, so I would probably include it, even though a 245th anniversary is a rather odd number to issue a coin for.

    Thus, there are "circulating commemoratives" and "NCLT commemoratives", two completely different coin series, though interconnected by having various NCLT versions of the circulating coins. Collect one or the other, or both, or neither, or bits and pieces from each - that's where the personal preferences come into play.

    Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.
    Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"

    Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD. B)
  • WalkerfanWalkerfan Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @usmnterorrs said:
    Not. I’d draw the line at modern commemoratives released for circulation.

    My thoughts, exactly.

    Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍

    My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):

    https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/

  • JBKJBK Posts: 15,571 ✭✭✭✭✭

    One point that some seem to be missing (or don't choose to recognize, which is their right) is that the Bicentennial designs were issued for a defined period and then the normal designs returned.

    The 2004/2005 nickels, 2009 cents, 2021 quarter, etc. were transitional designs. They could arguably be considered to be commemoratives, but they did not represent the temporary interruption of a design run in the way the Bicentennial coins did.

    From the responses this was obviously a very compelling question with no easy answer.

    There are lots of great answers, but the most interesting ones also included the reasoning used.

  • OverdateOverdate Posts: 7,008 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JBK said:

    The 2004/2005 nickels, 2009 cents, 2021 quarter, etc. were transitional designs. They could arguably be considered to be commemoratives, but they did not represent the temporary interruption of a design run in the way the Bicentennial coins did.

    My understanding is that the 2021 quarter was intended to be a continuing standard design rather than a commemorative, a reversion to the 1932-1998 quarter obverse paired with a new reverse. Because of the American Women Quarters legislation, the 2021 quarter became a one-year type.

    My Adolph A. Weinman signature :)

  • johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 28,328 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, I don't think the bicentenial coins should be compared to other modern commems. Just my opinion and fwiw..

  • EbeneezerEbeneezer Posts: 301 ✭✭✭

    I voted to include them because that's what they were. Then again, so are the statehood, national park and women's quarters. Just saying.

Leave a Comment

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