@TheGoonies1985 said:
One of my 2 coins I paid over 1000$ for this one cost almost 2200$ (a lot of money for a small time collector like myself). There are less than 15 known. Owning any early milled coins from Chile or Colombia is a big deal for early Latin American collector. They are all very rare. Chile has no 1 reales and Colombia only has the year 1760 for this denomination. Since I collect only 1 reales this was a huge addition to my collection. Most are holed.
@TheGoonies1985 said:
One of my 2 coins I paid over 1000$ for this one cost almost 2200$ (a lot of money for a small time collector like myself). There are less than 15 known. Owning any early milled coins from Chile or Colombia is a big deal for early Latin American collector. They are all very rare. Chile has no 1 reales and Colombia only has the year 1760 for this denomination. Since I collect only 1 reales this was a huge addition to my collection. Most are holed.
That is a fabulous coin!!
Thanks but up close it has lots of surface scratches. Never the less one of my trophy coins. One I would not sell.
Most of these are not really ugly. The OP coin is, the CSS Virginia token is, and maybe BikerGeek's first one with the scratches is, but the rest are fine, just not beautiful. I'd be happy with any of them.
My closest is this note which cost me $800, not quite four figures, but I would put it in the ugly bin.
** Most of these are not really ugly. The OP coin is, the CSS Virginia token is, and maybe BikerGeek's first one with the scratches is, but the rest are fine, just not beautiful. I'd be happy with any of them.**
My wreath cent I posted was somewhat ugly when I bought it. But the “crud” on it that likely caused the environmental damage certification did not look like hard crusty verdigris, but rather the soft kind that Blue Ribbon easily removes. And fortunately there was no porosity hidden beneath the crud, as is sometimes the case.
I’ve never bought anything flat out ugly, but I’ve paid four or five figures for a coin that I wasn’t entirely happy with and eventually replaced with a better example. My 19-S WLH is a good example. Owned two before my current one. 1929-D WLH is another example.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
I can count on one hand how many four figure coins I have purchased with fingers to spare. I suppose this one counts as ugly due to the surface damage on the reverse, but it is the only one I could ever come close to affording. It helps that the ugly side is the reverse, and all the interesting stuff is happening on the obverse.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I forgot about this ugly duckling. I paid 5 figures for this one. In its favor is the fact that it is genuine; it has a complete date; and PCGS gave it a straight grade.
Any 1799 large cent is a collectors' treasure. In addition, knowing that is is genuine is a big plus. I have seen a couple of "complete," raw large cent collections which unfortunately included a counterfeit coin in the 1799 slot. Counterfeits for this date have been a problem for many years. Dr. Sheldon mentioned it in Penny Whimsey:
"Second in fun only to the practice of selling genuine 1799's to collectors at high prices, is that of selling altered date, mutilated, or faked 1799's, of which there are a large number in numismatic circulation, and among those are a few masterpeices"
Dr. Sheldon wrote these words in 1958.
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 ... ?
The only truly ugly coin I’ve bought recently was the Vermont Baby Head I mentioned above. That’s just how they come - ugly. Fortunately, I’m not trying to complete a series or collect varieties, so I only have to settle if I want to finish my type set (think half disme) in the near term. But, I’m going to wait until I have the resources and guts to pull the trigger on the last few or leave the set unfinished. I’ve settled before and always regretted it.
Considering this coin is four figures even in Good and in that condition the date is not visible and in my opinion the most important aspect. I chose this “ugly” one for my collection. Full horn and all pick up points for the variety visible. Yes its a details grade but I would not be able to afford one if it wasn’t. It’s probably my favorite coin of all my Buffalo Nickels.
Members I have done business with: Silverman68, jfoot13, GAB, ricman, Smittys, scrapman1077, RyGuy, Connecticoin, Meltdown, VikingDude, Peaceman, Patches and more.
@BillJones said:
I forgot about this ugly duckling. I paid 5 figures for this one. In its favor is the fact that it is genuine; it has a complete date; and PCGS gave it a straight grade.
Any 1799 large cent is a collectors' treasure. In addition, knowing that is is genuine is a big plus. I have seen a couple of "complete," raw large cent collections which unfortunately included a counterfeit coin in the 1799 slot. Counterfeits for this date have been a problem for many years. Dr. Sheldon mentioned it in Penny Whimsey:
"Second in fun only to the practice of selling genuine 1799's to collectors at high prices, is that of selling altered date, mutilated, or faked 1799's, of which there are a large number in numismatic circulation, and among those are a few masterpeices"
Dr. Sheldon wrote these words in 1958.
For a 1799, that coin is nowhere near ugly.
It just looks a bit two-tone on the obverse, like a scrambled ‘woody’, is what I see.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
@Catbert said:
This is definitely the ugliest coin in my collection and cost nearly $1000. XF45 CAC. Crusty with some dark toning near Liberty's head.
While certainly "original" (and I like the reverse), someday I'll upgrade it. Only 29 CAC examples though.
Please keep me in mind when you do, @Catbert. I love the steely blue, rusty car look to it with its hard surfaces. It may not be bright and colorful, but I really like its original look. It's a choice coin whose toning obscures its quality a bit. Look closer and it's well struck, the surfaces are nice, and what might initially look like a rim bump is a rim cud, which is cool. The reverse is excellent, and I often buy SLHs if they have a particularly nice reverse.
@BillJones said:
I forgot about this ugly duckling. I paid 5 figures for this one. In its favor is the fact that it is genuine; it has a complete date; and PCGS gave it a straight grade.
Any 1799 large cent is a collectors' treasure. In addition, knowing that is is genuine is a big plus. I have seen a couple of "complete," raw large cent collections which unfortunately included a counterfeit coin in the 1799 slot. Counterfeits for this date have been a problem for many years. Dr. Sheldon mentioned it in Penny Whimsey:
"Second in fun only to the practice of selling genuine 1799's to collectors at high prices, is that of selling altered date, mutilated, or faked 1799's, of which there are a large number in numismatic circulation, and among those are a few masterpeices"
Dr. Sheldon wrote these words in 1958.
For a 1799, that coin is nowhere near ugly.
It just looks a bit two-tone on the obverse, like a scrambled ‘woody’, is what I see.
My camera made it look better than it is. It has some VF sharpness aspects to it, but the surfaces are a little rough.
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 ... ?
Comments
That is a fabulous coin!!
Thanks but up close it has lots of surface scratches. Never the less one of my trophy coins. One I would not sell.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
Most of these are not really ugly. The OP coin is, the CSS Virginia token is, and maybe BikerGeek's first one with the scratches is, but the rest are fine, just not beautiful. I'd be happy with any of them.
My closest is this note which cost me $800, not quite four figures, but I would put it in the ugly bin.
Not ugly!
** Most of these are not really ugly. The OP coin is, the CSS Virginia token is, and maybe BikerGeek's first one with the scratches is, but the rest are fine, just not beautiful. I'd be happy with any of them.**
My wreath cent I posted was somewhat ugly when I bought it. But the “crud” on it that likely caused the environmental damage certification did not look like hard crusty verdigris, but rather the soft kind that Blue Ribbon easily removes. And fortunately there was no porosity hidden beneath the crud, as is sometimes the case.
I’ve never bought anything flat out ugly, but I’ve paid four or five figures for a coin that I wasn’t entirely happy with and eventually replaced with a better example. My 19-S WLH is a good example. Owned two before my current one. 1929-D WLH is another example.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I can count on one hand how many four figure coins I have purchased with fingers to spare. I suppose this one counts as ugly due to the surface damage on the reverse, but it is the only one I could ever come close to affording. It helps that the ugly side is the reverse, and all the interesting stuff is happening on the obverse.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I forgot about this ugly duckling. I paid 5 figures for this one. In its favor is the fact that it is genuine; it has a complete date; and PCGS gave it a straight grade.
Any 1799 large cent is a collectors' treasure. In addition, knowing that is is genuine is a big plus. I have seen a couple of "complete," raw large cent collections which unfortunately included a counterfeit coin in the 1799 slot. Counterfeits for this date have been a problem for many years. Dr. Sheldon mentioned it in Penny Whimsey:
"Second in fun only to the practice of selling genuine 1799's to collectors at high prices, is that of selling altered date, mutilated, or faked 1799's, of which there are a large number in numismatic circulation, and among those are a few masterpeices"
Dr. Sheldon wrote these words in 1958.
This is definitely the ugliest coin in my collection and cost nearly $1000. XF45 CAC. Crusty with some dark toning near Liberty's head.
While certainly "original" (and I like the reverse), someday I'll upgrade it. Only 29 CAC examples though.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
If that's the ugliest thing you have, then you're doing pretty darn good.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Period 1 round dollar - BG603 - quite scarce and can be pricey undamaged
Top 10 Cal Fractional Type Set
successful BST with Ankurj, BigAl, Bullsitter, CommemKing, DCW(7), Downtown1974, Elmerfusterpuck, Joelewis, Mach1ne, Minuteman810430, Modcrewman, Nankraut, Nederveit2, Philographer(5), Realgator, Silverpop, SurfinxHI, TomB and Yorkshireman(3)
The only truly ugly coin I’ve bought recently was the Vermont Baby Head I mentioned above. That’s just how they come - ugly. Fortunately, I’m not trying to complete a series or collect varieties, so I only have to settle if I want to finish my type set (think half disme) in the near term. But, I’m going to wait until I have the resources and guts to pull the trigger on the last few or leave the set unfinished. I’ve settled before and always regretted it.
Many many times. Particularly with Gold Eagles and Double Eagles. I'm in favor of buying those under melt on most occasions, regardless of appearance.
Considering this coin is four figures even in Good and in that condition the date is not visible and in my opinion the most important aspect. I chose this “ugly” one for my collection. Full horn and all pick up points for the variety visible. Yes its a details grade but I would not be able to afford one if it wasn’t. It’s probably my favorite coin of all my Buffalo Nickels.
Silverman68, jfoot13, GAB, ricman, Smittys, scrapman1077, RyGuy, Connecticoin, Meltdown, VikingDude, Peaceman, Patches and more.
My ugliest and probably a "keeper", as they say at Christmas gift exchange.
I took a chance on this one at an auction as an uncertified piece. Almost FB. Fortunately it came back as genuine but UNC details.
USAF (Ret.) 1985 - 2005. E-4B Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief and Contracting Officer.
My current Registry sets:
✓ Everyman Mint State Carson City Morgan Dollars (1878 – 1893)
✓ Everyman Mint State Lincoln Cents (1909 – 1958)
✓ Morgan Dollar GSA Hoard (1878 – 1891)
For a 1799, that coin is nowhere near ugly.
It just looks a bit two-tone on the obverse, like a scrambled ‘woody’, is what I see.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Also, not ugly. Actually pretty darn photogenic, I would say.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Please keep me in mind when you do, @Catbert. I love the steely blue, rusty car look to it with its hard surfaces. It may not be bright and colorful, but I really like its original look. It's a choice coin whose toning obscures its quality a bit. Look closer and it's well struck, the surfaces are nice, and what might initially look like a rim bump is a rim cud, which is cool. The reverse is excellent, and I often buy SLHs if they have a particularly nice reverse.
I wrote your sales pitch already.
My camera made it look better than it is. It has some VF sharpness aspects to it, but the surfaces are a little rough.
Nice coin!! One of the coins I need for my 1878 mint set that I will probably never own..
Mark's 8TF Redux
Mark's 7/8TF Set
Mark's 7TF Set