Art collecting vs Coin collecting "Grade rarity debate continued"

DRG

Alright here we go again. I know the Modern/Classic debate has been hashed over here once or twice but I was recently asked about the topic by a fairly new collector and this is how I replied.


Of course all this leads to the whole question of Grade Rarity. Most classic collectors will tell you that paying any premium for modern coins is a waste of time. I firmly disagree. If you spend time looking at modern coins you discover that most are not pretty by the time they get out of the mint. MS65 coins are not that common, and higher grades can be very difficult to find. These high grade coins are much more attractive then average coins. To me saying you collect coins but don't think grade matters is like saying you collect art and when you show off your collection it is made up of old posters stuck on your walls with thumb tacks. To each his own, but most of us would appreciate a clean well preserved and framed original piece of art a whole lot more. They cost hundreds to thousands more but if your collecting things of beauty they should be beautiful.

I have to admit I stole the comparison of coin collecting and art collecting from Anaconda. In one of his recent auctions he made the point that people should collect coins that they find beautiful.

You wouldn't buy ugly art, would you? Why? Because no one wants to look at ugly art. Coins are the same way. No one wants to look at ugly coins.

He was talking about classic coins and all of our favorite grading service ACG, but I think the point applies very well to the high grade modern debate.


Anacondas ACG auction

FC57Coins

While true, the great coins in great condition are always going to be the Rembrandt's and Picasso's of our hobby, one of the great things about the hobby is that you never know when you're going to wind up with a classic. I have seen some Kennedy's come out of mint sets that look stunning. Are you going to compare a Kennedy to a $4 Stella? Absolutely not, but then again I can't afford and probably will never be able to afford a Stella. Now I can afford common date Morgans in very decent shape, and I can even afford Franklins in gem condition. So as for me and my art, yes I will always appreciate the "classics", but I'll also like the Peter Max' and the "Elvis on velvet" type coins that I can afford

Frank

DRG

The comparison I am trying to draw is that in the current art market many people are willing to pay significant amounts of money for original art work and for quality reproductions. There are much less expensive alternatives available. Many of these same pieces of art are also mass produced as posters. The posters can be purchased at flea markets and can even be professionally framed. Many people would not be able to tell the differnce between the more expensive originals and the cheap reproductions yet the price difference is many hundreds to thousands of dollars. This is not to mention the Rembrandt's and Picasso's. Most of us don't have the money to consider their originals. I am talking about the art work you would be proud to hang in your home.

What I am getting at is that a person that has a collection of average BU Eisenhower dollars telling someone that has a high grage Registry set that they have wasted their money is akin to someone with posters of original art telling someone that has collected the originals that they wasted their money.

Now don't get me wrong. There are intelligent people out there that are saying just that about the current art market. Particularily when it comes to signed and numbered reproductions that sell for thousands of dollars. The arguement is that the posters look just as good for fractions of the price.

I think the parrallel is interesting. Since I own both high grade moderns and a few expensive reproductions it is obvious how I feel about it.

I wonder if the people that collect average BU modern coins are also happy with posters on their walls.