In praise of those little extra features.
cladking
Posts: 28,653 ✭✭✭✭✭
No, I am not going to advocate that someone go out and spend big bucks on a coin that
is only very slightly better. Nor would I suggest that some little unimportant design fea-
ture makes a coin far more valuable than a coin which lacks it. Someone said something
here yesterday that got me thinking about this and I think the topic deserves it's own thread.
Collectors have always attached a great amount of importance to the preservation of a cir-
culated coin. Indeed, most grading guides define the grades by the amount of detail which
still exists on the coin. A coin with a partial "LIBERTY" is worth more than a coin with the
"LIBERTY" worn smooth. In the days when the grading systems were developed this was
entirely logical. Virtually every coin started out with a nice fully struck "LIBERTY" and large
percentage of the coins would slowly lose the feature as they wore out in circulation. What
if large numbers of these coins left the mint with no such feature? What if the mint had used
large numbers of worn, poorly alligned, and poorly hubbed dies which lacked many design
features? Would it not be logical that coins which displayed the entire design be more val-
uable. And in cases where nice strikes were rare couldn't the difference be substantial?
is only very slightly better. Nor would I suggest that some little unimportant design fea-
ture makes a coin far more valuable than a coin which lacks it. Someone said something
here yesterday that got me thinking about this and I think the topic deserves it's own thread.
Collectors have always attached a great amount of importance to the preservation of a cir-
culated coin. Indeed, most grading guides define the grades by the amount of detail which
still exists on the coin. A coin with a partial "LIBERTY" is worth more than a coin with the
"LIBERTY" worn smooth. In the days when the grading systems were developed this was
entirely logical. Virtually every coin started out with a nice fully struck "LIBERTY" and large
percentage of the coins would slowly lose the feature as they wore out in circulation. What
if large numbers of these coins left the mint with no such feature? What if the mint had used
large numbers of worn, poorly alligned, and poorly hubbed dies which lacked many design
features? Would it not be logical that coins which displayed the entire design be more val-
uable. And in cases where nice strikes were rare couldn't the difference be substantial?
Tempus fugit.
0
Comments
<< <i>Would it not be logical that coins which displayed the entire design be more valuable. >>
Sure, I think so.
<< <i>And in cases where nice strikes were rare couldn't the difference be substantial? >>
Again, I agree.
In both of those examples, I think there could be substantial premiums for well-struck, fully-detailed examples. Such examples would easily stand out from their mushy bretheren and even the novice collector could detect and appreciate such a difference.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Don't you know there are people out there right now wasting your....err their hard earned
money on high grade moderns. Come on dbldie55 have at it.
As far as the strike issue, it comes into play with early branch mint Buffalo nickels. You find a well struck 26-s, or 19-s or 20-d, and an absurd premium will probably be asked for the coin. Absurd in relation to a price guide.
LSCC#1864
Ebay Stuff
Until I wake up the next day and realize what I have done!!!
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor