So why doesn't anyone bash classics?
cladking
Posts: 28,734 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is not intended as the first classic bashing thread.
But it is a serious question. Why does no one ever just take off and wail on the classics.
Sure classic US coins are desirable coins just like other coins. There's nothing wrong with
them as a collectible, field of study, or way to make a living. The differences between the
collecting of classics, moderns or thimbles is really not all that great.
Classic collectors have long contrived comparisons between the two which don't really sep-
arate them AT ALL. There are long lists of "reasons" that it's stupid to collect moderns being
whittled back all the time.
But it never works the other way. Oh sure in frustration modern collectors will often point out
that one of the criticisms really applies more to the classics or that there are real differences
and that some of these cause individuals to be more suited to modern collecting, but no one
has ever just started slamming the classics for real and imagined short comings.
So why don't people bash classics?
But it is a serious question. Why does no one ever just take off and wail on the classics.
Sure classic US coins are desirable coins just like other coins. There's nothing wrong with
them as a collectible, field of study, or way to make a living. The differences between the
collecting of classics, moderns or thimbles is really not all that great.
Classic collectors have long contrived comparisons between the two which don't really sep-
arate them AT ALL. There are long lists of "reasons" that it's stupid to collect moderns being
whittled back all the time.
But it never works the other way. Oh sure in frustration modern collectors will often point out
that one of the criticisms really applies more to the classics or that there are real differences
and that some of these cause individuals to be more suited to modern collecting, but no one
has ever just started slamming the classics for real and imagined short comings.
So why don't people bash classics?
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.
0
Comments
Cheers,
Bob
K S
probably because there are just more collectors who collect classic coins so the odds of a clubbing are higher!! my perspective on the whole thing always returns to the simple fact that most modern bashers are bashing out of ignorance, a knee-jerk kind of reaction to the high prices. i find it ironic that they almost always note the very high mintages, as though collectors of moderns aren't aware of that fact. the irony being that the high mintages are precisely the reason why the coins are collected in high grade and almost universally shunned in circulated grades. many of the same people who preach that "not all MS65's are alike" will absolutely ream a modern collector who pays a premium for a high grade coin that he deems better than other same grade/holder coins. it just never adds up from a logical, rational point of view.
if a collector applies the same set of rules and arbitrary guidelines to both sides of the arguement, while taking the time to learn about both, the arguement fades.
al h.
K S
Plus the fact that classics have all that history behind them which is naturally
a bigus dealus in this hobby,,well to most of us anyway.
Ok Heres my classic-bashing post then:
The designs are often very crude and are often downright frightful in lower grades.
As these obsolete series become more distant in years, they tend to take on an almost
`darkside` feel. That is, to the general public that is.
I think most non-collectors know what a buffalo nickel looks like, but show them a 3cs or a seated half dime
or the like, and they,d say, `What country are those from`
ahhhh I cant bash classics. Heck, without them there wouldnt be any moderns now would there.
`Stupid is as stupid does. My Momma always told me that.` Forrest Gump
But seriously now,
I think one reason for less classic bashing than modern bashing is that
there is a perception that for coins made many years ago, with the technology
of the time, many of them came out pretty dam good. But when we look at the
results that we are getting today, all the advances in technology haven't produced
any improvements in the numismatic output, contrary, the results are worse.
Designs are flat, coins are pumped out too fast for really nice designs to be used.
There is more time spent on getting them out of the mint, than in getting something
into truely beautiful into the hands of the people.
Just my $.02 worth
Dorkkarl-.....I AGREE!!!!!!!!
However, if moderns were collected for the sake of collecting, probably no one would be bashing them. It's just that many collecters are looking at them as some sort of investment potential. That's truly risky business IMO.
I collect a little of everything, including moderns, so I only bash the ones I don't care for aesthetically. But there are classics I don't particularly like either. Cam40 mentioned the three-cent silver. That one's at the top of my list of ugly little slugs. I also think the two-cent piece is a drab and uninspired design. Look at some of the patterns we had during that era, and it makes you ask yourself: who the hell was in charge of choosing the final product?
We ARE watching you.
Few of us are good enough to pick out contemporary art that will appreciate in value over time. If your able to do so with coins, great. Your smarter than the rest of us.
Now about those barber bashers!!!!
Les
They're too dam expensive, too dam hard to find, and their strikes are terrible! Terrible I say!
Greg
<< <i>
The designs are often very crude and are often downright frightful in lower grades.
As these obsolete series become more distant in years, they tend to take on an almost
`darkside` feel. That is, to the general public that is.
>>
That's the ugliest thing that could be said about any coin around here.
This really isn't intended as a bashing thread, but that's a good one.
They do. Visit the Darkside. They look at collectors of classic US coins in the same way as classic collectors view modern collectors.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Those happen to be the two classic designs I dislike the most. Ms. Liberty looks like a (male) Roman Senator on the former and needs to get with the Weight Watchers program on the latter.
sell so yes, there is plenty of money to be made in the modern coin market.
maybe even more so than in classics?
you may be able to nickel and dime more people with substancial lots of moderns and make as much
or more than trying to find that one discriminating buyer that pays moon money for his highgrade
classics, provided you have such a coin to sell in the first place.
<< <i>"I recall alot of Barber and Morgan bashing."
Those happen to be the two classic designs I dislike the most. Ms. Liberty looks like a (male) Roman Senator.
Crito & Barber lover duel to the death with paint pellet guns, details to follow.
She is still a beautiful lady, just look at my Icon coin, anyone that calls that ugly, please sell the ones that look like that to me and get rid of those ugly things!!!!
Les
I hate it when you see my post before I can edit the spelling.
Always looking for nice type coins
my local dealer
<< <i>
<< <i>"I recall alot of Barber and Morgan bashing."
Those happen to be the two classic designs I dislike the most. Ms. Liberty looks like a (male) Roman Senator.
Crito & Barber lover duel to the death with paint pellet guns, details to follow.
She is still a beautiful lady, just look at my Icon coin, anyone that calls that ugly, please sell the ones that look like that to me and get rid of those ugly things!!!!
Les >>
"LES", I am a Walker collector...... But if I could afford it I would also collect "BARBERS"!
I meant that to the general public these old and mostly forgotten about coins are
just very strange looking and unfamilar, like a foriegn coin, or `darkside` coin as we all
refer to them around here.
Also I wasnt bashing the 3cs denom per se, just useing it as an example of `seeming foriegn`
As to the odd denoms, these are my fav, if not just for they,re diminuative size.
How easy was it to lose these coins I wonder. Many surely have been lost forever, or may never be recovered.
As a type collector, I have a fairly extensive US collection ranging from 18th century coins through 2003 issues.
Classics and moderns, by any defiition, are an important part of my collection. Although my collection meanders, I am especially interested in transitional types, and changes in specifications. This may be straightforward (e.g. -- the change from flowing hair to bust silver dollars in 1795, or the change in composition of the nickel in 1942), or it may have a specific "collectible" angle -- for example, I have 1958 and 1959 original mint sets, as well as 1965 and 1966 special mint sets, all of course in original packaging.
In putting together this collection, while I have always looked for attractive examples within a budget, I've never been terribly focused on grade, but feel that there is an intrinsic value to the collection beyond grade.
I believe that what is construed as "modern bashing" or lack of classic bashing stems from a perception that classics have more intrinsic value value. From my own narrow perspective, this is not true -- I find many modern sequences to be very interesting (1958/59 Lincoln cents, 1968/69 Lincoln cents, 1964/65/71 Kennedy halves, 1964/65 silver/clad coins, the tepid bicentennial coins [a reflection of the "malaise" of the era], changing compostion of the Lincoln cent, the various reworkings of the Jefferson nickel, etc, etc, etc.) With that said, whatever the definition of "modern", I believe my modern coins, being in rather modest grades, might be of little interest to most "modern" collectors. My gut feeling, based only on reading this board, is that many modern collectors do not have a great deal of interest in what might be termed the intrinsic appeal of modern coins. Many, though not all, classic collectors find the coins interesting almost regardless of grade. This perceived intrinsic value of classic coins probably accounts for the limited frequency of classic bashing.
Not true, MrEureka. There's only a little bit of good-natured chuckling, unlike the downright vitriol you sometimes see on the liteside.
We ARE watching you.
<< <i>I'm against the classics. I'm against the guys that run the business of the classics. I'm against the people who buy the classics. I'm against the dealers who deal in the classics. I'm against Bullet Auctions and all the other [baloney]. I'm against the morons who buy the classics to get rich quick. I'm against everything -- the whole concept. The classics game is a form of low-level larceny. The convention circuit boys who deal in classics aren't interested in collectors or numismatics; these guys are parasites. >>
I think this was a "quote" from "John Ford Jr."
I think this was a "quote" from "John Ford Jr."
It is. But substitute the word "slabs" for "classics" and it will be accurate.
<< <i><< I'm against the classics. I'm against the guys that run the business of the classics. I'm against the people who buy the classics. I'm against the dealers who deal in the classics. I'm against Bullet Auctions and all the other [baloney]. I'm against the morons who buy the classics to get rich quick. I'm against everything -- the whole concept. The classics game is a form of low-level larceny. The convention circuit boys who deal in classics aren't interested in collectors or numismatics; these guys are parasites. >>
I think this was a "quote" from "John Ford Jr."
It is. But substitute the word "slabs" for "classics" and it will be accurate. >>
WHOOPS!!!!
<< <i>Well, it's late here in Tokyo, but I am actually going to try to give this a serious response.
As a type collector, I have a fairly extensive US collection ranging from 18th century coins through 2003 issues.
Classics and moderns, by any defiition, are an important part of my collection. Although my collection meanders, I am especially interested in transitional types, and changes in specifications. This may be straightforward (e.g. -- the change from flowing hair to bust silver dollars in 1795, or the change in composition of the nickel in 1942), or it may have a specific "collectible" angle -- for example, I have 1958 and 1959 original mint sets, as well as 1965 and 1966 special mint sets, all of course in original packaging.
In putting together this collection, while I have always looked for attractive examples within a budget, I've never been terribly focused on grade, but feel that there is an intrinsic value to the collection beyond grade.
I believe that what is construed as "modern bashing" or lack of classic bashing stems from a perception that classics have more intrinsic value value. From my own narrow perspective, this is not true -- I find many modern sequences to be very interesting (1958/59 Lincoln cents, 1968/69 Lincoln cents, 1964/65/71 Kennedy halves, 1964/65 silver/clad coins, the tepid bicentennial coins [a reflection of the "malaise" of the era], changing compostion of the Lincoln cent, the various reworkings of the Jefferson nickel, etc, etc, etc.) With that said, whatever the definition of "modern", I believe my modern coins, being in rather modest grades, might be of little interest to most "modern" collectors. My gut feeling, based only on reading this board, is that many modern collectors do not have a great deal of interest in what might be termed the intrinsic appeal of modern coins. Many, though not all, classic collectors find the coins interesting almost regardless of grade. This perceived intrinsic value of classic coins probably accounts for the limited frequency of classic bashing. >>
Excellent point. I hadn't thought of it in these terms despite the fact
that they really do keep saying it over and over in many different ways;
"Moderns are crap", "Pocket change", "Mass produced", "Common junk",
"Debased ugly little slugs". Etc., Etc.
I suppose I heard it so many times over the years that I just quit hearing
it. I always believed in the old days that when the prices went up that it
would stop on a dime and I lost my perspective on the issue.
Thanks for the post.
<< <i>They do. Visit the Darkside. They look at collectors of classic US coins in the same way as classic collectors view modern collectors.
. >>
For the main part there's no bashing of anything on the world coin forum. They certainly
rarely bash coins or collectors. The little bashing that is seen is usually directed at plastic,
and even here it's much more the general undesirability of seeing darkside coins encased
in plastic than a bashing of those who buy, sell, grade, or crack such coins.
<Ducks and runs>
Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker
Collect what you want. Don't worry about anyone else.
<< <i>Who in the "h3ll" is "DORKKARL" >>
hey!!!
K S
<< <i>For the main part there's no bashing of anything on the world coin forum. >>
Hear Hear!
is that you end up being governed by inferiors. – Plato
<< <i>
<< <i>Who in the "h3ll" is "DORKKARL" >>
hey!!!
K S >>
WHOOPS!!!
I like coins that actually went out in the world and worked as money better than coins that were minted with special care and put in holders for collectors and have "never been touched by human hands".
And I like coins that are scarce or rare in ANY grade better than coins that are very common overall and only rare when flawless.
If someone thinks it is "bashing" for me to contend that a lightly circulated 150 or 200 year old US coin is a geniune historical artifact while a proof 2003 ASE is not much different from a Franklin mint item, then I'm sorry, that's just how I feel.
but hey, people can collect what they want, I think that's great!
Look at a collector of cars analogy... collector A might collect cars from the 1940's and '50's, and he might have to make some compromises on condition but he certainly prefers original, lightly used cars, and he drives them around on Sundays. He might look down on collector B's assemblage of cars from the late 1990s and early 2000s, each one purchased new with less than a mile on it, each one trucked to a temperature controlled garage, parked, drained of gas, lubricated, wrapped in velvet, crated, and left alone or just looked at once in a while. Collectors A and B might not just "get" what the other sees in their collection, although both would certainly admit that their own interest has disadvantages and the other does have it's advantages.
Now neither collector should be "bashing" the other, and it is ok to acknowledge that their collecting interests differ. Heck, somone who collects the very rare and "different" pre-1920 cars could bash them both! I think it's just that there is a degree of difficulty in finding "nice" coins the older they are (this is true of cars or baseball cards, or whatever someone is collecting) and that there is not much interest FOR ME, in paying a lot of money for a super-duper nice modern coin when a very nice example of the same coin is available for just a few dollars, and if the coin is available lightly circulated at face value.
Plus when I show coins to my little neices and cousins, it's always the "classics" they ooh and aaah over.
The modern coins I show them, they yawn and eyes glaze over when I explain how high the condition is, to them it still looks like the change in their piggy banks, with which they are familiar and bored.
But I warn them not to "bash" it, because they might hurt some collector's feelings somewhere
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
"serv(es) as a standard of excellence; of recognized value ... historically memorable; noted because of special literary or historical associations."
Classics are all that. They are, well... classic!
They are "historically memorable".
When the coins that are "modern" by today's standards have acquired the gloss of respectability that comes with time, they will be the "classics of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries".
Until then, they are sort of like green, unripe fruit to those who like that aura of history and antiquity with their coins.
Edited to add that the above sentence is not intended as a modern coin bash but merely an explanation of why moderns come up short in the comparison to classics, albeit an unfair comparison at times. Modern world coins do not seem to fare as badly as modern US coins- I suspect the reason for this is that they are less familiar and have some novelty to them.
"Familiarity breeds contempt" is the old saying that rings true here- the average person is familiar with Jefferson nickels and Roosevelt dimes, but you just don't see a Draped Bust half cent or Flowing Hair dollar every day.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
K S
<< <i>I don't know why it's considered "bashing" to say that I like old coins better than new coins. >>
No one believes that preferring older coins is any form of bashing. Pointing out
actual differences between classics and moderns is not bashing either.
<< <i>
I like coins that actually went out in the world and worked as money better than coins that were minted with special care and put in holders for collectors and have "never been touched by human hands". >>
Don't tell anyone I said this (since I do like all coins), but I, too, have a preference
for issues which actually circulated. While I collect all the modern coins I specialize
in the regular issues which are actually circulating. In some cases this means vir-
tually every single example made.
<< <i>
And I like coins that are scarce or rare in ANY grade better than coins that are very common overall and only rare when flawless. >>
Again I might deny it if you repeat it. But me too! In moderns these coins tend to be
available for a tiny percentage of what they'd bring if they were classics. But while I'm
forming a collection of these I'd like to have the more "common" coins, too!
<< <i>
If someone thinks it is "bashing" for me to contend that a lightly circulated 150 or 200 year old US coin is a geniune historical artifact while a proof 2003 ASE is not much different from a Franklin mint item, then I'm sorry, that's just how I feel. >>
No. This is hardly a fair comparison and I'm not entirely sure I agree anyway. Certainly
it's not bashing to say you prefer the older coin (I do too), but the Eagle was struck by an
act of Congress by the United States Mint.
<< <i>...and that there is not much interest FOR ME, in paying a lot of money for a super-duper nice modern coin when a very nice example of the same coin is available for just a few dollars, and if the coin is available lightly circulated at face value. >>
This is not always true for moderns. Try to find a 1983-P quarter in nice collectible grade
and get back to me. Try to find a nice collectible grade 1969 quarter OR one lightly circu-
lated and then we'll talk.
<< <i>
Plus when I show coins to my little neices and cousins, it's always the "classics" they ooh and aaah over.
The modern coins I show them, they yawn and eyes glaze over when I explain how high the condition is, to them it still looks like the change in their piggy banks, with which they are familiar and bored. >>
We all know here that age does not determine the value of a coin, and that children don't
set the level of supply or demand for coins unless they put their money down like the rest
of us.
<< <i>
But I warn them not to "bash" it, because they might hurt some collector's feelings somewhere
<< <i>Nobody bashes classics because that's what the very word implies: a "classic" is something that never goes out of style, or according to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary,
"serv(es) as a standard of excellence; of recognized value ... historically memorable; noted because of special literary or historical associations."
Classics are all that. They are, well... classic!
They are "historically memorable".
When the coins that are "modern" by today's standards have acquired the gloss of respectability that comes with time, they will be the "classics of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries".
Until then, they are sort of like green, unripe fruit to those who like that aura of history and antiquity with their coins.
Edited to add that the above sentence is not intended as a modern coin bash but merely an explanation of why moderns come up short in the comparison to classics, albeit an unfair comparison at times. Modern world coins do not seem to fare as badly as modern US coins- I suspect the reason for this is that they are less familiar and have some novelty to them.
"Familiarity breeds contempt" is the old saying that rings true here- the average person is familiar with Jefferson nickels and Roosevelt dimes, but you just don't see a Draped Bust half cent or Flowing Hair dollar every day. >>
All quite true but I would remind you that old is relative. In 1964 at the height of the
roll and bag boom a 1960 roll of quarters were considered old. Today, neraly two generations
later this roll is considered by many as new.
Ask Baleys nephews and cousins if a 1965 quarter is old. It might be eye-opening.
Then look at mintages of coins today compared to many years ago and then look at how well preserved coins are with the high tech holders and other preservation techniques and it is easy to see that a very large number of high grade coins today will still be in perfect condition 50-100 years from now where as 100+ years ago there were no fancy non PVC or other damaging material holders, no climate controlled rooms/bank vaults or ways for coins to be well preserved not to mention it used to be an acceptable practice to clean coins. When it comes right down to it most nice moderns will remain that way forever which is not something that happened in the past so the high prices some moderns get today have little chance of withstanding the test. Those collectors who have been around and seen many cycles realize that and are just trying to warn some of the newbies who believe all the hype they here without realizing that what goes up MUST come down. Unfortunately contrary to what some say prices CANNOT and WILL NOT go up forever regardless of how many times they say so especially with the lack of collector interest among most of todays youth (TV,VCR's,DVD's,video games, computers, Internet have to much appeal) .
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
you make some good points, but i think Sam is wondering about why noone ever seems to complain about some of the bland classic designs, some of the hyped classic coins which aren't really rare accept in the higher grades, some the classic coins that only command high prices because of demand and not supply-----stuff whch modern issues are generally harangued about. i don't think it's because collectors don't know these things about the classic issues they pertain to, i kind of think it's more that they see the lack of sense in that and that there's no reason from a financial standpoint for them to get involved in that discussion.
the general rule is that a modern "whatever" will be discussed for whatever reason and ripped on for design, boundless mintage and soaring prices for ultra grades. at the same time, noone seems to gripe about a classic commem in high grade of MS67 which sells in 5 figures----a coin minted for collectors and packaged accordingly-----or a pristine Morgan which sells for a big dollar in a high grade-----a coin which was in essence stored by it's manufacturer for decades and whose limited numbers are the result of a minipulated population and/or release-----or a high grade coin like a Barber which sells for big money in sometimes low MS-----a coin with with a bland design.
it always ocurrs to me that it isn't a question of why noone complains about classic coins, it's more a question of why so many seem to feel the need to whine/moan/b@tch/complain about modern issues. when compared on equal ground with an open mind, the two have more in common than not.
but, fear not all ye modern bashers, for we are on the cusp of re-design. you will soon be b@tching about those designs and how you don't like them. you see, some are just of a temperment that they like to complain. it makes them feel more alive.
JMHO of course.
al h.