What 20th century key dates do you dislike/detest/avoid?

oreville

Normally we talk about what we like. This thread is to do the opposite since we rarely ever put all of our dislikes all into one thread.

What 20th century key dates do you dislike/detest/avoid?

Note, there is a separate thread for your dislikes of 19th century key date coins.

Any reason is acceptable as long as it is your own reason for disliking specific key dates.

Some collectors dislike certain key dates because they are hyped up. Others LIKE them BECAUSE they are hyped up.

Also some collectors dislike/detest certain key dates because they AREN'T famous while those LIKE them for the exact same reason.

It is perfectly OK to admit that you dislike a coin because you really love it and can't afford it. That is a perfectly normal, emotional reason for arguing against the success of a coin. You want to see the coin "fail."

Others dislike a certain coin since they can never own it; it is too rare.

Dp try to state WHY you do not like each specific coin. Others may learn from your dislikes too!

Example of coins I happen to dislike:

1909-S VDB 1c. Just never struck my fancy.
1941-S 50c. Always liked the 1942-S walker more for the short set and believe the 42-S is the real key of the short set.

michael

1933 saint .............way overpriced and any still out there would require years of legal rangling and many $$$$ spent to possibly?? get declared legal

1916 standing liberty quarter
1916-d merc dime
1932-d washington quarter
1921-d walker
1922 no d error coin that you can still see the d on many if not most all that for some crazy marketing reason is collected as a regular date in a set


not scarce
not stand alone coins
with little to no history to them unless they are in the context of a boring same coin but different date/mintmark combo set

Darkmane

1909 S VDB 1c

and

1916-D 10c

Too hyped IMO. I dislike the 1909, however I'm just jealous I cant afford an AUish 1916d

northcoin

Anything after 1950

RYK

09-S VDB 1c: Scarce in circulation in 1909, but not at all scarce in the numismatic marketplace.

291fifth

1937-D Three-legged Buffalo Nickel. An unimportant die-polishing "error" that has been raised to major league status by pricing guide and album companies.

Barry

1922 no D

So what? There have been plenty of filled die errors over the years.

majorbigtime

<< <i>1922 no D

So what? There have been plenty of filled die errors over the years. >>



Agree--it's just a poorly struck coin and doesn't even have the appeal of it's counterpart, the 3-leg nickle.

Gemini

Tops on my list is the 1937-D three leg nickel along with the 22 plain cent

PerryHall

<< <i>

<< <i>1922 no D

So what? There have been plenty of filled die errors over the years. >>



Agree--it's just a poorly struck coin and doesn't even have the appeal of it's counterpart, the 3-leg nickle. >>



I didn't think die pair #2 was a filled die. I thought the D was ground off during a normal die polishing operation, possibly to remove a die clash or the effects of die erosion. Am I off base?

Steve

I tend to think that people who have a certain key date coin in their collection, like it. If they have a chance to purchase a certain key date coin and don't they probably will find a reason to say they don't like it. JMHO. Steve

oreville

Steve; yes agreed. There is an emotional aspect of collecting in which the coins we want and can't have for whatever reason makes us "turn" against the coin and want to see the coin "fail" or "fail just enough" for us to finally emerge triumphant and finally buy the coin at Great Depression prices.

ziggy29

1922-D No-D cent: Just a variety that shouldn't have its own hole in most coin albums.

1913 V-nickel: Not a legitimate Mint issue. The '33 Saint is far more legitimate across the board. If all but one of the '33 Saints -- a legitimate Mint product -- are contraband, then all five of these should be outlawed, too.

joeyuk

I agree with the 22-D cent and the 09-SVDB.
I would add the Flying Eagle cent with clash marks from a half. I forget the Snow number.
Also any of the midnight minter mules.

Perhaps the 1974 aluminium cents as the were not returned by our honorable congressmen.

My feelings on the 1958 doubled die obv. cent are they were caught at the mint
and a couple were put in someones pocket before the rest were destroyed.

pharmer

Not detest, but when I finally got a nice s-vdb, pcgs ms64rd, after longing for one since I was a kid, I could not sell it quickly enough. It held no appeal, and I rethought my collecting direction, finding excitement and satisfaction in searching mass quantites of uncirc wheats for varieties, with the occasional pcgs 67 coming along as a side effect.

ziggy29

<< <i>I would add the Flying Eagle cent with clash marks from a half. I forget the Snow number. >>

I'd love to see one of these with a 20th century date.

joeyuk

opps. My mind wanders.

centmaster

<< <i>1922-D No-D cent: Just a variety that shouldn't have its own hole in most coin albums. >>



But it does have its own hole, and being the only Lincoln cent in close to 100 years not stuck in Philadelphia (and there being an error that exists that would fill that hole) makes that hole well earned. I think it's a very "sexy" coin.

dunerlaw

1916 25c, 1922 1c, Clad low pop coins

BillJones

1901-S Barber Quarter in very low grade.

I see these things with have reverse worn off the coin, and the coin looks like something that a kid left on the railroad tracks. Yet people pay $5,000 for it.

I'd MUCH sooner own several common date Barber quarters in MS-64 that ONE junky 1901-S that is barely identifiable.

Barberman55

<< <i>1901-S Barber Quarter in very low grade.
I see these things with have reverse worn off the coin, and the coin looks like something that a kid left on the railroad tracks. Yet people pay $5,000 for it. I'd MUCH sooner own several common date Barber quarters in MS-64 that ONE junky 1901-S that is barely identifiable. >>




I have to agree with BillJones, the 1901-s quarter in very low grade. I can't see paying $5,000.00, for a coin in that condition, especially when the coin is plentiful in that condition. At any given time, there are usually at least 7 or 8 (mostly certified), 1901-s quarters available on Ebay, in the low grades of fair-G4. On the other hand, in grades of VG-8 and up, I like the 1901-s, but still feel it's way overpriced.

Hedger

I dislike all of them because they are overpriced or tampered with. Semi keys and proofs only for me.

bgrice

I agree that the '41S walker is one that I am avoiding. Hype it's worst for the series and one of the last coins I will buy for my set. And prices will have to seriously correct before that happens as the pops don't justify what is being asked. I figure if that one does come back to reality the whole "Short" series is in for a beating, so it probably won't happen without a fight.

TomB

Super low grade '01-S Barber quarter, low grade '16-D Merc, any '09-S VDB Lincoln, high grade '32-D and '32-S Washingtons, every '13 Liberty nickel, '33 Saint, '22 no D Lincoln (a complete joke), Superbird Washington and any incuse field-marked commem.

PerryHall

<< <i>1901-S Barber Quarter in very low grade.

I see these things with have reverse worn off the coin, and the coin looks like something that a kid left on the railroad tracks. Yet people pay $5,000 for it.

I'd MUCH sooner own several common date Barber quarters in MS-64 that ONE junky 1901-S that is barely identifiable. >>

BillJones

Yes I agree with the others when it comes to the 1913 Liberty Nickel. Yes, there are only five of them, and the rarity is well known. But the coin was produced under fraudulent circumstances and marketed by a mint crook who should have prosecuted for theft and the illegal use of government property.

As I have written several times before, if I owned a 1913 Liberty nickel, I'd sell it and buy some REAL coins. The thing doesn't turn me on at all. Ditto for the so-called 1804 Dollar restrikes. For the best of them their origins are only better because the higher level mint officials approved their production and sale.

jdimmick

I am not fond of:

1937-d Three-leg buffalo being classified as a key-date. That it is not, it is a variety, and a novelty that has been hyped way more than it should have been.

1932-d Washington quarter pricing in Ms-64, is way too high, absolutley to many available and some go begging for buyers, yet the cdn keeps pumping prices higher and higher as they have been for a year or two.

1928 and 34-s Peace Dollar's In Au-Low End MS. I just dont like Peace dollars? and have neve had an intrest in collecting them. The only excpetion to that is the 21 Peace $ becuase of its high relief design, seems to give the coin a little something extra.

Key-date franklin half dollars in PCGS/NGC-65 FBL with ugly dark toning. Absolutley a blah looking coin with no eye-appeal, they may be technically tuff, and scarce minimally marked and FBL, but Ill take a blast white 64FBL over one anyday at a fraction of the price.


My comments to the above comments:

I have always been amazed about the 1922 No D lincoln and how it has been hyped so much as well and considered to be a must have key coin in the set of Lincolns. A polished die error which had it occured on any other date (which it has Im sure)would be the least bit intresting IMO, and not worth any significant premium. However, I still look at this date when available with intrest and as a past owner of a PCGS Au-53, it is not out of the question that I may buy another one down the road just for spite. In fact, I almost bought a Pcgs-55 in St Louis that I liked, but the price was quite strong.

I agree with the comments on the 01-s quarter being priced to high, and yet continuing to get even higher. Thier have been several available over the past 6 months, especially in grades of Ag thru VG. In amazement I continue to see folks pay the next grade level up for these coins, when will it end. There cant be that many barber quarter collectors out thier for the prices to continue to be as high as they are, can thier?? I can tell you this though, I would not part with my PCGS Fine for 2x trends especially considering how long it took to find it.

jim

anablep

1964-D Peace Dollar (If it even exists) because I want to see or hear about one. There's gotta be one out there and (illegally) in someone's possession. That would be some "key date" though uncollectable at that.

Nickelback

Mostly I don't like key dates because I can't afford them!...and frankly, I'm just not impressed by the lower grade 32 Washington, 22 Lincoln, and the 09s vdb Lincoln because most of them I've seen are ugly! For some reason, I like the 16D Merc even though it's ugly also in lower grades (and no, I haven't actually seen one in a high grade). Probably because I like the design so much. I normally avoid copper keys from any series because I'm concerned about oxidation, etc... and don't have the proper humidity/controlled environment stuff to keep them.

On the other hand, I always thought my father-in-law was gross. Until I met his daughter...

Thank the Lord for subjectivity!

morgannut2

All of the low grade 20th Century keys pale in comparision to my disgust with the 1895 Proof Morgan and the hole in my album, although the stupid 1913 Nickel isn't far behind.