I couldn't do it because all I really collect are my Lincolns. You cant even make a wheat date set with that. Although you could fit all the matte proofs in a box.
Hell there are more key date semi-keys and better date Morgans than 20. Maybe PCGS could start the BOX OF 20 registry set or more correctly the "Pointless/HodgePodge Collection" Registry.
It would take all the fun out of collecting. I might sell several coins to buy one coin, but I'd never sell my whole collection so I could buy 20 key dates.
Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I'll take quality over quantity any day, plus it could take years just to find one coin so it's not just a quick fix for "collecting"...... and how is being very judicious on what you keep, not "collecting"?
Of course that does eliminate "first day strike" dollar coins
Well, I went to the SDB with my son today and visited my Box of 20 coin collection. The problem, of course, is that there are now six Boxes of 20 (and a smattering of other odds and ends). Oh, well. back to the drawing board.
<< <i>Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all. >>
Yeah, I tend to agree. I don't like putting "random" constraints on my collecting. I buy nice coins in my areas of interest. If and when I lose interest in a coin or series, I sell.
<< <i>Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all. >>
Because some people think it's better to have 20 superb pieces than 50 mediocre ones.
<< <i>Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all. >>
Because some people think it's better to have 20 superb pieces than 50 mediocre ones. >>
And I couldn't care less about collecting an entire series.
<< <i>Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all. >>
Because some people think it's better to have 20 superb pieces than 50 mediocre ones. >>
Are you saying it would be wrong to collect 50 superb coins?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all. >>
Because some people think it's better to have 20 superb pieces than 50 mediocre ones. >>
How does it follow that having 50 coins (or any number, for that matter) means that any of them will be mediocre?
I didn't want a complete series when I started. I'm trying to get back down to 65 walkers. The problem really seems to be the extra 15 in that 4th box...
<< <i>How does it follow that having 50 coins (or any number, for that matter) means that any of them will be mediocre? >>
I should not have used the word mediocre. I should have said that not everyone has an unlimited budget. And whatever your budget is, if you use it to buy 20 coins they will of better quality than if you use it to buy 50 (assuming equal rarity).
No, absolutelty not. I love all my coins, and could not pare it down. It seems just totally pointless to limit a collection when there is no real good reason to. If you have the means, and the desire, then you should do it!
<< <i>How does it follow that having 50 coins (or any number, for that matter) means that any of them will be mediocre? >>
I should not have used the word mediocre. I should have said that not everyone has an unlimited budget. And whatever your budget is, if you use it to buy 20 coins they will of better quality than if you use it to buy 50 (assuming equal rarity). >>
OK, point taken. But unless you have severe space constraints, why is 20 some sort of magic number? And if you only want a single box, why isn't buying 10 even more high-end coins a still better strategy?
I guess I just think there's enough quantification in the hobby already, and for me it needs to be more about quality, aesthetics, and enjoyment.
<< <i>OK, point taken. But unless you have severe space constraints, why is 20 some sort of magic number? And if you only want a single box, why isn't buying 10 even more high-end coins a still better strategy? >>
<< <i>OK, point taken. But unless you have severe space constraints, why is 20 some sort of magic number? And if you only want a single box, why isn't buying 10 even more high-end coins a still better strategy? >>
Nope.
20 is the perfect number. A box holds 20. Not 10.
Filling the box exactly is the name of the game.
OCD. >>
(a) It is merely certain slab boxes which hold 20 coins. Why should we allow the decisions of some corporation define our collection? There are plenty of other boxes which hold different number of coins, sometimes more than 20, other times less.
(b) It is clear, that, given a certain series, a certain budget, and a certain timeframe, that aiming for quality and quantity are at cross-purposes. But ignoring boxes, what should we think this entails, if anything? Why go for a die state collection? Obviously by just going for a variety collection, you can get nicer coins. Why go for that die variety collection? Just get the major varieties, and you can get even nicer coins. Why get varieties at all? Go for a date/mint set, and average quality can go up again. Why care about mintmarks? They weren't always cared about. And quality is not constant over mints anyway. Just get a coin from whatever mint issued the nicest coin in a year, a date set. Why care about years at all? How about a decade set? You've now eliminated nine out of every ten coins you would need in a date set, think about the quality you can get now! Why even care about the date at all? Just get a single coin.
Of course, for different budgets/timeframes, one can stop at different points along such a continuum. But I just find it odd for grade or even "condition" to be the _major_ defining principle of a set. In general, one would define it some other way (dates, type, date/mint, varieties) and then deal with quality from there. Perhaps it's because I have never been able to afford to be a grade snob, I've just never gotten the concept. I'd rather have a coherent set than a random grouping of admittedly "nice" coins. While when deciding upon a set grade will be _an_ issue, it would be the nature of the set which defines what grade I can collect, rather than the grade defining what set I can collect and how I can collect it. (Frankly, I'm more an obscurity snob. I worry that too many people know about what I collect. I also worry that the music I listen too is becoming too popular. I'm sure there's some connection there.)
(c) So let's get to that box of "20." Unless you have a set you can define which gives you 20 coins (besides being 20 coins in and of itself), it would seem the collection is defined rather arbitrarily. We can all appreciate nice coins. But when we look at it as a whole, there'll probably be something missing. 20 Nice coins will just be 20 nice coins; they won't show a mind at work, just a wallet (of varying size). Unless there is a series where you were able to define a set which _happened_ to have 20 coins in it, the "collection" will be an arbitrary mish-mash. People will look at at, think, "nice coins, but it's all over the place. And they're mostly/all common."
And let's take the box of 20 concept to it's end. Let's define our collection by getting 20 coins, in as good as grade and condition as we can find. That's what we are going after, nothing else matters. Guess what, our task is easy! Just go to a coin show, rummage through modern proof sets and mint products for a while, and find 20 coins which are both high grade and also "nice" in "condition". And there's your pure box of 20. You have just found 20 of the easiest nice coins to find, because other than that your collection had no definition! This is how the box of 20 concept ends. 20 Common coins. Perhaps it'll be slightly different, perhaps the first table at the coin show has row upon row of common Morgans, or Lincolns, or 1883 no cents Liberty nickels, but chances are you'll miss, say, Vermont landscape coppers, or Canadian blacksmith coppers, or Wyatt copies, or Vernon medals, or encased postage stamps, and so forth. And certainly those types will not readily lend themselves to the "nice piece" concept in any case.
In conclusion, I don't like the box-of-20 concept because, one, in theory leads to an incoherent mish-mash which really cannot be called a collection, and two, in practice those who claim to follow it probably really are not, there's some other coherence which defines the collection better.
All I can say is that aftermarket boxes need not apply. Only official NGC or PCGS boxes of 20 are considered. And maybe ANACS and DGS if they also have boxes that fit exactly 20 slabs.
You think a 'box of 20' collection would go into some wierd aftermarket box that has more or less than 20 slots? That's "crazy talk™".
Although I can understand the motivations behind trying to keep ones collection focused and without excess junk...
It's easy to take the 'box of 20' concept to mean exactly one box of 20 coins.
The only way I can comprehend the rigid box of 20 concept...
OCD.
The true believers will have 20 PCGS slabs in a PCGS box. Accept no substitute.
All I can say is that aftermarket boxes need not apply. Only official NGC or PCGS boxes of 20 are considered. And maybe ANACS and DGS if they also have boxes that fit exactly 20 slabs. You think a 'box of 20' collection would go into some wierd aftermarket box that has more or less than 20 slots? That's "crazy talk�". Although I can understand the motivations behind trying to keep ones collection focused and without excess junk... It's easy to take the 'box of 20' concept to mean exactly one box of 20 coins. The only way I can comprehend the rigid box of 20 concept... OCD. The true believers will have 20 PCGS slabs in a PCGS box. Accept no substitute.
It turns out that 20 is a pretty good number for a lot of different collecting themes.
20 Dahlonega $5's would leave you six short of completion.
20 different draped bust halves would give you a set with all the dates and quite a few of the major varieties.
20 coins in the early gold type set with allow for a couple duplicates.
20 different colonial coins would allow you to own many of the major and most popular types.
20 patterns can be sliced and diced in an infinite number of ways
There are exactly 20 coins in the Walker short set
Why knock what someone else collects and how they collect it?
I wonder what the owners of some of the greatest coin collections would think of this concept. Imagine if the Eliasberg/Norweb/Garrett/Pittman etc etc collections went this route instead of where they went????
<< <i>I simply couldn't do it. I NEED MORE THAN 20! >>
Imagine if PCGS came out with a new box that held say 34 slabs.... There would be a buzz in the back of the room claiming that a Box of 34 was what they really wanted all along
<< <i>All I can say is that aftermarket boxes need not apply. Only official NGC or PCGS boxes of 20 are considered. And maybe ANACS and DGS if they also have boxes that fit exactly 20 slabs. You think a 'box of 20' collection would go into some wierd aftermarket box that has more or less than 20 slots? That's "crazy talk�". Although I can understand the motivations behind trying to keep ones collection focused and without excess junk... It's easy to take the 'box of 20' concept to mean exactly one box of 20 coins. The only way I can comprehend the rigid box of 20 concept... OCD. The true believers will have 20 PCGS slabs in a PCGS box. Accept no substitute.
It turns out that 20 is a pretty good number for a lot of different collecting themes.
20 Dahlonega $5's would leave you six short of completion.
20 different draped bust halves would give you a set with all the dates and quite a few of the major varieties.
20 coins in the early gold type set with allow for a couple duplicates.
20 different colonial coins would allow you to own many of the major and most popular types.
20 patterns can be sliced and diced in an infinite number of ways
There are exactly 20 coins in the Walker short set
Why knock what someone else collects and how they collect it? >>
Looks like I have attracted the ire of one of the great folks on this forum.
I'm just blowing off some steam.
I've seen a few 'box of 20' collection pictures posted on this forum that make my jaw drop.
I just cannot currently conceive of selling off the lions share of my collection in order to meet an arbitrary, and somewhat small number. Perhaps I will see things differently in time.
<< <i>All I can say is that aftermarket boxes need not apply. Only official NGC or PCGS boxes of 20 are considered. And maybe ANACS and DGS if they also have boxes that fit exactly 20 slabs. You think a 'box of 20' collection would go into some wierd aftermarket box that has more or less than 20 slots? That's "crazy talk�". Although I can understand the motivations behind trying to keep ones collection focused and without excess junk... It's easy to take the 'box of 20' concept to mean exactly one box of 20 coins. The only way I can comprehend the rigid box of 20 concept... OCD. The true believers will have 20 PCGS slabs in a PCGS box. Accept no substitute.
It turns out that 20 is a pretty good number for a lot of different collecting themes.
20 Dahlonega $5's would leave you six short of completion.
20 different draped bust halves would give you a set with all the dates and quite a few of the major varieties.
20 coins in the early gold type set with allow for a couple duplicates.
20 different colonial coins would allow you to own many of the major and most popular types.
20 patterns can be sliced and diced in an infinite number of ways
There are exactly 20 coins in the Walker short set
Why knock what someone else collects and how they collect it? >>
Looks like I have attracted the ire of one of the great folks on this forum.
I'm just blowing off some steam.
I've seen a few 'box of 20' collection pictures posted on this forum that make my jaw drop.
I just cannot currently conceive of selling off the lions share of my collection in order to meet an arbitrary, and somewhat small number. Perhaps I will see things differently in time. >>
That's not ire. That's just disapproval of your incessant sarcasm. Drop the 'tude, dude. Coin collecting is a friendly endeavor.
Not for me, I guess I can see the benefit if you want 20 really expensive coins, but I almost look at that as the investor mentality rather than collecting. My main set of British copper will stay at around 30 coins, my set of British Shillings will be around 20, and my early US commems will stop at around 50. So I guess my core collection will be just 5 boxes of 20, but then there is the fun stuff I play with while looking for the 3 main set pieces.
<< <i>A tangent from another thread, someone suggested that I get down to 20 coins. Even excluding the 7070, various other misc and generally inexpensive stuff, I have serious doubt that I could possibly get my core collection down to 20 coins. How much trouble would it be for you? Do you already have twenty or fewer in your collection? I daresay, if it would be easy to get down to 20, maybe you should! Comments welcome. >>
Let me repost the first post in this thread, pick it apart and give more detailed comments.
How does one define a 'core' collection? I have an inner core. Six coins that will not be sold until the very end. These are the ones that I consider the leaders of the pack. Then there is an outer core. Coins which provide interest and contrast. The inner core is nice to view in the context of the outer core. I don't see that getting to 20. Then there are scatter shot coins. Various items to provide even more contrast and enjoyment. To use the earth as a metaphor, that would be the 'mantle' of my collection. I suppose my growing collection of world gold is currently the 'mantle'. I guess I could consider the inexpensive trinkets the 'crust'; the outermost layer. Past the 'inner core', the distinctions are not really that clear and things evolve and change as I evolve and mature.
I strongly believe that a collector needs to be very honest with themselves about what their goals are. It's even fair to say that you have no specific goal. But be honest with yourself; that it the most important person you need to be honest with. You mention that "if it is easy to get down to 20, maybe you should!" What? Why? I don't see much of a justification for this statement. I'm not certain I see the logic of this other than what I have already mentioned. Numerology and the number of slabs a PCGS box will hold. Now, if your goal was to strip your collection to the inner core, that is fine.
I guess that if your goal is to truly hit the number 20, then that is fine too, I guess. But I am having a hard time seeing why. Even in your good examples of various subsets, few of them add up to exactly 20.
Why my concern and incessant sarcasm on the issue? I have seen folks sell coins that they know they should not have sold. They regret the decision. Some even buy them back later. Perhaps this is because they are not being honest with themselves about what they want in their collection? I'm not certain why this happens and am trying to figure it out.
My fear is that the desire for a box of 20 might cause a collector to not be honest with themselves about a more important aspect of their collection.
It just seems to be that a 'box of 20' is an easy 'numerology' trap to fall into if you are not being honest with yourself about what you really want in your collection. If you collection needs to consist of 18 or 24 coins, then so be it. Why cram a square peg into a round hole?
If you are indeed going to trim down your core collection to 20 pieces, please be loud about it on the BST so that I get a chance at seeing what is available.
[edit] Reading this old thread more carefully, I see this:
<< <i>Jay's box of 20 principal is for those looking to maximize investment and return not for those looking to build life long collections to enjoy. If you ask him for advice, the first question he'll ask you is "What is your reason for buying?" Jay's words - "I've always preached fewer coins, better coins and quality." He's in the collectibles market for investment so everything he buys is for sale. >>
This explains much; or rather reinforces what I already knew, but conveniently forgot. I am not an investor, but am looking for life-long enjoyment.
If you are indeed going to trim down your core collection to 20 pieces, please be loud about it on the BST so that I get a chance at seeing what is available.
Too late. I did this last fall. It did not work for me, as I indicated in my post earlier today.
Julian said it best (last year): There is no "right" collection.
It just seems to be that a 'box of 20' is an easy 'numerology' trap to fall into if you are not being honest with yourself about what you really want in your collection. If you collection needs to consist of 18 or 24 coins, then so be it. Why cram a square peg into a round hole?
Here was my earlier reply (in 2007):
<<"Twenty" is arbitrary. Let's make it ten instead.
No, really, it's not about the number but the concept. Small, focused collection. Once you hit your max number, maybe you have to sell a coin to buy another. >>
Julian said it best (also in 2007): "There is no "right" collection."
What about the quarter eagles ($2.50) prior to 1834? The 1796-1807 Capped Bust to the Right, or the 1808 Capped Bust to the Left, or the 1821-1834 Capped Head to the Left just to name a few left out of just the quarter eagles. Might have to go for that second PCGS box and forget the 20 idea.
What about the quarter eagles ($2.50) prior to 1834? The 1796-1807 Capped Bust to the Right, or the 1808 Capped Bust to the Left, or the 1821-1834 Capped Head to the Left just to name a few left out of just the quarter eagles. Might have to go for that second PCGS box and forget the 20 idea. >>
Actually, quite a few folks would collect a gold type set like that. It just happens to be 20 coins. Some people, myself included, cannot afford 1808 QE's, 1796 No Starts QE's, etc. That said, the 12-coin gold type set is probably the benchmark, as discussed here.
I find it rather amusing that this concept troubles you so much.
Yes I am doing it. My box of 20 has 4 Bust coins 2 seated liberty, 3 Barber Coins, 2 Standing Liberty Quarters, 3 Walking Liberty Halves, 2 Morgan Dollars and a piece Dollar.
I actually tried to list my Top 20 I Would Absolutely Keep....but quickly upped it to 50...then 100.... too many diff. coins I LOVE for too many diff. reasons. A nice Colonial coin can't replace a scarce Anglo Saxon coin and an Anglo Saxon can't replace an early U.S silver dollar. Keeping "just quality" doesnt help at all...some of my absolute favorites are super worn and have multiple problems. But I dont know how I would ever replace them
What about the quarter eagles ($2.50) prior to 1834? The 1796-1807 Capped Bust to the Right, or the 1808 Capped Bust to the Left, or the 1821-1834 Capped Head to the Left just to name a few left out of just the quarter eagles. Might have to go for that second PCGS box and forget the 20 idea. >>
Actually, quite a few folks would collect a gold type set like that. It just happens to be 20 coins. Some people, myself included, cannot afford 1808 QE's, 1796 No Starts QE's, etc. That said, the 12-coin gold type set is probably the benchmark, as discussed here.
I find it rather amusing that this concept troubles you so much. >>
Hey RYK The concept doesn't trouble me at all. The idea of changing the playing field to make it fit is a little amusing though as some of us have noticed Bear sums it up rather well in his comment above mine here.
Collect what you want and want what you collect. I know I do
Comments
Camelot
If I had it my way, stupidity would be painful!
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Of course that does eliminate "first day strike" dollar coins
<< <i>Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all. >>
Yeah, I tend to agree. I don't like putting "random" constraints on my collecting.
I buy nice coins in my areas of interest. If and when I lose interest in a coin or series,
I sell.
Have not decided which coins to put in them.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all. >>
Because some people think it's better to have 20 superb pieces than 50 mediocre ones.
<< <i>
<< <i>Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all. >>
Because some people think it's better to have 20 superb pieces than 50 mediocre ones. >>
And I couldn't care less about collecting an entire series.
<< <i>
<< <i>Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all. >>
Because some people think it's better to have 20 superb pieces than 50 mediocre ones. >>
Are you saying it would be wrong to collect 50 superb coins?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>Box of 20 is one of the dumber ideas that I've seen on this board. What if you are interested in classic commems? At a minimum, you would need to buy 50 just to get the basic silver type set. Why limit yourself to just 20 coins? Makes no sense to me at all. >>
Because some people think it's better to have 20 superb pieces than 50 mediocre ones. >>
How does it follow that having 50 coins (or any number, for that matter) means that any of
them will be mediocre?
I didn't want a complete series when I started. I'm trying to get back down to 65 walkers. The problem really seems to be the extra 15 in that 4th box...
Plus, I like some commems and other type coins. Keeping it to one SDB is tough, let alone a box of 20
<< <i>How does it follow that having 50 coins (or any number, for that matter) means that any of them will be mediocre? >>
I should not have used the word mediocre. I should have said that not everyone has an unlimited budget. And whatever your budget is, if you use it to buy 20 coins they will of better quality than if you use it to buy 50 (assuming equal rarity).
myCCset
<< <i>
<< <i>How does it follow that having 50 coins (or any number, for that matter) means that any of them will be mediocre? >>
I should not have used the word mediocre. I should have said that not everyone has an unlimited budget. And whatever your budget is, if you use it to buy 20 coins they will of better quality than if you use it to buy 50 (assuming equal rarity). >>
OK, point taken. But unless you have severe space constraints, why is 20 some
sort of magic number? And if you only want a single box, why isn't buying 10
even more high-end coins a still better strategy?
I guess I just think there's enough quantification in the hobby already, and for me
it needs to be more about quality, aesthetics, and enjoyment.
<< <i>OK, point taken. But unless you have severe space constraints, why is 20 some
sort of magic number? And if you only want a single box, why isn't buying 10
even more high-end coins a still better strategy? >>
Nope.
20 is the perfect number. A box holds 20. Not 10.
Filling the box exactly is the name of the game.
OCD.
<< <i>
<< <i>OK, point taken. But unless you have severe space constraints, why is 20 some
sort of magic number? And if you only want a single box, why isn't buying 10
even more high-end coins a still better strategy? >>
Nope.
20 is the perfect number. A box holds 20. Not 10.
Filling the box exactly is the name of the game.
OCD. >>
(a) It is merely certain slab boxes which hold 20 coins. Why should we allow the decisions of some corporation define our collection? There are plenty of other boxes which hold different number of coins, sometimes more than 20, other times less.
(b) It is clear, that, given a certain series, a certain budget, and a certain timeframe, that aiming for quality and quantity are at cross-purposes. But ignoring boxes, what should we think this entails, if anything? Why go for a die state collection? Obviously by just going for a variety collection, you can get nicer coins. Why go for that die variety collection? Just get the major varieties, and you can get even nicer coins. Why get varieties at all? Go for a date/mint set, and average quality can go up again. Why care about mintmarks? They weren't always cared about. And quality is not constant over mints anyway. Just get a coin from whatever mint issued the nicest coin in a year, a date set. Why care about years at all? How about a decade set? You've now eliminated nine out of every ten coins you would need in a date set, think about the quality you can get now! Why even care about the date at all? Just get a single coin.
Of course, for different budgets/timeframes, one can stop at different points along such a continuum. But I just find it odd for grade or even "condition" to be the _major_ defining principle of a set. In general, one would define it some other way (dates, type, date/mint, varieties) and then deal with quality from there. Perhaps it's because I have never been able to afford to be a grade snob, I've just never gotten the concept. I'd rather have a coherent set than a random grouping of admittedly "nice" coins. While when deciding upon a set grade will be _an_ issue, it would be the nature of the set which defines what grade I can collect, rather than the grade defining what set I can collect and how I can collect it. (Frankly, I'm more an obscurity snob. I worry that too many people know about what I collect. I also worry that the music I listen too is becoming too popular. I'm sure there's some connection there.)
(c) So let's get to that box of "20." Unless you have a set you can define which gives you 20 coins (besides being 20 coins in and of itself), it would seem the collection is defined rather arbitrarily. We can all appreciate nice coins. But when we look at it as a whole, there'll probably be something missing. 20 Nice coins will just be 20 nice coins; they won't show a mind at work, just a wallet (of varying size). Unless there is a series where you were able to define a set which _happened_ to have 20 coins in it, the "collection" will be an arbitrary mish-mash. People will look at at, think, "nice coins, but it's all over the place. And they're mostly/all common."
And let's take the box of 20 concept to it's end. Let's define our collection by getting 20 coins, in as good as grade and condition as we can find. That's what we are going after, nothing else matters. Guess what, our task is easy! Just go to a coin show, rummage through modern proof sets and mint products for a while, and find 20 coins which are both high grade and also "nice" in "condition". And there's your pure box of 20. You have just found 20 of the easiest nice coins to find, because other than that your collection had no definition! This is how the box of 20 concept ends. 20 Common coins. Perhaps it'll be slightly different, perhaps the first table at the coin show has row upon row of common Morgans, or Lincolns, or 1883 no cents Liberty nickels, but chances are you'll miss, say, Vermont landscape coppers, or Canadian blacksmith coppers, or Wyatt copies, or Vernon medals, or encased postage stamps, and so forth. And certainly those types will not readily lend themselves to the "nice piece" concept in any case.
In conclusion, I don't like the box-of-20 concept because, one, in theory leads to an incoherent mish-mash which really cannot be called a collection, and two, in practice those who claim to follow it probably really are not, there's some other coherence which defines the collection better.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
You think a 'box of 20' collection would go into some wierd aftermarket box that has more or less than 20 slots? That's "crazy talk™".
Although I can understand the motivations behind trying to keep ones collection focused and without excess junk...
It's easy to take the 'box of 20' concept to mean exactly one box of 20 coins.
The only way I can comprehend the rigid box of 20 concept...
OCD.
The true believers will have 20 PCGS slabs in a PCGS box. Accept no substitute.
So I'd like to get to twenty high quality pieces again someday!
It turns out that 20 is a pretty good number for a lot of different collecting themes.
20 Dahlonega $5's would leave you six short of completion.
20 different draped bust halves would give you a set with all the dates and quite a few of the major varieties.
20 coins in the early gold type set with allow for a couple duplicates.
20 different colonial coins would allow you to own many of the major and most popular types.
20 patterns can be sliced and diced in an infinite number of ways
There are exactly 20 coins in the Walker short set
Why knock what someone else collects and how they collect it?
Imagine if the Eliasberg/Norweb/Garrett/Pittman etc etc collections went this route instead of where they went????
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
If I had it my way, stupidity would be painful!
<< <i>I simply couldn't do it. I NEED MORE THAN 20!
Imagine if PCGS came out with a new box that held say 34 slabs....
There would be a buzz in the back of the room claiming that a Box of 34
was what they really wanted all along
<< <i>All I can say is that aftermarket boxes need not apply. Only official NGC or PCGS boxes of 20 are considered. And maybe ANACS and DGS if they also have boxes that fit exactly 20 slabs. You think a 'box of 20' collection would go into some wierd aftermarket box that has more or less than 20 slots? That's "crazy talk�". Although I can understand the motivations behind trying to keep ones collection focused and without excess junk... It's easy to take the 'box of 20' concept to mean exactly one box of 20 coins. The only way I can comprehend the rigid box of 20 concept... OCD. The true believers will have 20 PCGS slabs in a PCGS box. Accept no substitute.
It turns out that 20 is a pretty good number for a lot of different collecting themes.
20 Dahlonega $5's would leave you six short of completion.
20 different draped bust halves would give you a set with all the dates and quite a few of the major varieties.
20 coins in the early gold type set with allow for a couple duplicates.
20 different colonial coins would allow you to own many of the major and most popular types.
20 patterns can be sliced and diced in an infinite number of ways
There are exactly 20 coins in the Walker short set
Why knock what someone else collects and how they collect it? >>
Looks like I have attracted the ire of one of the great folks on this forum.
I'm just blowing off some steam.
I've seen a few 'box of 20' collection pictures posted on this forum that make my jaw drop.
I just cannot currently conceive of selling off the lions share of my collection in order to meet an arbitrary, and somewhat small number.
Perhaps I will see things differently in time.
<< <i>
<< <i>All I can say is that aftermarket boxes need not apply. Only official NGC or PCGS boxes of 20 are considered. And maybe ANACS and DGS if they also have boxes that fit exactly 20 slabs. You think a 'box of 20' collection would go into some wierd aftermarket box that has more or less than 20 slots? That's "crazy talk�". Although I can understand the motivations behind trying to keep ones collection focused and without excess junk... It's easy to take the 'box of 20' concept to mean exactly one box of 20 coins. The only way I can comprehend the rigid box of 20 concept... OCD. The true believers will have 20 PCGS slabs in a PCGS box. Accept no substitute.
It turns out that 20 is a pretty good number for a lot of different collecting themes.
20 Dahlonega $5's would leave you six short of completion.
20 different draped bust halves would give you a set with all the dates and quite a few of the major varieties.
20 coins in the early gold type set with allow for a couple duplicates.
20 different colonial coins would allow you to own many of the major and most popular types.
20 patterns can be sliced and diced in an infinite number of ways
There are exactly 20 coins in the Walker short set
Why knock what someone else collects and how they collect it? >>
Looks like I have attracted the ire of one of the great folks on this forum.
I'm just blowing off some steam.
I've seen a few 'box of 20' collection pictures posted on this forum that make my jaw drop.
I just cannot currently conceive of selling off the lions share of my collection in order to meet an arbitrary, and somewhat small number.
Perhaps I will see things differently in time. >>
That's not ire. That's just disapproval of your incessant sarcasm. Drop the 'tude, dude. Coin collecting is a friendly endeavor.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
<< <i>A tangent from another thread, someone suggested that I get down to 20 coins. Even excluding the 7070, various other misc and generally inexpensive stuff, I have serious doubt that I could possibly get my core collection down to 20 coins. How much trouble would it be for you? Do you already have twenty or fewer in your collection? I daresay, if it would be easy to get down to 20, maybe you should! Comments welcome. >>
Let me repost the first post in this thread, pick it apart and give more detailed comments.
How does one define a 'core' collection? I have an inner core. Six coins that will not be sold until the very end. These are the ones that I consider the leaders of the pack. Then there is an outer core. Coins which provide interest and contrast. The inner core is nice to view in the context of the outer core. I don't see that getting to 20. Then there are scatter shot coins. Various items to provide even more contrast and enjoyment. To use the earth as a metaphor, that would be the 'mantle' of my collection. I suppose my growing collection of world gold is currently the 'mantle'. I guess I could consider the inexpensive trinkets the 'crust'; the outermost layer. Past the 'inner core', the distinctions are not really that clear and things evolve and change as I evolve and mature.
I strongly believe that a collector needs to be very honest with themselves about what their goals are. It's even fair to say that you have no specific goal. But be honest with yourself; that it the most important person you need to be honest with. You mention that "if it is easy to get down to 20, maybe you should!" What? Why? I don't see much of a justification for this statement. I'm not certain I see the logic of this other than what I have already mentioned. Numerology and the number of slabs a PCGS box will hold. Now, if your goal was to strip your collection to the inner core, that is fine.
I guess that if your goal is to truly hit the number 20, then that is fine too, I guess. But I am having a hard time seeing why. Even in your good examples of various subsets, few of them add up to exactly 20.
Why my concern and incessant sarcasm on the issue? I have seen folks sell coins that they know they should not have sold. They regret the decision. Some even buy them back later. Perhaps this is because they are not being honest with themselves about what they want in their collection? I'm not certain why this happens and am trying to figure it out.
My fear is that the desire for a box of 20 might cause a collector to not be honest with themselves about a more important aspect of their collection.
It just seems to be that a 'box of 20' is an easy 'numerology' trap to fall into if you are not being honest with yourself about what you really want in your collection. If you collection needs to consist of 18 or 24 coins, then so be it. Why cram a square peg into a round hole?
If you are indeed going to trim down your core collection to 20 pieces, please be loud about it on the BST so that I get a chance at seeing what is available.
[edit]
Reading this old thread more carefully, I see this:
<< <i>Jay's box of 20 principal is for those looking to maximize investment and return not for those looking to build life long collections to enjoy. If you ask him for advice, the first question he'll ask you is "What is your reason for buying?" Jay's words - "I've always preached fewer coins, better coins and quality." He's in the collectibles market for investment so everything he buys is for sale.
>>
This explains much; or rather reinforces what I already knew, but conveniently forgot. I am not an investor, but am looking for life-long enjoyment.
$1 1849-1854, 1854-1856, 1856-1889
$2.5 1834-1839, 1840-1907, 1908-1929
$3 1854-1889
$5 1834-1838, 1839-1865, 1866-1908, 1908-1929
$10 1838-1866, 1866-1907, 1907-1908, 1908-1933
$20 1850-1866, 1866-1876, 1877-1907, 1907-1908, 1908-1933
Too late. I did this last fall. It did not work for me, as I indicated in my post earlier today.
Julian said it best (last year): There is no "right" collection.
It just seems to be that a 'box of 20' is an easy 'numerology' trap to fall into if you are not being honest with yourself about what you really want in your collection. If you collection needs to consist of 18 or 24 coins, then so be it. Why cram a square peg into a round hole?
Here was my earlier reply (in 2007):
<<"Twenty" is arbitrary. Let's make it ten instead.
No, really, it's not about the number but the concept. Small, focused collection. Once you hit your max number, maybe you have to sell a coin to buy another. >>
Julian said it best (also in 2007): "There is no "right" collection."
<< <i>Gold Type Set:
$1 1849-1854, 1854-1856, 1856-1889
$2.5 1834-1839, 1840-1907, 1908-1929
$3 1854-1889
$5 1834-1838, 1839-1865, 1866-1908, 1908-1929
$10 1838-1866, 1866-1907, 1907-1908, 1908-1933
$20 1850-1866, 1866-1876, 1877-1907, 1907-1908, 1908-1933 >>
What about the quarter eagles ($2.50) prior to 1834?
The 1796-1807 Capped Bust to the Right, or the
1808 Capped Bust to the Left, or the
1821-1834 Capped Head to the Left just to name a few left out of just the quarter eagles.
Might have to go for that second PCGS box and forget the 20 idea.
<< <i>
<< <i>Gold Type Set:
$1 1849-1854, 1854-1856, 1856-1889
$2.5 1834-1839, 1840-1907, 1908-1929
$3 1854-1889
$5 1834-1838, 1839-1865, 1866-1908, 1908-1929
$10 1838-1866, 1866-1907, 1907-1908, 1908-1933
$20 1850-1866, 1866-1876, 1877-1907, 1907-1908, 1908-1933 >>
What about the quarter eagles ($2.50) prior to 1834?
The 1796-1807 Capped Bust to the Right, or the
1808 Capped Bust to the Left, or the
1821-1834 Capped Head to the Left just to name a few left out of just the quarter eagles.
Might have to go for that second PCGS box and forget the 20 idea. >>
Actually, quite a few folks would collect a gold type set like that. It just happens to be 20 coins. Some people, myself included, cannot afford 1808 QE's, 1796 No Starts QE's, etc. That said, the 12-coin gold type set is probably the benchmark, as discussed here.
I find it rather amusing that this concept troubles you so much.
2 seated liberty, 3 Barber Coins, 2 Standing Liberty
Quarters, 3 Walking Liberty Halves, 2 Morgan Dollars
and a piece Dollar.
Camelot
is merely a late phase in a long life of collecting. I have collected classic,
modern, junk , proofs, superb gems, modern condition rarities ect, ect.
Now, my niche, is to collect gem examples of each of the major classical
series I enjoy.
Camelot
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Gold Type Set:
$1 1849-1854, 1854-1856, 1856-1889
$2.5 1834-1839, 1840-1907, 1908-1929
$3 1854-1889
$5 1834-1838, 1839-1865, 1866-1908, 1908-1929
$10 1838-1866, 1866-1907, 1907-1908, 1908-1933
$20 1850-1866, 1866-1876, 1877-1907, 1907-1908, 1908-1933 >>
What about the quarter eagles ($2.50) prior to 1834?
The 1796-1807 Capped Bust to the Right, or the
1808 Capped Bust to the Left, or the
1821-1834 Capped Head to the Left just to name a few left out of just the quarter eagles.
Might have to go for that second PCGS box and forget the 20 idea. >>
Actually, quite a few folks would collect a gold type set like that. It just happens to be 20 coins. Some people, myself included, cannot afford 1808 QE's, 1796 No Starts QE's, etc. That said, the 12-coin gold type set is probably the benchmark, as discussed here.
I find it rather amusing that this concept troubles you so much.
Hey RYK
The concept doesn't trouble me at all.
The idea of changing the playing field to make it fit is a little amusing though
as some of us have noticed
Bear sums it up rather well in his comment above mine here.
Collect what you want and want what you collect.
I know I do