All draped bust coins are now over 200+ years old*

RYK

Does this increase their desirability to collectors...say, in the way 179x coins have an added level of desirability? I have not seen these coin promoted for being 200 years old, but perhaps I have not been looking closely enough.

I personally do not think so. I think their desirability stems from the classic design and a collector's interest in acquiring coins from early in the history of our country. There is the possibility that Thomas Jefferson or John Adams handled the coin or that the coin bought a meal and board for a night at the inn for someone. I think that the 200 year old status is somewhat arbitrary and does not change the attractiveness of the coins to those that would be innately interested.

Has this been discussed in the past?

*except the 1808 half cent, of course

Longacre

I think Pistareen recently handled some medals that Thomas Jefferson himself carried back from France (fully documented). If that is not uber cool, I don't know what is.

[I hope I have the story straight].

BECOKA

I don't think so. I agree just for the fact of design and being in the early U.S. history but the 200 year mark does not seem to play here.

Baley

it's hard to imagine that passing the 200 year mark is BAD for the collectibility, so that leaves neutral and good

I happen to like that my DBs are over 200, if only for the round numbers in determining their age. It makes it hard to sell such a neat thing

which I think (strong hands that is) generally drives prices up. couple this with that percentage of collectors who want to own their first ones,

and their scarcity relative to newer coins, and prices could start to rise on these (that is, continue to rise)

gecko109

<< <i>it's hard to imagine that passing the 200 year mark is BAD for the collectibility, so that leaves neutral and good

I happen to like that my DBs are over 200, if only for the round numbers in determining their age. It makes it hard to sell such a neat thing

which I think (strong hands that is) generally drives prices up. couple this with that percentage of collectors who want to own their first ones,

and their scarcity relative to newer coins, and prices could start to rise on these (that is, continue to rise) >>



But when will greysheet realize this and catch up?

OKbustchaser

<< <i>*except the 1808 half cent, of course >>



and the 1804 dollar.

Aegis3

<< <i>it's hard to imagine that passing the 200 year mark is BAD for the collectibility, so that leaves neutral and good

I happen to like that my DBs are over 200, if only for the round numbers in determining their age. It makes it hard to sell such a neat thing

which I think (strong hands that is) generally drives prices up. couple this with that percentage of collectors who want to own their first ones,

and their scarcity relative to newer coins, and prices could start to rise on these (that is, continue to rise) >>



I'd say neutral. As far as I can remember, back in the 1990's, there wasn't any obvious price distinction between those 1790's coins that were 200+ years old and those that were not yet then.

claychaser

I always liked ones that are this kind of dirty:

coachleonard

The 200 year old mark SHOULD increase desirability, but in the case of the 1800-08, I also agree that it's their "Early U.S-ness" that is the focus of their demand. The real magic number I think is the "17" as the first two digits of the date-- somehow a 1798 large cent seems SO much older than an 1802. Wow, I can still remember when the year 1776 would SOON be 200 years old!

Gemini

The older the violin the better it plays.

itsnotjustme

What about re-strikes?

I do not think that threshold is near as significant as the 179X advantage. For my type set, something from the late 1700s is preferrable to 180X.