US Coin Date Set: 1793-present

RYK

I always thought it would be interesting to assemble a set of US coins from each date from 1793 to the present, in which each date is represented by a single coin. Of the 216 or so dates to consider, which are the stoppers? 1793 stands out as a difficult/expensive date, but there must be other sleeper stoppers.

If you look at your collection (and disregard bags of junk silver and the like), how complete would your collection be? Is anyone here actually pursuing such an endeavor?

tradedollarnut

1933?

mgoodm3

<< <i>1933? >>



a cent?

I've always liked the idea of a date set. gotta mix up the denoms to make it interesting.

JoeLewis

<< <i>

<< <i>1933? >>



a cent?

I've always liked the idea of a date set. gotta mix up the denoms to make it interesting. >>



I assumed he meant a one coin of each denomination from each year.

JoeLewis

1804

tradedollarnut

I was thinking a lot of coins were skipped in 1933 - forgot the cent wasn't.

mgoodm3

<< <i>in which each date is represented by a single coin >>



I don't think that there are any real stoppers except the earliest years.

mgoodm3

The hardest part is to get a good variety of coins/MM's. Having any early gold will be pretty expensive.

ajia

<<...1793 to the present, in which each date is represented by a single coin.>>

Has to be 1793, but I would not consider that fair as on the half cent & large cent were produced.

I would say the starting year should be 1794 if you are going to need just 1 coin to represent the 'years'

RYK

<< <i>The hardest part is to get a good variety of coins/MM's. Having any early gold will be pretty expensive. >>



Let's add the condition that every coin has to be a different type, until this is no longer possible, at which point the types can be repeated. It could become fairly challenging.

BECOKA

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>1933? >>



a cent?

I've always liked the idea of a date set. gotta mix up the denoms to make it interesting. >>



I assumed he meant a one coin of each denomination from each year. >>



I'm pretty sure he meant one coin from each year.

DJCoinz

That would be an interesting and challenging set. An even more challenging (but somewhat more interesting) set to assemble would be a complete date/mm set (not type/date/mm as that would be near impossible ).

Julian

Go for it, Robert.

You have defined the collection and that is all that it takes. The only remaining problem will be to have a uniform grade, but you really do not have to have a consistent grade, just attractive.

I will be a lot of fun.

Nysoto

1793, 1794, 1804, and don't forget 1792. It would be fun to collect the last 50 years out of circulation.

RYK

Go for it, Robert.

Nah, it's not for me at this time. I might accidentally step into, but not by design.

To add but another wrinkle, it would be interesting to build the set in chronological or reverse chronological order.

291fifth

Try doing that with a medal set. You will find that it is a real challenge. Some of the years that are difficult will surprise you.

Shamika

1815?

1799?

1792!

ajia

To add but another wrinkle, it would be interesting to build the set in chronological or reverse chronological order.

In other words, 1793 half-cent, 1794 cent, 1795 half-dime, 1796 dime, etc.?

THAT would be cool.
Obviously the 1793 half-cent would be tough. The 1796 dime is also a tough one.

RYK

<< <i>To add but another wrinkle, it would be interesting to build the set in chronological or reverse chronological order.

In other words, 1793 half-cent, 1794 cent, 1795 half-dime, 1796 dime, etc.?

THAT would be cool.
Obviously the 1793 half-cent would be tough. The 1796 dime is also a tough one. >>



Or, 1793 Wreath cent, 1794 Liberty Cap cent, 1795 half dime, 1796 draped bust-small eagle dollar, 1797 draped bust large cent, 1798 half eagle, 1799 draped bust large eagle dollar, ...

rhedden

1815 is a stinker of a year. The commonest coin would be the 1815 quarter, which still costs several hundred dollars for a decent F-12 example.

lope208

Cool idea. I like it because it's actually attainable!

And I agree that each coin should be a different variety or MM until you have to repeat.

The only problem would be displaying it! Maybe Dansco will make a custom album for you

Any thoughts on an effective display?

RYK

<< <i>Cool idea. I like it because it's actually attainable!

And I agree that each coin should be a different variety or MM until you have to repeat.

The only problem would be displaying it! Maybe Dansco will make a custom album for you

Any thoughts on an effective display? >>



If you stick to certified coins, you can buy eagle slab binders and have them in chronological order.

291fifth

Why not start in 1787? Remember the Fugio?

jsf

it would be neat to do a presentation/display at a FUN show or somewhere, board members contributing.

doh

<< <i>1793, 1794, 1804 >>



1804 isn't a tough year...Half Cents are easy from that year. 1815 is a much tougher year.

BobGreene

1792 disme, 1793 Chain cent, 1794 Flowing Hair dollar, 1795 half dollar, 1796 quarter, 1797 ?, 1798?, 1799 cent...

RYK

<< <i>Why not start in 1787? Remember the Fugio? >>



Not a bad idea. I think you could fill up from 1787 through 1792 with colonials (pre-Federals) and coins that circulated in the colonial period.

RYK

<< <i>1792 disme, 1793 Chain cent, 1794 Flowing Hair dollar, 1795 half dollar, 1796 quarter, 1797 ?, 1798?, 1799 cent... >>



Your budget is obviously larger than mine is.

DMWJR

It already exists for Cents United States Cent Date Set, 1793-present with the exception 1815.

RYK

Here's another wrinkle--no two consecutive coins can be the same denomination and while we are at it, after 1838, no two consecutive coins may be from the same Mint (ie. must use branch mints).

BillyKingsley

That is a very cool concept.

I have from 1933 to current already. I think. I am not sure if I have anything from 1934, but I think I do. I can't remember. I just bought myself a 1933 cent in October.

I have almost nothing from the 1920s, but I have the 19teens pretty well covered. I don't have anything from 1913 but it's the only one from that decade I need. Before 1909 I am very spotty, as the only consecutive years I have before that would be 1898 and 1899, and my nickel from 1898 is so badly worn I'm really just guessing.

Oops, I also have consecutive 1852-1853. After 1853 I jump to 1865, then 1875, then I jump to 1888. It gets a little better after 1888 as I have a handfull of nearly slick V Nickels and four Barber dimes that fall in that time. I have an 1882 wheat cent that is in such bad shape I'm not sure if it really counts. It looks like it was hit with buckshot, then spent 50 years under water.
Edit again, I forgot that I have Morgans from 1900 and 1901. So I guess I have 1898-1902 (nickel-nickel-dollar-dollar-cent) but I am not 100% sure on that 1898.

My oldest anything US is a 1832 Half Dime which is in somewhat poor condition, it only cost me $5 to tell you it's condition.

I also want to note, everything from 1935-current has been pulled from circulation! While some of the coins I have puchased better versions of, at least one coin of each year has been pulled from circulation. That's pretty cool...I've gotten 1911 and 1919 coins in circulation this year...

Cladiator

Neat idea for a set. It would likely be very fun to build until you got into the late 20th Century and 21st Century. I guess you could include commems and "bullion" such as ASE/AGE/APE to mix it up a bit.

commoncents123

1793 isn't all that hard if you're willing to settle...I just sold a chain cent for $1150. As far as I know, if you choose from every denomination there are no coins that would be extraordinarily hard

STONE

I think my goal speaks for itself and is just an extended version of the 1793-Present Date Set.

If I were to count the number of different dates I have thus far, I'm sure I've got about 90%, with the early stuff being the majority of the 10% remaining.
Therefore, the idea is excellent and would be a great way to display type as well as the evolution of design changes from beginning to end.

lope208

<< <i>Here's another wrinkle--no two consecutive coins can be the same denomination and while we are at it, after 1838, no two consecutive coins may be from the same Mint (ie. must use branch mints). >>



Hmmm...1965-66-67 could make it tough with no mint marks
Not even any commems for those years to use.

I guess you could do 1965 Business Strike Lincoln, 1966 SMS Kennedy, 1967 Business Strike Washington...

kristjan

RYK,

Nice idea for a set. I would be 11 coins away plus every date post 1964 excepting 1976. All coin are unslabbed. Capital Plastic would make a holder as for Dr. Haig Koshkarian.

AnkurJ

I am currently working on 1793 to 2009 US Cent set. I am 23 coins away from the Large cent set being completed. Havent even pursued the indian head set. Also, the 1856 Flying eagle would be omitted considering there is a 1856 large cent.

Ankur