I would look toward the music industry, whose style changes more rapidly than our coinage.
The new stuff is always crap. Rock and roll when I was a kid was "crap", now it's "classic".
In 30 years, when coins are synthetic (plastic or other material), their version of MC will be entirely different than yours.
You should stop being so 20th-century-centric. This is the internet. In the next century, you'll be used as an example of how attitudes in numismatics never change...
Yes it does. I was never able to take Franklin halves seriously because they were common in circulation when I started collecting in the early 60's.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Yes it does. I was never able to take Franklin halves seriously because they were common in circulation when I started collecting in the early 60's. >>
Same here with the Washington quarter series. Love them and have dealt in many, but they still have the pocket change feel.
I think most coins created in the "clad age" were manufactured with much better technology, in greater numbers and often for collector purposes. Accordingly, with rare exception in my opinion it's not very collectable.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
I think most coins created in the "clad age" were manufactured with much better technology, in greater numbers and often for collector purposes. Accordingly, with rare exception in my opinion it's not very collectable. >>
By every single measure and characteristic of "collectible" I'd say clad is far more collectible than any other US coins.
I think most coins created in the "clad age" were manufactured with much better technology, in greater numbers and often for collector purposes. Accordingly, with rare exception in my opinion it's not very collectable. >>
By every single measure and characteristic of "collectible" I'd say clad is far more collectible than any other US coins. >>
Collectable because there are four available for every person on the planet? Certainly there are more interesting than classic coinage.
Threads like this only serve to make collectors of post-64 stuff and moderns all butthurt and defensive. "Crap" means different things to different people. To me it is quality based. There is "modern crap" and there is "old crap". Crap doesn't discriminate based on era. That said, there is a lot more modern crap than vintage crap IMO.
There are "Modern Coins" and there are issues that are "Modern Crap" You see some modern coins are not as appreciated as much as others. They all beat the heck out of collecting pop tops off of cans and trying to convince your wife it's a scam. What with aluminum prices so high 20 billion pop tops collected by a bunch of bleeding heart liberal teachers adds up to a nice pay day at the junk yard. Come on honey tell me?? What charity is this anyways..........Oh, the horror the horror.
My birth year does impact my collecting habit, but really it has more to do with the silver hoarding on 65-68. My grandfather used to pull silver halves from circulation and put them in a cigar box in the back of the wardrobe. As a kid, they were a great treasure. That caused me to examine and take interest in coins. When he died he left me his collection, which included an 1893 Columbian half culled from circulation, a few Peace dollars, and an 1893-cc Morgan in vf. I am still and fond of those series today.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I like the distinction between coins which are "CRAP" and coins which are "COLLECTIBLE".
There are "Old", "Vintage", "Classic", "Antique", "New", "Ultra New", "Modern", "Ultra Modern" coins of both types.
Some old coins, even those going back 1000+ years, are crap and to me not collectible. Same with newer coins.
Also there are coins, older and newer, which are collectible.
In my collection I have coins which are both (some I found in pocket change as a YN, some I bought or otherwise acquired as a YN and as an adult collector). Many coins I deem collectible would not be so viewed by others. Many coins I deem crap would not be so viewed by others.
What I need to do is cull the crap from my collection, leaving only the collectible coins. Then I need to cull the collectible coins to weed out the lower quality duplicates, leaving only a collection that is filled with very nice eye appealing coins. However even if I do this, the collection would still be viewed by some others as crap (because they do not deem it collectible, regardless of how nice it is).
What is or is not modern depends on your point of view and what you collect. To collectors of Ancients, all US Coins are modern.
For me I started collecting in 1963 at 7 years of age and remember finding then current coins in pocket change along with Peace dollars, Morgan dollars, Walkers, SLQs, Mercs, Buffalos, Liberty Nickels and Indian Head Cents. All of the coins I collected from pocket change and local banks as YN are modern to me. Especially the series then current in 1963.
For post 1965 coinage, including Clad, many view same as not worth while collecting. Many others, including me, marvel as how gorgeous really high quality examples of these coins are. The thing is the best of these coins are so hard to find that most have never seen them. Not seeing the best, one assumes the dogs they do see are the best. Take a look at some of the best of the Clads and other post 1964 coins posted on the forums and in Coin Facts you will be surprised. You may still not have an interest in these coins, but the beauty of some of them can not be denied.
I like the distinction between coins which are "CRAP" and coins which are "COLLECTIBLE".
There are "Old", "Vintage", "Classic", "Antique", "New", "Ultra New", "Modern", "Ultra Modern" coins of both types.
Some old coins, even those going back 1000+ years, are crap and to me not collectible. Same with newer coins.
Also there are coins, older and newer, which are collectible.
In my collection I have coins which are both (some I found in pocket change as a YN, some I bought or otherwise acquired as a YN and as an adult collector). Many coins I deem collectible would not be so viewed by others. Many coins I deem crap would not be so viewed by others.
What I need to do is cull the crap from my collection, leaving only the collectible coins. Then I need to cull the collectible coins to weed out the lower quality duplicates, leaving only a collection that is filled with very nice eye appealing coins. However even if I do this, the collection would still be viewed by some others as crap (because they do not deem it collectible, regardless of how nice it is).
What is or is not modern depends on your point of view and what you collect. To collectors of Ancients, all US Coins are modern.
For me I started collecting in 1963 at 7 years of age and remember finding then current coins in pocket change along with Peace dollars, Morgan dollars, Walkers, SLQs, Mercs, Buffalos, Liberty Nickels and Indian Head Cents. All of the coins I collected from pocket change and local banks as YN are modern to me. Especially the series then current in 1963.
For post 1965 coinage, including Clad, many view same as not worth while collecting. Many others, including me, marvel as how gorgeous really high quality examples of these coins are. The thing is the best of these coins are so hard to find that most have never seen them. Not seeing the best, one assumes the dogs they do see are the best. Take a look at some of the best of the Clads and other post 1964 coins posted on the forums and in Coin Facts you will be surprised. You may still not have an interest in these coins, but the beauty of some of them can not be denied.
Collectable because there are four available for every person on the planet? Certainly there are more interesting than classic coinage. >>
Something becomes collectible because people are familiar with it, it is high quality, it has become scarce, it was once an important part of daily life and represents an era, and forming a collection of like items requires effort, patience, and organization.
Nice clad coins far better fit these criteria than $20 gold pieces. Indeed, for the main part clad fit better than most any other US coins. Anyone can spend a bucket full of money for any US coin and form a collection. Now days with patience you can even assemble clad sets in superb Gem with lots of money. But what you can't do is assem- ble sets of nice attractive XF and AU clads. What you can't readily do is to form any sort of specialty sets like PL's or "non mint set" sets. Try finding pristine examples of horribly made clad from the '70's just as they looked from the mint. Try putting toget- her Gem sets from rolls and mint sets.
You can acquire clad at face value to assemble sets. Try acquiring large cents at face value and see what you get. With moderns you don't need to worry about condition because the surfaces haven't been messed with. If a coin looks like a Gem then it is a Gem.
"Common" is a relative term. In the case of coins it is related to the demand more than it is the supply. One can easily find dozens of Unc '09-S VDB cents for each nice well made and Gem 1982-P quarter. But the cent is scarce relative the demand and the quarter is not. The cent can be acquired for thousands of dollars but the quarter will require time and effort if you want to add it to a collection.
Of course each collector defines "collectible" for himself but every collector seeks rarity and importance as they themselves define it. To me this makes coins that defied the odds of being mangled in circulation far more desirable than old bags of silver that survived on- ly because they were backing for specie or were lost in storage.
Comments
The new stuff is always crap. Rock and roll when I was a kid was "crap", now it's "classic".
In 30 years, when coins are synthetic (plastic or other material), their version of MC will be entirely different than yours.
You should stop being so 20th-century-centric. This is the internet. In the next century, you'll be used as an example of how attitudes in numismatics never change...
<< <i>5)The sms kennedy is the lowest minted kennedy at 2,360,000 coins. >>
Not quite.
1970-D 2,150,000.
1998-S MS silver ~62,000.
Assorted recent clad and silver proofs 450,000 and up.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
if a coin gets my notice it's in my collection
FS:1938-S US PCGS MS66 nickel
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oiJzk63mxvdY77EeA
<< <i>Yes it does. I was never able to take Franklin halves seriously because they were common in circulation when I started collecting in the early 60's. >>
Same here with the Washington quarter series. Love them and have dealt in many, but they still have the pocket change feel.
To my view modern coinage began in 1908. The crap started in 1965. I still recall my dismay as I first examined a clad quarter in the Autumn of 1965.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
I think most coins created in the "clad age" were manufactured with much better technology, in greater numbers and often for collector purposes. Accordingly, with rare exception in my opinion it's not very collectable.
<< <i>No,
I think most coins created in the "clad age" were manufactured with much better technology, in greater numbers and often for collector purposes. Accordingly, with rare exception in my opinion it's not very collectable. >>
By every single measure and characteristic of "collectible" I'd say clad is far more collectible than any other US coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>No,
I think most coins created in the "clad age" were manufactured with much better technology, in greater numbers and often for collector purposes. Accordingly, with rare exception in my opinion it's not very collectable. >>
By every single measure and characteristic of "collectible" I'd say clad is far more collectible than any other US coins. >>
Collectable because there are four available for every person on the planet? Certainly there are more interesting than classic coinage.
Latin American Collection
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
There are "Old", "Vintage", "Classic", "Antique", "New", "Ultra New", "Modern", "Ultra Modern" coins of both types.
Some old coins, even those going back 1000+ years, are crap and to me not collectible. Same with newer coins.
Also there are coins, older and newer, which are collectible.
In my collection I have coins which are both (some I found in pocket change as a YN, some I bought or otherwise acquired as a YN and as an adult collector). Many coins I deem collectible would not be so viewed by others. Many coins I deem crap would not be so viewed by others.
What I need to do is cull the crap from my collection, leaving only the collectible coins. Then I need to cull the collectible coins to weed out the lower quality duplicates, leaving only a collection that is filled with very nice eye appealing coins. However even if I do this, the collection would still be viewed by some others as crap (because they do not deem it collectible, regardless of how nice it is).
What is or is not modern depends on your point of view and what you collect. To collectors of Ancients, all US Coins are modern.
For me I started collecting in 1963 at 7 years of age and remember finding then current coins in pocket change along with Peace dollars, Morgan dollars, Walkers, SLQs, Mercs, Buffalos, Liberty Nickels and Indian Head Cents. All of the coins I collected from pocket change and local banks as YN are modern to me. Especially the series then current in 1963.
For post 1965 coinage, including Clad, many view same as not worth while collecting. Many others, including me, marvel as how gorgeous really high quality examples of these coins are. The thing is the best of these coins are so hard to find that most have never seen them. Not seeing the best, one assumes the dogs they do see are the best. Take a look at some of the best of the Clads and other post 1964 coins posted on the forums and in Coin Facts you will be surprised. You may still not have an interest in these coins, but the beauty of some of them can not be denied.
There are "Old", "Vintage", "Classic", "Antique", "New", "Ultra New", "Modern", "Ultra Modern" coins of both types.
Some old coins, even those going back 1000+ years, are crap and to me not collectible. Same with newer coins.
Also there are coins, older and newer, which are collectible.
In my collection I have coins which are both (some I found in pocket change as a YN, some I bought or otherwise acquired as a YN and as an adult collector). Many coins I deem collectible would not be so viewed by others. Many coins I deem crap would not be so viewed by others.
What I need to do is cull the crap from my collection, leaving only the collectible coins. Then I need to cull the collectible coins to weed out the lower quality duplicates, leaving only a collection that is filled with very nice eye appealing coins. However even if I do this, the collection would still be viewed by some others as crap (because they do not deem it collectible, regardless of how nice it is).
What is or is not modern depends on your point of view and what you collect. To collectors of Ancients, all US Coins are modern.
For me I started collecting in 1963 at 7 years of age and remember finding then current coins in pocket change along with Peace dollars, Morgan dollars, Walkers, SLQs, Mercs, Buffalos, Liberty Nickels and Indian Head Cents. All of the coins I collected from pocket change and local banks as YN are modern to me. Especially the series then current in 1963.
For post 1965 coinage, including Clad, many view same as not worth while collecting. Many others, including me, marvel as how gorgeous really high quality examples of these coins are. The thing is the best of these coins are so hard to find that most have never seen them. Not seeing the best, one assumes the dogs they do see are the best. Take a look at some of the best of the Clads and other post 1964 coins posted on the forums and in Coin Facts you will be surprised. You may still not have an interest in these coins, but the beauty of some of them can not be denied.
<< <i>
Collectable because there are four available for every person on the planet? Certainly there are more interesting than classic coinage. >>
Something becomes collectible because people are familiar with it, it is high quality,
it has become scarce, it was once an important part of daily life and represents an
era, and forming a collection of like items requires effort, patience, and organization.
Nice clad coins far better fit these criteria than $20 gold pieces. Indeed, for the main
part clad fit better than most any other US coins. Anyone can spend a bucket full of
money for any US coin and form a collection. Now days with patience you can even
assemble clad sets in superb Gem with lots of money. But what you can't do is assem-
ble sets of nice attractive XF and AU clads. What you can't readily do is to form any
sort of specialty sets like PL's or "non mint set" sets. Try finding pristine examples of
horribly made clad from the '70's just as they looked from the mint. Try putting toget-
her Gem sets from rolls and mint sets.
You can acquire clad at face value to assemble sets. Try acquiring large cents at face
value and see what you get. With moderns you don't need to worry about condition
because the surfaces haven't been messed with. If a coin looks like a Gem then it is a
Gem.
"Common" is a relative term. In the case of coins it is related to the demand more than
it is the supply. One can easily find dozens of Unc '09-S VDB cents for each nice well made
and Gem 1982-P quarter. But the cent is scarce relative the demand and the quarter is
not. The cent can be acquired for thousands of dollars but the quarter will require time
and effort if you want to add it to a collection.
Of course each collector defines "collectible" for himself but every collector seeks rarity
and importance as they themselves define it. To me this makes coins that defied the odds
of being mangled in circulation far more desirable than old bags of silver that survived on-
ly because they were backing for specie or were lost in storage.
To each his own.