It is practical for Collectors to Complete Type Sets of Eagles and Half Eagles
Analyst
Posts: 1,438 ✭✭✭
Perhaps most of us can agree that it would be beneficial to the coin community for additional people to become interested in collecting coins. After all, over the past twenty years, many kids have become focused upon video games and social media, rather than collecting tangible items. There was a boom in the collecting of classic U.S. coins from 1997 or so to 2007, but not a large number of new entrants since then. This is one reason why I have authored a series on collecting classic U.S. coins for less than $500 each.
There is also a need to sustain the interest of people who are already collecting and encourage them to consider collecting goals that are 'new' to each of them, respectively. This year, I have emphasized that assembling type sets of half eagles ($5 gold coins) and eagles ($10 coins) is not complicated and could be done in a reasonable amount of time by those who can afford such a quest. I hope that my articles are clear and accessible to those who had not previously considered type sets of gold coins.
Building a Type Set of U.S. $10 Gold Coins
Building a Complete Type Set of Half Eagles (U.S. $5 gold coins)
Comments
I would think that for someone considering these coins, "quick and easy" is not a great selling point. And I would also suggest that for someone attempting this set, the "quick and easy" approach would not yield great results.
In fact, there are very few things that I would suggest collecting that would not take years to properly accomplish.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
While I like the idea of collecting these sets (and the qualifier is "..by those who can afford such a quest.")...I agree with Andy.. 'quick and easy' may only be for those who can 'easily afford' such a quest... for others, not so much. Cheers, RickO
It depends on when you start. If you've started at the beginning or close to it, provided it's in your budget, then keeping up isn't hard. To start from scratch would be difficult, even if you can afford it. Condition matters to most, so how many would you have to buy to find the perfect one for one's taste? Even with bottomless pockets, it could get expensive quick.
I got into this hobby to get away from people. So far, so good. Opportunities are endless, just the same.
You're assuming new collectors have quite a bit of cash to throw around. The economy is tough right now. Jobs are scarce. We are in a time when many people are forced into company-wide salary reductions or layoffs. Like many people living in Texas, I am from the oil and gas industry, and right now just about everyone in the oil and gas industry is having difficulty advancing their careers. Very few people have a strong sense of job security or opportunities for promotions at this time. Even well educated and experienced professionals are being forced to lower their standards and accept less even with an increased cost of living. Times are tough regardless of who you know or your professional experience.
I agree that ONE Indian head eagle and ONE liberty head eagle should be a realistic goal for a casual collector. As type coins, these start at around $700 apiece. These two coins alone total $1400. For many people this is a pretty tough goal alone. Every other $10 eagle is much more expensive, except for maybe the no motto Indian. The no-motto Liberty head eagle is scarce and expensive, and a draped bust eagle will break the bank for everyone but the most affluent. I think your proposal that a type set of $10 gold eagles is an obtainable goal for most collectors is unrealistic. I personally would love to own a draped bust eagle, but these coins are far beyond my reach considering my perception of the current job market.
Too expensive ... it's as simple as that. When you start talking about "big money" coins the element of future return on investment comes into play for most potential collectors. I just don't see much of a return on collectibles in the future as young people are just not into them. In addition, the move toward a cashless society will make coins a less visible part of everyday life and what is out-of-sight is out-of-mind.
The expansion of coin collecting depends on engaging people in ways that might seem very odd to us "old type" folks who began by pulling interesting coins from circulation. Half eagle and eagle type sets have long been of interest. But as with most gold coinage, and emphasized by other posters, the cost is far above the means of most - except for a very long-term approach. Such high-ticket items also pull resources from the wider and potentially interesting aspects of coin collecting that can attract new participants.
One heretical option is to return focus to circulated coins - without the expensive plastic holders and non-standard "grading." The holders imply expense and that drives monetary interests not collecting interests.
Take the example of many pre-1950 collectors - money was only incidental. Then, how can we develop hobby interest based on broader factors and motivations than simply dollars?
At the recent U S Mint conference, it seemed to me that far too much emphasis was placed on sales and products, and very little on expanding the hobby base.
While I love these coins and think they would make a great addition to many collections, I personally wouldn't make a general recommendation to buy damaged coins at that price level (up to $25,000). I think collecting damaged coins at that price level should be left up to the more advanced collector to decide when and were to acquire pieces in these conditions.
It may be better to focus less on set building and the Box of 20 (what you like) approach. To buy an expensive, damaged coin to complete a set may not be a fulfilling experience.
nice article on half eagles!
i am working on a type set that includes the types you mention, but it's expanded a little to include some varieties and pioneer gold that i think are interesting and important. i might not ever complete it because i set some lofty goals. at least this way, i can work on it for a lifetime, perhaps.
my goal is the following:
draped bust, small eagle
draped bust, heraldic eagle
capped bust left
capped head, large size
capped head, small size (probably will never own this one)
classic head, any mint (i might expand to all the head varieties on this one)
pioneer gold, (at least one example that created or influenced the creation of a branch mint)
liberty no motto 1839, any mint
lib no motto, small letters, any mint
lib no motto large letters, any mint
lib motto, any mint
indian, any mint
here's two of the fives i have so far...
if you want to see them all, so far...here's a link: pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=1762
One challenge with this approach is the prevalence of counterfeits. When compared to unslabbed classic coins, it seems safer for the average collector to focus coins that are less expensive even with holders, e.g. moderns, tokens, medals, world, etc.
When providing guidance for collectors to move from $500 coins to coins up to $75,000, it is also important to provide information on the selling side of the market. Selling a $10k, $25k, or $75k coin can be very different than selling a $500 coin, so it would be useful to discuss how to sell and what kind of hit one can take on markups when selling. Having this information available will better prepare the $500 / coin collector to enter the world of $75,000 coins.
There is nothing "quick and easy" about these sets if you are going for the early types. If you go for all of the types from August 1834 to 1933, it's a lot easier, but only if you are willing to accept lower grade coins (VF) for the older pieces. The No Motto $10 gold is challenging in AU and very tough in strict Mint State.
I noted that the author included the Gobrecht $10 gold, 1838-9, as a type. Most gold type coin collectors don't include that one in their sets. It is also an expensive coin in AU or Mint State. I've considered an AU piece at one time or another, but that involves a $16,000 investment. I think that coin is a marginal addition to a type set.
I am glad that the members of this forum are interested in discussing the subject matter. I very much appreciate the feedback and like reading the other comments.
Mr. Eureka:
I hope that I never used this phrase, in the context of assembling type sets of eagles and half eagles. Nevertheless, such a task is far easier than many collectors realize and less complicated. There are many people who can afford such sets, yet are scared to even start. I am hoping that my guides will be beneficial to them. Has anyone else written more useful guides about assembling type sets of these two denominations? Such sets do not require many years to assemble. Coins can be upgraded by collectors who become enthusiastic about doing so.
MetalSaver:
Did MetalSaver really read the articles? I discuss the respective grades for particular types that are the best values for beginning to intermediate level collectors. I discuss the costs in detail. Expenses and quality issues are made clear, I hope.
StevePK:
On the contrary, I made clear in the original post that I am not assuming that everyone can afford eagles and half eagles. I said that these two particular guides are directed at collectors or potential collectors who can afford such coins. I also made clear that I had authored a series of articles on collecting classic U.S. coins for less than $500 each.
StevePK may wish to consider my article on collecting classic U.S. coins for less than $100 each!
Roger:
More than anyone else, I have written guides for budget-minded collectors, most (not all) of which focus upon circulated coins. Some of these emphasize truly rare coins. Several of my guides include mentions of coins that cost less than $25 each. I often write about the assembling of sets that can be completed or almost completed
ClassicU.S. Coins for Less than $500 Each, Part 24: Barber Dimes
Part 19, Draped Bust half cents
Classic U.S. Coins for Less Than $500 Each, Part 21: Matron Head Large Cents
Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each, Part 7: Trade Dollars
Insightful10@gmail.com
Attracting new coin collectors is not an exercise in necessarily "inexpensive" coins, or those in or out of plastic slabs. It requires fundamental assessment of factors that attract people to a "hobby" and then to the specific one of "coin collecting." Once determined, a consistent marketing campaign has to be delivered. (Note: "Marketing" is NOT sales.) We can have lots of happy internal articles about collecting this or that, and it will make no difference to anyone or change any behavior outside of the present small band of aficionados.
For the collectors that may be scared to start, I think the articles and information on selling is especially useful and should be covered as mentioned above. Working with good dealers with strong buy back policies can help give new collectors more confidence when moving up to higher value coins.
You're right, it takes a sophisticated collector to purchase (and enjoy) an expensive, problem coin, almost all collectors would simply prefer to go without owning a difficult type altogether, rather than "settle" for something more affordable that almost all other collectors would just turn their nose up at (ironically, without ever collecting an example of the type, themselves)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
My point was, regardless of grade which is subjective to some, one's taste. Some collectors pick eye appeal over grades. Not every coin whatever grade, looks like another in that grade. Yes I did read and it is well written. To me preference and taste are key factors when deciding what to collect, not necessarily grades.
MetalSaver:
Other than QDB, there is no author who has addressed such concepts in writing to a greater extent than I have. Tastes, preferences, originality, imperfection in grading services, and unexplainable factors, however, cannot all be addressed in every article. In the piece on eagles ($10 coins), auction results cited were meant to provide ideas and clues regarding market levels so that people understand the costs involved in building such type sets. In the referenced article on half eagles ($5 coins), the focus was on AU grades and 'AU Details' ungradable coins because many collectors prefer sets that are somewhat "matched" such that all the coins have, more or less, the same level of detail. As MetalSaver implies, though, this is a matter of tastes and preferences. Some collectors enjoy a type set where some coins grade MS-65 and others grade in the Very Fine range.
As for whether a collector prefers tan-russet tones to orange-russet tones, I will not comment. Regarding broader issues, here are three articles that relate to the topic of the differences among two coins of the same date and type that have been assigned the same grade by the same grading service.
Understanding Classic U.S. Coins and Building Excellent Coin Collections, Part 2: Dipped Coins
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
I appreciate Roger's second post and that by Zoins. I will respond after I think more about the issues raised. I am grateful to the members of this forum for considering my views.
Zoins > .
I agree, I would like to buy some coins in the 15k and up but while I could enjoy the coin I could not enjoy the loss
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
If this is your reason for writing these articles, why write for a website that targets numismatists? I assume that most people visiting the website already collect and they don't need to be convinced.
I don't mean to be critical or distract from the discussion, but I am curious.
@Analyst I understand your extremely valid points. Writing to taste is quite impossible. Numbers, trends, and results are things I like. So I can appreciate the data and effort you put into your writings. We collect what we like and that's what is great about collecting.
$1400 or $1500 project very expensive for most collectors. I do believe in a $10 Lib and $10 Indian goal for type but if one has credit card debt payoff cards first. Here in Texas job market in tank and wages below couple of years ago. I think $200 - $300 project more realistic number.
I don't urge giving up on coins quite the contrary - just match your goals to your budget.
If spending big bucks: I like MS63-MS64 $20 Saints near melt plus MS69 AGE and AGB. $20 Libs MS62-MS63 that are close to melt. For a really nice set of something nice - Mexico $50 Peso in MS63 and higher - try and find them.
I frankly think interest by collectors in pre 20th century gold expensive material is waning especially seeing many common 19th and early 20th century issues being pushed down close to melt. Is this opportunity (as these pieces are melted) or potential for bust? (lower gold prices).
I notice that "Analyst" has disagreed with my post above, but unlike most of the other folks he disagrees with, contradicts, corrects, and further lectures, he does not expound on the details of his disagreement with my post. Here's my 1805 half eagle, bought as a Net Fine
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
From a distance that 1805 half eagle looks pretty nice, Baley.
It's much better than most pieces with the "genuine" label.
For those who thing about a complete $5 gold type set, here is the sleeper in the series, the 1829 - 34 Reduced Size Capped Bust Half Eagle. One dealer advised me not to buy this piece because it does not have original surfaces. NGC called it "MS-61." My point was, I don't find this design attractive, and I didn't want to sink $100 grand into the type, which one could have done at various times in the early gold market.
Thanks Bill. It's a little bright from being cleaned, maybe even has been wiped off more than once in the past 211 years.
Paid $4000 which I considered a bargain. I've seen worse (IMO) coins of the type sell for more than twice or even thrice that figure, for they were in a graded holder, even though they had been cleaned or had other damage "appropriate for the grade".
HOWEVER, I have to realize that it is a "problem" coin by current definitions, and my point was that many, even most collectors, wouldn't touch it at any price because it is difficult for most to understand and appreciate,
rather than fear and avoid, such a piece.
And so, because a problem free, original surface coin is "out of their range", they go without, rather than being willing to settle.
Edited to add: And one day, I will own a 1795 half eagle as well. And it will also be in a "genuine" holder. And that's okay.
As I'm teaching my 8 year old son when we're practicing archery, the point is isn't to see how far away you can miss from
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Unfornately the 1795 half eagle is pricey even with problems. I saw a number of them before I bought the coin for my type set which turned out to be one of those, "It was meant to be" stories.
One guy had the gall to ask $50,000 for one that had been mounted with edge damage plainly visible. I held myself back for saying, "Are you kidding?" I paid only a little more than that for a PCGS AU-55 that "sings and dances" for me.
Yes, the 1795-1797 small eagle $5 and $10 coins will be spendy, even if they have been lightly cleaned, test scratched, have apparently contemporaneously damage, and/or been relatively expertly repaired (which are the problems I will consider.)
Someday, though! And of course, if my ship really come in at some point (kids school done and married off) can always upgrade...
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Unless you are VERY familiar with early gold, I would suggest strongly that you confine your acquisitions to PCGS coins.
I have seen a lot of early gold and there is only about a 20% chance that I will agree with other grading companies.
Quoted by GoldenEgg, Analyst said above: 'Perhaps most of us can agree that it would be beneficial to the coin community for additional people to become interested in collecting coins. After all, over the past twenty years, many kids have become focused upon video games and social media, rather than collecting tangible items. There was a boom in the collecting of classic U.S. coins from 1997 or so to 2007, but not a large number of new entrants since then. This is one reason why I have authored a series on collecting classic U.S. coins for less than $500 each.'
GoldenEgg:
This is ONE reason, not the only reason. I often reach out to prospective collectors, beginning collectors and those returning to numismatics after not collecting for a long time. Even the articles that are primarily targeted at knowledgeable and active numismatists are intended to be educational to readers who have little knowledge of the subject matter, although they are not expected to understand all the points put forth.
GoldenEgg:
According to the publisher of CoinWeek, the site has been receiving more than 200,000 unique visitors per month. If so, I am certain that many of them are not numismatists. Thousands of people arrive at the site via Google searches, through recommendations, or by chance.
Importantly, many of the guides are intended to be helpful to both beginners and intermediate-level numismatists, or to both intermediate-level and advanced numismatists. In many of my articles, the material at the beginning is relatively basic or is non-numismatic in nature, while numismatic material towards the end is relatively more complicated.
Besides, many experts have told me that they enjoy and/or learn from the basic articles that I write. One collector, who has an advanced understanding of dimes, and has been collecting for decades, indicated that he has learned much by reading my articles about early copper and rare gold. I try hard to make most of my articles accessible and useful to a wide range of people, with varying levels of knowledge, interest, and patience. It is impossible to please everyone.
Articles about coin collecting for non-numismatic publications would usually be required to be too simple for my purposes. For people who do not understand some of the points or vocabulary in my articles, CoinWeek can be used as a resource for readers to learn about grading standards, grading services, named collectors, coin auction firms, opinions of other coin experts, and pertinent historical topics. A non-numismatic site would not have such supporting resources for beginning readers to use to build a frame of reference so that they can understand, and disagree with, my intermediate-level and advanced points. Readers sometimes find mistakes that I have made.
Please also note the clickable links in blue in my articles. Readers who would like to learn more about terms, events, rarities or coin types mentioned in one article may find more details and background information in other articles.
I hope that Baley enjoyed this "lecture." It was not my intention to ignore him. I will re-read this whole thread. Now, I have to finish my current article.
Million Dollar Coins, Part 2: U.S. Silver Dollars & Trade Dollars
Million Dollar Coins, Part 3: Half Cents
Quite frankly, nobody writes better articles than Greg. I may not always agree with his assertions, but he's the best at what he does
I should mention that I very much appreciate both Greg's articles and posts here. It's great to have the articles online and threads here for follow up discussion!
TDN and Zoins, I am very grateful for your positive reviews.
Zoins, as quoted by Baley:
In some cases, an ungradable coin that costs $25,000 may be purchased in place of a TPG-graded coin that would cost from $50,000 to $200,000. While there are some coins that are clearly non-gradable, the subject matter is much more complicated that it seems to some people who read price guides and auction data. I have quoted Warren Mills to the effect that there are many coins that were judged to be ungradable in the 1990s that have since received numerical grades from the same respective TPGs that earlier found these particular coins to be ungradable. Also, there are wholesalers who try hard to 'get' numerical grades for coins that many experts would hold to be ungradable.
From my own perspective, I see many coins with numerical grades that I personally find to be ungradable. For an expensive coin, it is relatively safe to buy a coin in a PCGS Genuine holder for a fraction of the price that a coin struck from the same pair of dies would cost if it was PCGS graded and had the same level of detail. In some cases, the difference could be $25,000 rather than $85,000. The other $60k could be used for many purposes. A pressing point, though, is that I personally may find the $85k coin to be ungradable, too.
It takes time to learn who to trust and to further develop tastes and preferences. It is often better to start with coins in details holders in cases where PCGS-graded coins would cost far, far more!
Zoins, as quoted by Baley:
I am opposed to the 'Box of 20 approach.' A coin collection should have much more than 20 coins. Furthermore, the building of a set ties a collection with central traditions. Moreover, many collectors identify with sets. A collector who buys 20 coins that he personally likes, regardless of whether others like them, is like an art collector buying 20 very different paintings at art fairs or antiques shows. Such a group of paintings may be very meaningful to the buyer, but may have little meaning to anyone else. Coin collectors understand sets, relative costs, and rarity. An ungradable 1795 or 1796 Eagle in a PCGS Genuine holder may be very satisfying.
Baley: Zoins is
No, many beginners cannot distinguish problem coins from gradable coins, anyway. A sophisticated collector is more likely to be bothered by the problems. A beginner might think that a problem coin is just as great as a gem quality coin. Problem coins are often ideal for beginners, if they pay prices that are commensurate with the quality or lack thereof of the respective problem coins.
Baley:
Telemarketing firms sell rarities and/or problem coins to beginners all the time. Yes, many beginners avoid "a difficult type," but I do not think they all should engage in such avoidance behavior. More importantly, I reach out to people who are interested in classic U.S. coins or may very well become interested in classic U.S. coins, if effectively exposed. If Baley is saying that there are some people who will never become interested in completing sets of classic U.S. coins, his point is not relevant to most of my collecting strategy articles. In the past, I did point out that people may effectively collect Jefferson nickels and State Quarters 'out of change.'
As for knowledgeable collectors being disdainful about or condescending towards, "turn their nose up," ungradable 18th century gold coins, or ungradable representatives of key dates in many series, I disagree with Baley. This is not often true. Many collectors have never seen an 1796 eagle or an (1838-39) Gobrecht eagle. Knowledge and logic should suggest that ungradable examples of rarities are often good values or the only such pieces that many collectors can afford.
For many collectors, owning a ungradable 1870-S dollar would be better than having an incomplete set of Liberty Seated silver dollars. Yes, there are collectors who can afford a ungradable 1870-S dollar, but would not want one. Most of them, however, understand the sentiments of those who demand ungradable representatives of key dates.
For those who can afford to spend from $25 to $2500 per coin, with most type coins costing less than $750 each, a barely explored territory is the silver coins of Gran Colombia (1813-30). These are neat, interesting, historically important, and really rare!
Silver Coins of Gran Colombia: One Real (12½¢) and Two Reales
Insightful10@gmail.com
Thanks for the response Analyst. Love your knowledge and information. Seems like we have a bit of a difference in collecting approaches, but that's what makes collecting so wonderful
I don't think it takes too long to figure out who to trust. Just come on PCGS forums and ask! There are some good dealers that get mentioned all the time here. While it may be okay to start with PCGS problem coins before problem-free coins for some types, I don't think collectors should necessarily buy a 5 figure problem coin before finding one or more trusted dealers.
Regarding preferences, I think it's okay to stay in the shallow end of the pool before one has developed their tastes and preferences. There can be substantial transaction costs in buying and selling so if one jumps into the deep end before establishing their collecting preferences, there can be some tuition involved.
I'm a huge fan of the Box of 20 approach because it reflects a collector's individual personality and interests. The coins can still have an interesting theme but they don't have to be repetitive the way date sets can be. I don't believe collectors should necessarily be "locked" into traditional sets many people are building and have built. At the same time, there's nothing wrong with building traditional sets so my feeling is that collectors should be able to choose the approach that works for them.
Regarding problem coins, I still think collectors need to be in an area where they are okay to buy it themselves, vs. a general rush into buying a problem coin. Just because telemarketers sell them to beginners, doesn't mean we should all recommend that approach.
And I still think there should be more discussion on selling coins. Many articles about how to buy coins at various price levels but not about how to unwind positions at various price levels. Articles that recommended buying coins at say $25k should be paired with articles about how to sell a coin at $25k, and how handle transaction costs when building a collection.
Most collectors are building collections that only they will appreciate in the end and the broader community will take no notice of. When it comes time to sell the coins will most likely be judged individually vs as a set. It is arrogant to suggest that there is a "right way" or a "wrong way" to build a collection.
My gold set is/was based on the look and if I liked the issue. As such I really have no interest in coins with problems as they have no place in my collecting philosophy. I don't have any interest in building a traditional sets of any series. Do what works for you.
Latin American Collection
Well, just to clarify, I was mostly agreeing with you Analyst, and illustrating the concept with an example from my collection.
Also, I'd mention that there is a large difference between a beginner paying too much for a problem coin because it was misrepresented by the seller, and an experienced numismatist buying a problem coin at an appropriate and fair net grade's value with full understanding of the relative merits and shortcomings of the piece.
As far as your comment, " Knowledge and logic should suggest that ungradable examples of rarities are often good values or the only such pieces that many collectors can afford." I say, sure, of course, it should. But it almost never does.
We can agree to disagree on the proportion of experienced numismatists who are willing to buy problem coins, even at very low prices. I think Boosibri's post directly above illustrates the attitude of the overwhelming majority of the members here:
" I really have no interest in coins with problems as they have no place in my collecting philosophy."
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Zoins:
A. For one reason or another, only a small percentage of collectors participate in this forum.
B. In the coin business, some of the best dealers are sometimes close personal friends with coin doctors or other dealers who engage in behavior that, IMO, is harmful to the coin business. Moreover, as coin doctors slip coins by graders at TPGs, just asking on a forum who has the highest ethics and skill levels cannot practically be a solution. Collectors have to take chances and learn while collecting. A $25,000 ungradable representative of a 1795 Eagle can be a much safer choice than a $85,000 coin, with the same level of detail, which has been assigned a numerical grade. Did the $85,000 coin really merit its numerical grade? There is not always a clear answer to such a question.
C. If a not-so-good dealer receives positive reviews on this forum, and someone else disagrees, the person who disagrees could face reprisals from the not-so-good dealer who is receiving positive reviews. If someone who frequently traffics in doctored coins, without disclosing to buyers that he is selling any doctored, coin, receives positive reviews, then such reviews may come from biased sources or from people who do not know how to grade coins.
D. Not everyone thinks that coin doctoring is bad. Even more so than political differences, philosophical differences regarding coins are hard to explain. Newcomers should spend a lot of time reading. Just coming on this forum and asking 'who to trust' would not be the best strategy for getting started.
Zoins:
Collecting strategy articles are not aimed at people who have already planned a strategy in detail and have committed to fulfilling their respective plans. Such articles are aimed at people who are unsure as to how to proceed, what to do next, or are willing to consider changing their minds. What percentage of coin buyers and prospective collectors are people who are firmly committed to a particular "approach that works for them"? In any case, I hope that people who have already committed to detailed collecting plans would find that the contents of some of my articles dovetails with their respective pre-conceived notions. There are a large number of people who buy classic U.S. coins that cost from $200 to $500 each.
Also, I am certain that many of the people who cannot afford to buy $1 million coins enjoy reading about them and benefit from learning about the culture of coin collecting. I write about many numismatic topics, not just about collecting strategies.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
Million Dollar Coins, Part 3: Half Cents
Zoins:
This remark suggests that I failed to communicate a few pertinent points above. The statement about telemarketers was a piece of evidence demonstrating that beginners often buy problem coins; it was not an endorsement of any coin-selling practice. I was not recommending that anyone "rush" to buy anything. The suggestions regarding ungradable coins in my articles, in PCGS Genuine holders, relate to budget-constraints and risks. To complete copper, nickel or silver sets for less than $500 per coin, sets including rare gold coins for less than $5000 per coin, or some type sets for less than $25,000 per coin, it is sometimes necessary to buy ungradable coins and this is a way of reducing risk. Choosing a $25,000 coin in a PCGS Genuine holder over an $85,000 coin, with the same level of detail, usually involves less risk and frees $60k for other purposes. This declaration is aimed at people who regard $25k as a lot of money, not at collectors who regard $85k as a small amount.
Insightful10@gmail.com
I think that when you're considering putting a problem coin in your collection, you should consider the context. If you're filling a nearly impossible and important hole in your collection and the problem coin is all that you can reasonably expect to find, buying the problem coin makes sense. (I'm very happy with the few holed coins in my collection.) Or if you're building a vast collection, e.g., one of everything in the Red Book, the quality of the collection is likely to be so varied that a problem coin might not stand out so much as a problem. But if you're building a seven coin type set of Eagles, a set where a nice example of every coin can be had without too much trouble, at a price, all it takes is one problem coin to kill the set.
Just my opinion, of course. Others will disagree.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
A great way to get more people on forums is to mention them in articles.
Once a person gets on the forums, there's a wealth of knowledge and advice to be had.
Are there reasons to not mention forums in articles?
Boy, this thread became esoteric and afluent in a hurry.
If I was a beginner reading these suggestions it would scare me right back into video games.
Now, as a high end collector that is very knowledgeable (as most of you sound) it appears to be an exercise in happiness.
I agree. If I was brand new interested in coins and I saw this including this article's introductory paragraph: 'Just seven coins are needed for a regular type set of gold eagles (U.S. $10 Gold eagle coins). The purpose here is to discuss building such a set without spending a fortune, with consideration of fair values for beginning to intermediate-level collectors. There is an emphasis on LOW- to MEDIUM-cost representatives of design types of Gold eagle coins' Followed by the prices for 2 of the 7 coins in that set in problem grades costing $10000+ and the debate here, I would go back to catching Pikachu's in Pokemon so fast.
Without spending a fortune is emphasized. So is beginner level collectors. To most people who are 24 and not yet interested in coins, a problem coin costing $10000+ is so ridiculously unrealistic and more than most young people can really ever imagine spending on like anything except maybe a car or house - and a lot of young people are already $1000's in debt. It may even come across as condescending a little bit. It might make people think they will never attain a coin like that to complete the set 'so what is the point?' I think that this will scare more young people away than bring in to the hobby.
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
Miles:
Totally:
These are very apparently careless interpretations of the original post. Please re-read the last sentence of the first paragraph: 'This is one reason why I have authored a series on collecting classic U.S. coins for less than $500 each.' The second paragraph begins with this sentence: 'There is also a need to sustain the interest of people who are already collecting and encourage them to consider collecting goals that are 'new' to each of them, respectively.'
A- The video game remark relates to the fact that we live in an era that is different, in many ways, from the era during which many members of this forum grew up. For the coin community to remain vibrant, there is a compelling need to continue to suggest collecting strategies to BOTH prospective collectors AND already established collectors of classic U.S. coins
B- Of course, it is not implied that many teenagers will 'all the sudden' decide to complete sets of classic U.S. coins. Some of them can, though, complete sets of Walkers, Mercury dimes, or Liberty Head nickels.
C- There are now many baseball cards that have sold for more than $1 million each. It is OBVIOUS that there are many collectors or potential collectors who can afford to buy five-figure coins. There are a large number of paintings that have sold for eight-figure prices.
I would be glad to write an article about classic U.S. coins that cost less than $25 each. The title of this thread states, however, that this thread is about type sets of half eagles and eagles. It is OBVIOUS to members of this forum that a lot of money is involved. We are talking about GOLD coins minted from the 1790s to the 1930s.
D- As said above, StevePK:
On the contrary, I made clear in the original post that I am NOT assuming that everyone can afford eagles and half eagles. I said that these two particular guides are directed at collectors or potential collectors who can afford such coins. I also made clear that I had authored a series of articles on collecting classic U.S. coins for less than $500 each.
Miles, Totally, and StevePK may wish to consider my article on collecting classic U.S. coins for less than $100 each!
E- Mr. Eureka:
While this statement is understandable, Andy is ignoring the points I already made. The suggestions regarding ungradable coins in my articles, in PCGS Genuine holders, relate to budget-constraints and risks. To complete copper, nickel or silver sets for less than $500 per coin, sets including rare gold coins for less than $5000 per coin, or some type sets for less than $25,000 per coin, it is sometimes necessary to buy ungradable coins and this is a way of reducing risk. Choosing a $25,000 coin in a PCGS Genuine holder over an $85,000 coin, with the same level of detail, usually involves less risk and frees $60k for other purposes. This declaration is aimed at people who regard $25k as a lot of money, not at collectors who regard $85k as a small amount.
It is very realistic that someone might wish to complete a type set of eagles ($10 coins) without spending more than $25,000 per coin. This is not an arbitrary number. I have met collectors who are unable or unwilling to spend more than $25k per coin, but are willing to sometimes spend as much as $25 on any one coin. While it is possible that a collector can find a gradable 1795 eagle for less than $25k, let us assume here, realistically, that a particular collector cannot find a clearly gradable 1795 eagle for less than $25k. He or she may plausibly 'end up' choosing between an ungradable coin is available for $25k and a gradable 1795 eagle, with about the same detail, which costs $85k. IMO, it is not fair to conclude that the $25k coin would "kill the set" and the $85k coin would be a better value, as Mr. Eureka may be suggesting. For most collectors, it makes sense to have a per coin limit. The articles, to which I am referring in this thread, are aimed at providing assistance, to collectors with limits, for completing sets of classic U.S. coins, including sets that they never before even dreamed of completing or almost-completing.
Insightful10@gmail.com
@Analyst has written many articles for collecting at less than $500 a coin. The article being discussed here is for those with larger potential budgets and should be read in the manner it was presented, for collectors with a larger budget. It's important to understand the audience for which the article is meant.
Here are some articles for collecting at less than $500 per coin in this year alone:
November 2, 2016: Classic U.S. Coin for Less Than $500 Each, Part 25: Liberty Head Nickels
September 14, 2016: Classic U.S. Coins for Less than $500 Each, Pt. 23: Proof Shield Nickels
June 15, 2016: Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each, Part 20: Classic Head Half Cents
April 27, 2016: Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each: Draped Bust Half Cents
_**all it takes is one problem coin to kill the set. ”
While this statement is understandable...
**_
Actually, it's not. Please unpack it for us, and explain what is meant by "kill the set"
Thanks
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
example: Dave99 recently posted a great 1901-S 25c which was the capstone to his VF Barber quarter set. He waited a long time for a matching, original coins for his set. Now he could have bought a genuine coin with problems for his set but in doing so he would have "killed" the accomplishment he achieved of great matching coins with the whole set being so much more impressive by the addition of the 01-S in with the same look and quality as the rest of the set.
Latin American Collection
To me, a "nice set" or a "great set" should demonstrate the knowledge, skills, effort and patience of the collector. And if a set contains even one coin that blatantly demonstrates the lack of those things, I'm not impressed. In other words, one problem coin can "kill the set" for me. (Of course, someone else might like the set, so it's not completely dead.)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
You can't make everyone happy with a set, even with top ranked sets, so when building a set it's still important to follow the rule: look out for number one.
Problem coins have their place and, with some, it's very hard to see where the damage is. I've seen a number of problem Pan Pac slugs which I think look quite nice. As an example, would I rather have a problem Pan Pac slug with non-visible damage vs. not having one? You bet, it would totally make the set. Other pricey rarities are the same for many.
To continue the discussion, here's another "compromise" coin that I have in my killed type set (instead of nothing at all for the type) since I do want to own an example, but can't afford a "perfect" one.
I like this coin very much, and appreciate the strong strike that shows nearly all the details, with just a touch of rub on the highest points, part of which (lower ribbon, curls under headband, eagle's talons) I suspect, upon close examination, is actually unstruck gold blank and not wear. What you're seeing in these less than ideal photographs in the brightest areas of the fields and devices is, IMO, fresh, original virginal frosty mint luster, when turned and rotated in good light this is obvious, as it is sparkly, "crunchy" and just beautiful.
The compromises are obviously the old ICG holder the coin has been in for a long time (I've had it 14 years and got it that way) as well as some field marks and friction here and there that limit the grade to MS62 at the second tier TPG. I bought this coin back then at MS61 price guide and as I said, I like it even though I know it isn't part of an impressive "nice" or "great" set.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Great looking 1812 @Baley ! It looks like a wonderful piece.
I find this comment to be a bit harsh. As a type collector I care more about some types than others. My complete set of $5 gold types are all prettty nice, most of them the best I could afford at the time. The one which might show a lack of "knowledge, skills, effort and patience" is the 1834 Large Size Capped Bust $5 gold (1829 - 1834). That coin is in an NGC MS-61 holder, which is a joke. It has been dipped, processed or whatever to a bright gold color. It still cost me over $40,000, which was EF money, from a major auction.
So why did I buy it? First you can dump a bundle on that type. There have been times when AUs were selling for $100,000. On top of that I find design of this coin be ugly. I just don't care for it. What I wanted was a decent hole filler that would not totally shame the rest of the collection. At one point I could have upgraded it to a better looking piece, but the upgrade price was my coin plus $20,000. I would have done it for $10,000.
I am sorry, but this whole thread has been off-base. You can not collect even half way decent early gold type coins "on the cheap." They are expensive, and they have been expensive relative to middle class incomes since I started buying really nice coins in the 1970s. To lead collectors astray like that is just not right. Tell those who are starting out that they might be able to do every type from the 1834 Classic Head $2.50 and $5.00 gold to 1933, but the words "on a short budget" and "early gold" do not mix.
Not a believer in the "no problem coin allowed" set mentality. And sometimes, you just don't see the coin as having "problems" or weaknesses. I know I've been there as others roundly criticized some of my purchases over the years. If someone put together a neat set of 50 wonderful pieces that showed exceptional expertise, while coin #51 was a stinker, I'd just close my eyes and forget it was there. I'm grading them on the other 50 coins, not the 1. Tough crowd here when batting 98% is a disappointment to some. By that nearly unachievable standard, might as well include Gene Gardner, Newman, and Pogue and others into that category as they only stickered around 55-75% of their coins. Even Norweb, James Stack, Reed Hawn had a few stinkers in their sets. Who can begin to guess why? Some could have been pass down coins from others they knew in the hobby. Different era....different mind set.