An error coin collector's conundrum

desslok

One of my guiding principles as a collector is that I don't buy duplicates. If I already own something, I don't need another of the same type, unless it's an upgrade.

However, what if you can't decide if a coin is an upgrade or not?

A while ago I purchased an very rare Palestine (British Mandate) error coin. The error is the most extreme I've seen of its type, but the coin itself is around VF and damaged - it had PVC residue, and when I tried to remove it with acetone not all of it came off, and where it did, it left discolored spots on the coin (where the coin didn't tone under the PVC). Here it is:

Recently I've been offered another example of the same error type, on the same denomination and same year. The coin is in much better condition, in my opinion I'd say it's a solid problem free XF or so. However, the error is much less pronounced. Here it is:

So I'm now faced with a dilemma. Which coin is "better"? The better condition, lesser error, or the monster-error damaged piece? Keep both? Keep one? Which one? If they were cheap coins I wouldn't mind stocking up a few, but they are actually quite expensive, at least by my standards.

pruebas

I would keep them both, especially since they are very rare.

The error on the first is so much more pronounced.

Zohar

keep both.

TwoKopeiki

@Zohar said:
keep both.

I would, as well.

Stork

Both. One is ">50%" and one "<50%". CLEARLY two vastly different categories that must be represented in a collection

Edited to add...upon closer inspection, the second is "just around 50%". So now you need the "<50%" category too.

laurentyvan

Sure, if it's convenient, both.
If not however, the 1st as it better represents the error and markedly so.

johnny9434

both are nice but I like the first one better. just saying

1960NYGiants

I agree, keep both - different shaped hole punches also.