Why do I/we have to define “dreck” at all? Assuming we are not using the term in conversation, coin-related or otherwise, why is it incumbent on the forum denizens to define it? There are plenty of words that I do not use and do not know the definition.
“Dreck” is not part of the standard numismatic vernacular (how do you define, “vernacular”, BTW?). QDB does not write about it. I have never seen DWN or CRO mention it (in good company, anyway ). I do not mention it in my blog or in my coin descriptions. None of us do. So why do we need a rehearsed, 30 second elevator speech about dreck? It’s really pretty silly, if you take a step back and think about it.
@RYK said: "I did define it in the concurrent thread about dreck. My definition was widely acclaimed as the definitive definition of dreck. Let me rephrase the question: why must define “dreck” multiple times each day? "
"Concurrent " is not in my vocabulary. Would you please post it again here?
@ColonelJessup said:
There has been an established taxonomic hierarchy for generations.
Gem
Choice
schlock aka "stuff"
dreck
scheisse
And of course it's judgmental and elitist
Straight-up over-grading is not enough. An original coin over-graded half a point is not dreck
Colonel, may I ask, sir, where in this taxonomy does the “widget” fit?
An 1881-S Morgan in ms66 isn't usually dreck [tho it could look like it] but it's a widget because there are so many. Dreck is a state of something where widget usually refers to amount.
In my view:
dreck = widget = coins easily available that I do not happen to be interested in.
Most people have coins they are interested in, and other coins they ignore unless they can easily flip them for a significant profit (including the value of their time in the profit calculation).
One of Websters definitions is "something of very poor quality". In English slang, this can be quite disparaging, so I typically don't use the term.
It does beg the question though, do basal state coins fall into this category? The rare PO-1? I've seen more than a few threads asking if something might holder at this lowest grade...
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
Dreck is a lot like porn. You know it when you see it. Especially so if midgets, I mean widgets are involved
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@RYK said:
Why do we have to define it every six months? The definition has not changed.
Because some peeps continually insist on getting their panties in a wad over what they erroneously perceive to be an elitist slant to the word.
I agree with them that it has an elitist slant to it in the way that Laura uses it. Most people would use the term to describe an over graded coin or a problem coin. All of the 1804 dollars are over graded, and the Dexter-Legend example has graffiti on it notwithstanding a lofty grade of PF65. Would she consider it dreck or "expensive dreck?" I don't think so. That is not a cheap shot at you. I think @specialist and most here would call a common date business strike Peace Dollar in a straight graded holder with graffiti on it dreck; however, I think a very small percentage of them would describe the Dexter coin or any of the other 1804 dollars to be dreck. Value and prestige of the coin obviously have a role in it.
Potter Stewart said that he regretted that he said that. He regretted that after a long and successful career in jurisprudence, that would likely be the number one thing (perhaps the only thing) that he would be remembered for.
@BillDugan1959 said:
Potter Stewart said that he regretted that he said that. He regretted that after a long and successful career in jurisprudence, that would likely be the number one thing (perhaps the only thing) that he would be remembered for.
If I were him, I would regret the vague language used in other opinions that he wrote or joined more.
When David Hall was getting started in the business back in the day he heavily promoted what would be considered dreck today by the high priests of numismatics.
Gem uncirculated 1938-D Buffalo Nickels worth about $10 at the time. Anyone other than me remember that?
The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
@mr1874 said:
When David Hall was getting started in the business back in the day he heavily promoted what would be considered dreck today by the high priests of numismatics.
Gem uncirculated 1938-D Buffalo Nickels worth about $10 at the time. Anyone other than me remember that?
@mr1874 said:
When David Hall was getting started in the business back in the day he heavily promoted what would be considered dreck today by the high priests of numismatics.
Gem uncirculated 1938-D Buffalo Nickels worth about $10 at the time. Anyone other than me remember that?
Dude - that’s widgets, not dreck
It's hard to know as there were no CAC stickers back then.
@ColonelJessup said:
There has been an established taxonomic hierarchy for generations.
Gem
Choice
schlock aka "stuff"
dreck
scheisse
And of course it's judgmental and elitist
Straight-up over-grading is not enough. An original coin over-graded half a point is not dreck
Colonel, may I ask, sir, where in this taxonomy does the “widget” fit?
A white 1881-S $1 PCGS MS67 CAC is not dreck, but it is surely a widget. Seems to fall within the schlock/"stuff" category.
A white 1881-S $ PCGS MS68 non-CAC is a schlocky widget. With a sticker, a "classy" widget.
All MCMVII $20's below 65+ CAC are likely widgets, but many are surely "classy".
Now, about those darkish MS63 1884-O Morgans…….
note: past perusals of this poster's coins indicates he may be intuitively averse to widgets, as his coins tend toward individuality. Let us, this once, excuse his innocence
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@ColonelJessup said:
There has been an established taxonomic hierarchy for generations.
Gem
Choice
schlock aka "stuff"
dreck
scheisse
And of course it's judgmental and elitist
Straight-up over-grading is not enough. An original coin over-graded half a point is not dreck
Colonel, may I ask, sir, where in this taxonomy does the “widget” fit?
A white 1881-S $1 PCGS MS67 CAC is not dreck, but it is surely a widget. Seems to fall within the schlock/"stuff" category.
A white 1881-S $ PCGS MS68 non-CAC is a schlocky widget. With a sticker, a "classy" widget.
All MCMVII $20's below 65+ CAC are likely widgets, but many are surely "classy".
Now, about those darkish MS63 1884-O Morgans…….
note: past perusals of this poster's coins indicates he may be intuitively averse to widgets, as his coins tend toward individuality. Let us, this once, excuse his innocence
Crap, now we have to add the new "classy" category! This gives me a great idea for a thread?
You're lucky crap and dreck are synonymous. The omnifurcation is almost Hydra-like. It's like a virus eating our collective brains. It's a good thing Martin Luther didn't collect coins, or we might be using scheisse with less discrimination, more conflation (not coinflation) of terms, blurring of categories and the rampant chaos of insalubrious nomenclature further abounding. If all that doesn't give you agita, trying to decode this patently unhelpful post is useless unless you aptly apply the discontinuous equations so often found useful in chaos theory. We are lost in the conundrum so eloquently characterized by Winston Churchill as England and America being two great cultures separated by a common language.
Also, check out Kurt Vonnegut on foma
This gives me a terrible idea for a thread !
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
I consider problem coins and coins lacking eye appeal to be dreck. 1881-S Morgans in MS65 with eye appeal, widgets, etc.
Like many of the others, I won't call someones coins dreck in front of them... Offending other collectors is not something I enjoy.
@ColonelJessup said:
You're lucky crap and dreck are synonymous. The omnifurcation is almost Hydra-like. It's like a virus eating our collective brains. It's a good thing Martin Luther didn't collect coins, or we might be using scheisse with less discrimination, more conflation (not coinflation) of terms, blurring of categories and the rampant chaos of insalubrious nomenclature further abounding. If all that doesn't give you agita, trying to decode this patently unhelpful post is useless unless you aptly apply the discontinuous equations so often found useful in chaos theory. We are lost in the conundrum so eloquently characterized by Winston Churchill as England and America being two great cultures separated by a common language.
Comments
Why do I/we have to define “dreck” at all? Assuming we are not using the term in conversation, coin-related or otherwise, why is it incumbent on the forum denizens to define it? There are plenty of words that I do not use and do not know the definition.
“Dreck” is not part of the standard numismatic vernacular (how do you define, “vernacular”, BTW?). QDB does not write about it. I have never seen DWN or CRO mention it (in good company, anyway
). I do not mention it in my blog or in my coin descriptions. None of us do. So why do we need a rehearsed, 30 second elevator speech about dreck? It’s really pretty silly, if you take a step back and think about it.
Do some folks describe others' houses as "hovels", their cars as "jalopies", their wives as "slatterns"? That would seem rude.
Why would we need precise definitions of those terms in order to have the decency not to use them to disparage others?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Not worth sending to a TPG.
My Saint Set
A green Ogre from the Movies?
My 3 yrs granddaughter knows him well.
@RYK said: "I did define it in the concurrent thread about dreck. My definition was widely acclaimed as the definitive definition of dreck.
Let me rephrase the question: why must define “dreck” multiple times each day? 
"
"Concurrent " is not in my vocabulary. Would you please post it again here?
An 1881-S Morgan in ms66 isn't usually dreck [tho it could look like it] but it's a widget because there are so many. Dreck is a state of something where widget usually refers to amount.
Dreck - in terms of early or branch mint gold = market acceptable.
My inventory is made up of dreck, schlock and widgets. I buy most of it from common collectors. It sells on eBay for less.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
In my view:
dreck = widget = coins easily available that I do not happen to be interested in.
Most people have coins they are interested in, and other coins they ignore unless they can easily flip them for a significant profit (including the value of their time in the profit calculation).
One of Websters definitions is "something of very poor quality". In English slang, this can be quite disparaging, so I typically don't use the term.
It does beg the question though, do basal state coins fall into this category? The rare PO-1? I've seen more than a few threads asking if something might holder at this lowest grade...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Dreck is a lot like porn. You know it when you see it. Especially so if midgets, I mean widgets are involved
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I like that word 'schlock'. Like it a lot. iMHO, It is the 'dreck plus' that @topstuf was talking about.
Gem, widgets, schlock, dreck. Illustrative.
I agree with them that it has an elitist slant to it in the way that Laura uses it. Most people would use the term to describe an over graded coin or a problem coin. All of the 1804 dollars are over graded, and the Dexter-Legend example has graffiti on it notwithstanding a lofty grade of PF65. Would she consider it dreck or "expensive dreck?" I don't think so. That is not a cheap shot at you. I think @specialist and most here would call a common date business strike Peace Dollar in a straight graded holder with graffiti on it dreck; however, I think a very small percentage of them would describe the Dexter coin or any of the other 1804 dollars to be dreck. Value and prestige of the coin obviously have a role in it.
Double post
I know it when I see it.
It does have a Potter Stewart like quality about it.
To me, it is something that is just totally uninspiring, common and is completely lacking in eye appeal. Price does not matter.
Potter Stewart said that he regretted that he said that. He regretted that after a long and successful career in jurisprudence, that would likely be the number one thing (perhaps the only thing) that he would be remembered for.
If I were him, I would regret the vague language used in other opinions that he wrote or joined more.
When David Hall was getting started in the business back in the day he heavily promoted what would be considered dreck today by the high priests of numismatics.
Gem uncirculated 1938-D Buffalo Nickels worth about $10 at the time. Anyone other than me remember that?
The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
Widgets...gorgeous widgets, not dreck.
Dude - that’s widgets, not dreck
It's hard to know as there were no CAC stickers back then.
A white 1881-S $1 PCGS MS67 CAC is not dreck, but it is surely a widget. Seems to fall within the schlock/"stuff" category.
A white 1881-S $ PCGS MS68 non-CAC is a schlocky widget. With a sticker, a "classy" widget.
All MCMVII $20's below 65+ CAC are likely widgets, but many are surely "classy".
Now, about those darkish MS63 1884-O Morgans…….
note: past perusals of this poster's coins indicates he may be intuitively averse to widgets, as his coins tend toward individuality. Let us, this once, excuse his innocence
I view it as a hypothetical superficial term lnvented by certain marketeers usually to serve their agenda.
I know dealers who deal in problem material and do well - details Coins etc. problem is described on slab or Holder.
The reality is it all adds up. At a recent show a lady w 5 tables of albums of raw collector coins < $50 each did $5000.
Crap, now we have to add the new "classy" category! This gives me a great idea for a thread?
I looked up Dreck in the dictionary and saw this photo
You're lucky crap and dreck are synonymous. The omnifurcation is almost Hydra-like. It's like a virus eating our collective brains. It's a good thing Martin Luther didn't collect coins, or we might be using scheisse with less discrimination, more conflation (not coinflation) of terms, blurring of categories and the rampant chaos of insalubrious nomenclature further abounding. If all that doesn't give you agita, trying to decode this patently unhelpful post is useless unless you aptly apply the discontinuous equations so often found useful in chaos theory. We are lost in the conundrum so eloquently characterized by Winston Churchill as England and America being two great cultures separated by a common language.
Also, check out Kurt Vonnegut on foma
This gives me a terrible idea for a thread !
I consider problem coins and coins lacking eye appeal to be dreck. 1881-S Morgans in MS65 with eye appeal, widgets, etc.
Like many of the others, I won't call someones coins dreck in front of them... Offending other collectors is not something I enjoy.
My YouTube Channel
My collection is mostly widgets, I suppose. I like eye appeal, I don't care how common it is...
My YouTube Channel
Dang, where's my Thesaurus
This:
A very nice person gave it to me and I appreciate him but ugh...
It's a 1880 O and the other side is painted completely gold. Tried everything to remove the paint...