Can something that is once a widget/classy become dreck? Perhaps with improper handling or storage (or maybe in the MoC smoking chamber), but otherwise? I do not believe that a collectible coin can morph into dreck
it can, but you have to think outside the box.
since I collect 1950-1970 Proofs I often buy a Proof Set for a single coin. that coin is "Classy" and the whole set is a "Widget" while still intact, but it becomes "Dreck" once that single coin is cut out. I have also bought entire albums for coins, it's easier than trying to talk the seller out of the coins and leaving them with a partial album. that's where the 1980-S SBA came from.
another transformation isn't what happens to the coin, it happens to the collector. take the OP coin, I have similar ones that I will probably never part with. to the "boy" who bought them almost 50 years ago they were "Classy" but now, though they are still personal treasures, if I'm honest with myself they are "Widgets" at best and maybe even "Dreck" in some cases.
my personal favorite of the latter is an AG 1798 Large Cent that I have tried to convince myself is a 1799. much to my dismay, around 2005 conder101 sorted it out by Die Variety, but I still can't sell it.
@RYK said:
Can something that is once a widget/classy become dreck? Perhaps with improper handling or storage (or maybe in the MoC smoking chamber), but otherwise? I do not believe that a collectible coin can morph into dreck.
Hmm... I'm not sure about this. What about a coin that is considered scarce and is given a pass for a few minor issues that would have body bagged/details graded a common date when a new hoard is suddenly discovered? I'm thinking of all of the gold in Europe.
@RYK said:
Can something that is once a widget/classy become dreck? Perhaps with improper handling or storage (or maybe in the MoC smoking chamber), but otherwise? I do not believe that a collectible coin can morph into dreck.
Hmm... I'm not sure about this. What about a coin that is considered scarce and is given a pass for a few minor issues that would have body bagged/details graded a common date when a new hoard is suddenly discovered? I'm thinking of all of the gold in Europe.
Of course, even the dreckiest of coins start out as pristine gems, but once coins become part of a collection, they generally keep close to their condition and appearance over time (barring the exceptions I previously listed). It is my observation that a coin that is so rare and horribly mistreated, like the unique 70-S $3, is desirable and very valuable despite that it would be considered dreck if it were any other date. These examples are rare in numismatics.
Easy! Put a nice looking AU-50 coin into an MS-65 holder! What was desirable suddenly becomes something you would shun. (Unless it is being sold for AU-50 money).
So, basically, I'm sticking by my stance that the entire grading, holder, and price situation need to be taken into account.
Dreck is any "undesirable" coin. And there can be any number of reasons for it to be undesirable....some not associated solely with it's look.
An 1803 C-1 half cent that grades VG with a few minor marks consistent with the grade, good color and hard surfaces?
I'd say classy, especially for a YN.
The variety is an R-1
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@TommyType said:
How can a "classy" coin become Dreck?
Easy! Put a nice looking AU-50 coin into an MS-65 holder! What was desirable suddenly becomes something you would shun. (Unless it is being sold for AU-50 money).
So, basically, I'm sticking by my stance that the entire grading, holder, and price situation need to be taken into account.
Dreck is any "undesirable" coin. And there can be any number of reasons for it to be undesirable....some not associated solely with it's look.
That might be your definition, but not the commonly held definition that has been discussed and posted, ad nauseum.
If you put an original, XF 1861-D $5 in an MS-65 holder, it is still an original, 1861-D $5 and extremely desirable. Stop worshipping the plastic, man. Tear down the David Hall poster from your bedroom wall. It's all about the coin!
@RYK said:
That might be your definition, but not the commonly held definition that has been discussed and posted, ad nauseum.
If you put an original, XF 1861-D $5 in an MS-65 holder, it is still an original, 1861-D $5 and extremely desirable. Stop worshipping the plastic, man. Tear down the David Hall poster from your bedroom wall. It's all about the coin!
I agree 100% which is why I am irked by all of the plastic and sticker obsession in this hobby. The coins are the coins. If desirability of the coin drops significantly sans plastic then it is time to dump the coin too.
@RYK said:
That might be your definition, but not the commonly held definition that has been discussed and posted, ad nauseum.
If you put an original, XF 1861-D $5 in an MS-65 holder, it is still an original, 1861-D $5 and extremely desirable. Stop worshipping the plastic, man. Tear down the David Hall poster from your bedroom wall. It's all about the coin!
I agree 100% which is why I am irked by all of the plastic and sticker obsession in this hobby. The coins are the coins. If desirability of the coin drops significantly sans plastic then it is time to dump the coin too.
I believe that PCGS and CAC have had a net positive influence on coin collecting, but ignoring or dismissing a desirable coin in an overgraded holder would be like dismissing a Van Gogh painting because you do not like the frame.
I do acknowledge that if the coin is in the wrong holder, you might not be able to buy it at the price that you think is correct, but that's not the coin's fault.
@RYK said:
That might be your definition, but not the commonly held definition that has been discussed and posted, ad nauseum.
If you put an original, XF 1861-D $5 in an MS-65 holder, it is still an original, 1861-D $5 and extremely desirable. Stop worshipping the plastic, man. Tear down the David Hall poster from your bedroom wall. It's all about the coin!
I agree 100% which is why I am irked by all of the plastic and sticker obsession in this hobby. The coins are the coins. If desirability of the coin drops significantly sans plastic then it is time to dump the coin too.
You aren't the only one. I think likewise as it is nonsensical.
Going back to the three options in the OP, I have rated most of the illustrated coins "widgets". Using MY definition, I would likewise rate practically any post 1933 US coin a "widget" regardless of what grade it has on the label or what it looks like. Same for a series such as Morgan dollars or the most common classic gold. On the other hand, a few others posted here such as the 1917-S and 1916 WLH are not scarce but the examples shown are quite nice and not that easy to find.
As far as "dreck" goes, I'd only rate any 1861-D $5 that way if it was really beat up or damaged. Lack of "originality" or over grading isn't enough of a reason. There are a lot of coins (though low proportionally) where "dreck" is all that can be bought or exists.
Welcome back to more frequent posting, RYK
Or, as I saw you called earlier, "Rick"
And, was funny watching you call PF a "young man"...was wondering when she would let you know she was a she....just figured at your age, your eyes make a few mistakes and gender...well....these days...that's one of the most fluid descriptors out there.....heh.
For the coins....let's see....
(pics may be different sizes/styles as they are a combo of: TomB, Mark Goodman, and Phil (PCGS Trueview)
@Bochiman said:
Welcome back to more frequent posting, RYK
Or, as I saw you called earlier, "Rick"
And, was funny watching you call PF a "young man"...was wondering when she would let you know she was a she....just figured at your age, your eyes make a few mistakes and gender...well....these days...that's one of the most fluid descriptors out there.....heh.
For the coins....let's see....
...
So, all dreck?
Those are all classy, and you know that!
Best, Rick
@RYK said:
After being perennially peppered to define "dreck" in the context of collectible coins, I have realized that sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words. I am proposing that people post photos of their own coins (if they have a thick skin), their neighbors' coins, their rival's coins, or any coin they want, and I will classify the coin as a widget (Agree), classy (Like), or Dreck (LOL). In fact, any forum member will have the ability to vote on this critical numismatic categorization.
Let's have some fun with this!
In the spirit of the thread, I will post first. (I was going to post a photo of the quarter that has been face down on the floor of my daughter's car for several months, the one that looks too toxic to touch and spend, but alas she left for school before I could find the appropriate gloves to wear to pick it up).
From my boyhood collection:
Remember, vote...
Agree for widget
Like for classy
LOL for dreck
@dadams said:
Does color count for anything or does Mintage (156,205,446) and Grade (MS66) make this dreck?
Need to know Should it Stay or Should it Go?
Remember, vote...
Agree for widget
Like for classy
LOL for dreck
Looks AT or toilet bowl toning...either way, it's dreck!
@dadams said:
Does color count for anything or does Mintage (156,205,446) and Grade (MS66) make this dreck?
Need to know Should it Stay or Should it Go?
Remember, vote...
Agree for widget
Like for classy
LOL for dreck
Looks AT or toilet bowl toning...either way, it's dreck!
Thanks - it's out of here. Check BST soon for this piece of dreck.
Classy: Has one or more special attributes. If sold, hard to find and replace.
Widget: nothing special. If sold, get one on eBay or at the next show.
Dreck: if sold, rejoice. Would never want to replace.
Disparaging someone's coins as "widgets" or "dreck" is decidedly un-classy. Especially inappropriate from anyone with substantial monetary resources, but little social awareness.
Classy: Has one or more special attributes. If sold, hard to find and replace.
Widget: nothing special. If sold, get one on eBay or at the next show.
Dreck: if sold, rejoice. Would never want to replace.
That's pretty damn close to how I would define them.
Comments
I know which category I'd put this one into, but I'm intrigued to see what others would put it into...
U.S. Type Set
I'd say a widget @SkyMan ?
Oh why not. Bought ages ago from Brandon:
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Can something that is once a widget/classy become dreck? Perhaps with improper handling or storage (or maybe in the MoC smoking chamber), but otherwise? I do not believe that a collectible coin can morph into dreck
it can, but you have to think outside the box.
since I collect 1950-1970 Proofs I often buy a Proof Set for a single coin. that coin is "Classy" and the whole set is a "Widget" while still intact, but it becomes "Dreck" once that single coin is cut out. I have also bought entire albums for coins, it's easier than trying to talk the seller out of the coins and leaving them with a partial album. that's where the 1980-S SBA came from.
another transformation isn't what happens to the coin, it happens to the collector. take the OP coin, I have similar ones that I will probably never part with. to the "boy" who bought them almost 50 years ago they were "Classy" but now, though they are still personal treasures, if I'm honest with myself they are "Widgets" at best and maybe even "Dreck" in some cases.
my personal favorite of the latter is an AG 1798 Large Cent that I have tried to convince myself is a 1799. much to my dismay, around 2005 conder101 sorted it out by Die Variety, but I still can't sell it.
Hmm... I'm not sure about this. What about a coin that is considered scarce and is given a pass for a few minor issues that would have body bagged/details graded a common date when a new hoard is suddenly discovered? I'm thinking of all of the gold in Europe.
@specialist is conspicuously missing from this thread.
way cool and a gold bean to boot
.
Form my :1839 Coins in Commerce" set.
==Looking for pre WW2 Commems in PCGS Rattler holders, 1851-O Three Cent Silvers in all grades
Successful, problem free and pleasant transactions with: illini420, coinguy1, weather11am,wayneherndon,wondercoin,Topdollarpaid,Julian, bishdigg,seateddime, peicesofme,ajia,CoinRaritiesOnline,savoyspecial,Boom, TorinoCobra71, ModernCoinMart, WTCG, slinc, Patches, Gerard, pocketpiececommems, BigJohnD, RickMilauskas, mirabella, Smittys, LeeG, TomB, DeusExMachina, tydye
Charles III Album
Charles III Portrait Set
Charles IV Album
Charles IV Portrait Set
Spanish Colonial Pillar Set
I'm sure you crack that out it'll buff right out😉 SWEET👍🏼
Why did my daughter send me this song about 5 minutes ago 💕It. Did she just call me a dreck?🤔
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v5R-T_YF-wU
Of course, even the dreckiest of coins start out as pristine gems, but once coins become part of a collection, they generally keep close to their condition and appearance over time (barring the exceptions I previously listed). It is my observation that a coin that is so rare and horribly mistreated, like the unique 70-S $3, is desirable and very valuable despite that it would be considered dreck if it were any other date. These examples are rare in numismatics.
What rub?
How can a "classy" coin become Dreck?
Easy! Put a nice looking AU-50 coin into an MS-65 holder! What was desirable suddenly becomes something you would shun. (Unless it is being sold for AU-50 money).
So, basically, I'm sticking by my stance that the entire grading, holder, and price situation need to be taken into account.
Dreck is any "undesirable" coin. And there can be any number of reasons for it to be undesirable....some not associated solely with it's look.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
One more:
Rub can provide character
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.
This could be a fun one.
An 1803 C-1 half cent that grades VG with a few minor marks consistent with the grade, good color and hard surfaces?
I'd say classy, especially for a YN.
The variety is an R-1
You should post your DPL 1884-O GC purchase from your recent thread.
I love it! Ex Randall?
That might be your definition, but not the commonly held definition that has been discussed and posted, ad nauseum.
If you put an original, XF 1861-D $5 in an MS-65 holder, it is still an original, 1861-D $5 and extremely desirable. Stop worshipping the plastic, man. Tear down the David Hall poster from your bedroom wall. It's all about the coin!
How 'bout this one?
I agree 100% which is why I am irked by all of the plastic and sticker obsession in this hobby. The coins are the coins. If desirability of the coin drops significantly sans plastic then it is time to dump the coin too.
I believe that PCGS and CAC have had a net positive influence on coin collecting, but ignoring or dismissing a desirable coin in an overgraded holder would be like dismissing a Van Gogh painting because you do not like the frame.
I do acknowledge that if the coin is in the wrong holder, you might not be able to buy it at the price that you think is correct, but that's not the coin's fault.
Some very nice coins posted!
Some other ones, not so much
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
You aren't the only one. I think likewise as it is nonsensical.
Going back to the three options in the OP, I have rated most of the illustrated coins "widgets". Using MY definition, I would likewise rate practically any post 1933 US coin a "widget" regardless of what grade it has on the label or what it looks like. Same for a series such as Morgan dollars or the most common classic gold. On the other hand, a few others posted here such as the 1917-S and 1916 WLH are not scarce but the examples shown are quite nice and not that easy to find.
As far as "dreck" goes, I'd only rate any 1861-D $5 that way if it was really beat up or damaged. Lack of "originality" or over grading isn't enough of a reason. There are a lot of coins (though low proportionally) where "dreck" is all that can be bought or exists.
Welcome back to more frequent posting, RYK
Or, as I saw you called earlier, "Rick"
And, was funny watching you call PF a "young man"...was wondering when she would let you know she was a she....just figured at your age, your eyes make a few mistakes and gender...well....these days...that's one of the most fluid descriptors out there.....heh.
For the coins....let's see....
(pics may be different sizes/styles as they are a combo of: TomB, Mark Goodman, and Phil (PCGS Trueview)
Chronologically
Coin 1:
Coin 2:
Coin 3:
Coin 4:
Coin 5:
Coin 6:
So, all dreck?
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
...
Those are all classy, and you know that!
Best, Rick
Classy
Widget
Dreck
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
@Nic I was afraid you were going to hit me with a trime!
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Common date coin, graded PCGS MS-67.
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.
Does color count for anything or does Mintage (156,205,446) and Grade (MS66) make this dreck?
Need to know Should it Stay or Should it Go?
Yup. That's what I'd call it. It's a pretty design, but even the proofs are low relief, and there are a LOT of them out there.
U.S. Type Set
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.
Looks AT or toilet bowl toning...either way, it's dreck!
>
Trimes are my kryptonite, but they are classy. (Don't let @Nic know I said so!)
Thanks - it's out of here. Check BST soon for this piece of dreck.
I absolutely suck at grading them, but I made out ok on this one...
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.
Classy, widgets or dreck?
What say you?
Totally classy, and we have the same granite in our kitchen.
This is my sense of the terms:
Classy: Has one or more special attributes. If sold, hard to find and replace.
Widget: nothing special. If sold, get one on eBay or at the next show.
Dreck: if sold, rejoice. Would never want to replace.
Disparaging someone's coins as "widgets" or "dreck" is decidedly un-classy. Especially inappropriate from anyone with substantial monetary resources, but little social awareness.
That's pretty damn close to how I would define them.