Depending of the collection I will choice the best I can have or find. Sometimes we come to rarities so we have to accept what we find and hope the day come for a better. I have a few varieties 1 of 1 knows. The best is MS-65 and in same series, normal ones was find in MS-68. I will like 68, but I accept what I have. Maybe the sunny day will come for those ones.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE. MARK TWAIN
Sometimes this and sometimes that. A rare coin will always be rare, and a common coin will always be common and more easy to obtain. For me, it is what do I want to buy at the moment?.
For type set or date/mint set, I prefer rare or common, high grade, and holed. Sadly, some just don't show up in high grade, I have plenty of low grade but still buy when needed for set. Some never show up for purchase.
I'd rather have an AG3 chain cent than MS64 or 65 1909 S VDB or a 1919 in MS67+.
@HoledandCreative said:
For type set or date/mint set, I prefer rare or common, high grade, and holed. Sadly, some just don't show up in high grade, I have plenty of low grade but still buy when needed for set. Some never show up for purchase.
Nothing is stopping you from making your own holes in coins!
Collecting early quarters by die variety and die state. Some of the varieties are just not available in grades above vf. However for me there's nothing more beautiful than large size bust quarter with lots of luster. So I'll have to vote for both.
@hfjacinto said:
This one is hard..as an example in mercury dimes. For my type set I’ll look for the highest grade in a reasonable price, that would be my first choice, but for my mercury dime set, I looked for a reasonably priced lower grade 16-D( non details) as I truly wouldn’t pay the cost of a mint state one. My answer is ……squirrel.. 🐿️ what was I talking about??
I'll take the rarer higher grade details, sharpness with eye appeal over a high grade common date.
Here's an odd example of this. The 1879-1890 halves, with their ultra-low mintages and high survivor rates, can be obtained readily in MS and PR grades, but the challenge for me is to find nice-looking low-grade examples as they are true condition rarities, and they are easier on my wallet.
If scarcer means older, then no brainer for me. Modern coins do not intrigue me rare or not. Most of the older coins fall into the scarce category, in my opinion and are of my liking, but to answer your question, the coins would have to be inhand and not photo's only to make the call. The more rare a coin is may make all the difference, but if such a low grade it is only known as to it's attributes then the less rare coin comes into play. Not a yes/no question nor answer. JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Meaning no disrespect, but that's kind of like asking, "Did you walk to school or carry your lunch." The two are not mutually exclusive. If I did type sets, I'd rather have a gorgeous common date than an ugly rarity filling that slot; for full series sets, it's different, to me.
Years ago, I bought a 1916-D Mercury dime, in PCGS G04 condition, to finish the set. I didn't feel the pleasure I expected, because the coin isn't pretty.
Because of that, I have not bought a low-grade 1893-S Morgan dollar, or 1916 Standing Liberty quarter, so those sets remain with a hole in them. And that's ok.
But the definition of "low grade" is squishy, for me. I have a number of coins in the 25-45 range, because getting higher grades of those coins would have been too expensive, but I thought those were good enough (e.g., 1921, 1921-D and 1921-S WLHD in 25, 25 (CAC) and 30, respectively). If I felt comfortable paying as much as it would cost to get the 1916-D dime, 1916 quarter or 1893-S dollar in VF25, I would.
Given that I have wide interests in what I buy, and not an unlimited budget, I buy the best grade of a coin that I can, but only if that's "good enough" that I think it's a reasonably attractive addition.
@wakkatop said:
Me personally, I would rather have a more common date coin in condition rarity because I like things that are pretty to look at. What are your opinions?
If I wanted a coin just to say I have one, I don't really care what it looks like.
I ain't in the Registry game, and I couldn't afford it if I wanted to.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
For a type set a common date coin in a high grade.
For a series collection a rare date coin in a lower grade will work for me as long as the rest of the set isn't high grade.
Collection under construction: VG Barber Quarters & Halves
A doubled die 1916 Buffalo nickel in low grade or 1901-S Barber quarter; maybe. Good question. Every coin stands on it's own merit , so like Broadstruck put it.... , it depends.
For me it’s a mix based on budget. If one setup at a show your competing with many players who have just about everything under the sun. The wildcard is the people coming into the bourse room.
I don't mean to pick on you, I am not anti-Morgan, but there is no business strike Morgan that should be in the same sentence as rare.
The key date 93-S has over 11k straight graded examples between PCGS & NGC. There are 48 available on eBay right now. It's in high demand which drives the prices but it not rare.
For me, better dates in lower grades rather than high grade common coins. Looking back over time in this hobby, high grade commons comprised a larger portion of my purchases early on, but as I developed, so did my interests.
I responded earlier by saying "it depends" on the set I'm putting together. Typically, I like the highest grade I can afford with the best eye appeal for a Type Set... that said, I'm now looking at early Half Cents and Fugios for inclusion in my Box of 20, and I'm down to least damaged with a readable date!! ;-)
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
I don't mean to pick on you, I am not anti-Morgan, but there is no business strike Morgan that should be in the same sentence as rare.
The key date 93-S has over 11k straight graded examples between PCGS & NGC. There are 48 available on eBay right now. It's in high demand which drives the prices but it not rare.
No issue taken but why I said 'rarer' date. But its also all in perspective, maybe only 48, & many look like crap, based on 1 of the most held collectible series. Cannot compare Morgan pop numbers to many other series, when the folks collecting Morgans outnumber them in multiples. But I was thinking 93-S, 89CC, 93CC, & 95S. I'll take one of these vs an MS 66 82-S anyday.
@124Spider said:
Meaning no disrespect, but that's kind of like asking, "Did you walk to school or carry your lunch." The two are not mutually exclusive. If I did type sets, I'd rather have a gorgeous common date than an ugly rarity filling that slot; for full series sets, it's different, to me.
Years ago, I bought a 1916-D Mercury dime, in PCGS G04 condition, to finish the set. I didn't feel the pleasure I expected, because the coin isn't pretty.
Because of that, I have not bought a low-grade 1893-S Morgan dollar, or 1916 Standing Liberty quarter, so those sets remain with a hole in them. And that's ok.
But the definition of "low grade" is squishy, for me. I have a number of coins in the 25-45 range, because getting higher grades of those coins would have been too expensive, but I thought those were good enough (e.g., 1921, 1921-D and 1921-S WLHD in 25, 25 (CAC) and 30, respectively). If I felt comfortable paying as much as it would cost to get the 1916-D dime, 1916 quarter or 1893-S dollar in VF25, I would.
Given that I have wide interests in what I buy, and not an unlimited budget, I buy the best grade of a coin that I can, but only if that's "good enough" that I think it's a reasonably attractive addition.
It was the opposite for me with very tight budget as a naive young collector with most keys being acquired in the raw for the lowest price possible. The slab game was more recent for me and having felt the accomplishment on cheaply completing the Dansco sets, am more slow in the upgrade process now.
Fearing counterfeits, was forced to get slabbed keys of the 1916 SLQ in PO 01, 1916 D Mercury and 1893 S Morgan in AG 3 etc. at that time.
Got very lucky with forty of the Walking Liberty Halves in the raw that included keys and semi-keys to fill my Dansco for $575.00 because of pocketbook limitations as usual. Many did straight grade with the lowest being AG 3 whereas a few turned up cleaned.
Rare date date anytime over high grade anytime.. Why do you think they call them rare dates!
Members I have done business with: Silverman68, jfoot13, GAB, ricman, Smittys, scrapman1077, RyGuy, Connecticoin, Meltdown, VikingDude, Peaceman, Patches and more.
@vulcanize
Your story is very similar to mine, When I started collecting WLHs over 15 years ago I started with about 10 coins that were from my Dad who got from circulation. Most were the late 30-40s common dates. I then bot the rest from EBAY, starting with a small set of 6 coins that came with the double LOC album for $35. But it included some of the early dates in AG/G. Most of the rest bot were raw, and if not a key/semi key date, could be had for cheap on EBAY since silver was around $5.
Other then the 21's and a couple others, most in F or lower were not worth slabbing and there were many raw coins to be had that were original. Unlike Morgans and maybe other early series, I do not think collectors and dealers were messing with WLHs like dipping, wiping, etc. to improve the coin. I have recently upgraded about 30 coins to improve my set. Although I started with Morgans and its still my favorite, been spending most of my time recently on my WLH collection. I really enjoy the series.
If it’s on my list as a collectable, I will take the common coin.
I have limits as to how far I will go with respect preservation. If I can’t afford a decent example, at lest VG, it will be a hole in my collection. Rarity does not justify collecting “junk.”
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 ... ?
For the primary series I collect, I buy what I can afford, usually purchasing a common date, best example and then lower-graded key dates, which is in line with what other members are saying as well. However, I'd rather have a stunning example of a common coin vs. a basal state key date just for the sake of saying I have a key date.
Always looking for attractive rim toned Morgan and Peace dollars in PCGS or (older) ANA/ANACS holders!
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
I don't collect US coins at all anymore, but if I did, I'd buy the more common dates in the quality I want or not buy it at all.
I wouldn't buy the scarcer dates as by my standards, virtually none of these coins are actually rare and those that actually are, I cannot afford anyway. Key dates in what I consider fairly or very common series (All Barber and later for non-gold plus a few earlier ones), same thing. Most are common and the few that aren't in better quality are too expensive also. If I had the budget for it, I'd still find something a lot more interesting for the same money, or less.
There are a few US coins I'd eventually like to own, but not over what I collect now, e.g., Draped Bust half in AU (yes, probably the 1806) and the common date $20 Territorial gold.
I have only collected mint state or proof coins, and have not ventured before 1930 in doing so. The truly rare or scarce coins are not in my price range, so this is something I have never considered nor worried about. Like the last person stated, if it speaks to me, I am more likely to buy it. Every encounter is unique.
Comments
As long as the coin isn't below an XF 45; I'd rather have the absolute rarity (key date) as opposed to the condition rarity (common date MS 67, etc.).
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Rare date/low grade every time.
Dave
Depending of the collection I will choice the best I can have or find. Sometimes we come to rarities so we have to accept what we find and hope the day come for a better. I have a few varieties 1 of 1 knows. The best is MS-65 and in same series, normal ones was find in MS-68. I will like 68, but I accept what I have. Maybe the sunny day will come for those ones.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.
FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.
THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.
MARK TWAIN
Sometimes this and sometimes that. A rare coin will always be rare, and a common coin will always be common and more easy to obtain. For me, it is what do I want to buy at the moment?.
Common date - High grade coin. Love me some MS65 and higher Morgan LUSTER BOMBS!!
TC71
For type set or date/mint set, I prefer rare or common, high grade, and holed. Sadly, some just don't show up in high grade, I have plenty of low grade but still buy when needed for set. Some never show up for purchase.
I'd rather have an AG3 chain cent than MS64 or 65 1909 S VDB or a 1919 in MS67+.
Nothing is stopping you from making your own holes in coins!
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
Collecting early quarters by die variety and die state. Some of the varieties are just not available in grades above vf. However for me there's nothing more beautiful than large size bust quarter with lots of luster. So I'll have to vote for both.
By far the rare date in rough shape.
Successful transactions with: robkool, Walkerguy21D, JimW, Bruce7789, massscrew, Jinx86, jonasdenenbergllc, Yorkshireman, bobsr, tommyrusty7, markelman1125, Kliao, DBSTrader2, SurfinxHI, ChrisH821, CoinHoarder, Bolo, MICHAELDIXON, bigtime36, JWP, 1960NYGiants
Rare date, low grade to own.
I can look at pics of rare date, high grade if the need arises.
Successful BST transactions with....Coinslave87, ChrisH821, Walkerguy21D, SanctionII.......................Received "You Suck" award 02/18/23
Key dates are fun to own, but judging from my own buying pattern, I buy many more high grade common date coins.
I'll take the rarer higher grade details, sharpness with eye appeal over a high grade common date.
USAF (Ret.) 1985 - 2005. E-4B Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief and Contracting Officer.
My current Registry sets:
✓ Everyman Mint State Carson City Morgan Dollars (1878 – 1893)
✓ Everyman Mint State Lincoln Cents (1909 – 1958)
✓ Morgan Dollar GSA Hoard (1878 – 1891)
I like nice looking rare coins in lower grades.
Here's an odd example of this. The 1879-1890 halves, with their ultra-low mintages and high survivor rates, can be obtained readily in MS and PR grades, but the challenge for me is to find nice-looking low-grade examples as they are true condition rarities, and they are easier on my wallet.
If scarcer means older, then no brainer for me. Modern coins do not intrigue me rare or not. Most of the older coins fall into the scarce category, in my opinion and are of my liking, but to answer your question, the coins would have to be inhand and not photo's only to make the call. The more rare a coin is may make all the difference, but if such a low grade it is only known as to it's attributes then the less rare coin comes into play. Not a yes/no question nor answer. JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Meaning no disrespect, but that's kind of like asking, "Did you walk to school or carry your lunch." The two are not mutually exclusive. If I did type sets, I'd rather have a gorgeous common date than an ugly rarity filling that slot; for full series sets, it's different, to me.
Years ago, I bought a 1916-D Mercury dime, in PCGS G04 condition, to finish the set. I didn't feel the pleasure I expected, because the coin isn't pretty.
Because of that, I have not bought a low-grade 1893-S Morgan dollar, or 1916 Standing Liberty quarter, so those sets remain with a hole in them. And that's ok.
But the definition of "low grade" is squishy, for me. I have a number of coins in the 25-45 range, because getting higher grades of those coins would have been too expensive, but I thought those were good enough (e.g., 1921, 1921-D and 1921-S WLHD in 25, 25 (CAC) and 30, respectively). If I felt comfortable paying as much as it would cost to get the 1916-D dime, 1916 quarter or 1893-S dollar in VF25, I would.
Given that I have wide interests in what I buy, and not an unlimited budget, I buy the best grade of a coin that I can, but only if that's "good enough" that I think it's a reasonably attractive addition.
If I wanted a coin just to say I have one, I don't really care what it looks like.
I ain't in the Registry game, and I couldn't afford it if I wanted to.
Pete
For a type set a common date coin in a high grade.
For a series collection a rare date coin in a lower grade will work for me as long as the rest of the set isn't high grade.
This is an easy choice for me.
Rarer date low-grade coin.
Joe.
Rarer date, lower grade.
A doubled die 1916 Buffalo nickel in low grade or 1901-S Barber quarter; maybe. Good question. Every coin stands on it's own merit , so like Broadstruck put it.... , it depends.
For me it is the older the better. Would you rather have your coffee black and strong or fancy with whipped in a gaudy paper cup.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
Sorry repost
For Morgans, rarer date and lower grade.
For me it’s a mix based on budget. If one setup at a show your competing with many players who have just about everything under the sun. The wildcard is the people coming into the bourse room.
I don't mean to pick on you, I am not anti-Morgan, but there is no business strike Morgan that should be in the same sentence as rare.
The key date 93-S has over 11k straight graded examples between PCGS & NGC. There are 48 available on eBay right now. It's in high demand which drives the prices but it not rare.
For me, better dates in lower grades rather than high grade common coins. Looking back over time in this hobby, high grade commons comprised a larger portion of my purchases early on, but as I developed, so did my interests.
I responded earlier by saying "it depends" on the set I'm putting together. Typically, I like the highest grade I can afford with the best eye appeal for a Type Set... that said, I'm now looking at early Half Cents and Fugios for inclusion in my Box of 20, and I'm down to least damaged with a readable date!! ;-)
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.
I like my coins like I like my steak cooked; rare and choice
No issue taken but why I said 'rarer' date. But its also all in perspective, maybe only 48, & many look like crap, based on 1 of the most held collectible series. Cannot compare Morgan pop numbers to many other series, when the folks collecting Morgans outnumber them in multiples. But I was thinking 93-S, 89CC, 93CC, & 95S. I'll take one of these vs an MS 66 82-S anyday.
It was the opposite for me with very tight budget as a naive young collector with most keys being acquired in the raw for the lowest price possible. The slab game was more recent for me and having felt the accomplishment on cheaply completing the Dansco sets, am more slow in the upgrade process now.
Fearing counterfeits, was forced to get slabbed keys of the 1916 SLQ in PO 01, 1916 D Mercury and 1893 S Morgan in AG 3 etc. at that time.
Got very lucky with forty of the Walking Liberty Halves in the raw that included keys and semi-keys to fill my Dansco for $575.00 because of pocketbook limitations as usual. Many did straight grade with the lowest being AG 3 whereas a few turned up cleaned.
Just sayin'
Cheers.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
Rare date date anytime over high grade anytime.. Why do you think they call them rare dates!
Silverman68, jfoot13, GAB, ricman, Smittys, scrapman1077, RyGuy, Connecticoin, Meltdown, VikingDude, Peaceman, Patches and more.
I tend to buy more common dates that have what I think is better eye appeal.
@vulcanize
Your story is very similar to mine, When I started collecting WLHs over 15 years ago I started with about 10 coins that were from my Dad who got from circulation. Most were the late 30-40s common dates. I then bot the rest from EBAY, starting with a small set of 6 coins that came with the double LOC album for $35. But it included some of the early dates in AG/G. Most of the rest bot were raw, and if not a key/semi key date, could be had for cheap on EBAY since silver was around $5.
Other then the 21's and a couple others, most in F or lower were not worth slabbing and there were many raw coins to be had that were original. Unlike Morgans and maybe other early series, I do not think collectors and dealers were messing with WLHs like dipping, wiping, etc. to improve the coin. I have recently upgraded about 30 coins to improve my set. Although I started with Morgans and its still my favorite, been spending most of my time recently on my WLH collection. I really enjoy the series.
If it’s on my list as a collectable, I will take the common coin.
I have limits as to how far I will go with respect preservation. If I can’t afford a decent example, at lest VG, it will be a hole in my collection. Rarity does not justify collecting “junk.”
For the primary series I collect, I buy what I can afford, usually purchasing a common date, best example and then lower-graded key dates, which is in line with what other members are saying as well. However, I'd rather have a stunning example of a common coin vs. a basal state key date just for the sake of saying I have a key date.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
Generally I prefer rarer dates in low grades -- mostly because I can't afford 'em in higher grades.
1914 is the lowest-mintage Barber half dollar (124,230) and it's a favorite in my collection.
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
I consider that to be a pretty good grade (VF30?) for a 1914. They don't come cheap with a bold LIBERTY like that coin has.
.
Good eye...
That was my first-ever Barber half, purchased just last year. And yes, a bit pricey by my standards -- especially for a Series that's new to me.
Afterward, I got another low-mintage (188,000) Barber half that was MUCH more budget-friendly.
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
I don't collect US coins at all anymore, but if I did, I'd buy the more common dates in the quality I want or not buy it at all.
I wouldn't buy the scarcer dates as by my standards, virtually none of these coins are actually rare and those that actually are, I cannot afford anyway. Key dates in what I consider fairly or very common series (All Barber and later for non-gold plus a few earlier ones), same thing. Most are common and the few that aren't in better quality are too expensive also. If I had the budget for it, I'd still find something a lot more interesting for the same money, or less.
There are a few US coins I'd eventually like to own, but not over what I collect now, e.g., Draped Bust half in AU (yes, probably the 1806) and the common date $20 Territorial gold.
I try to buy the one that speaks to me. Every situation is different.
https://smallcopperguy.com
I have only collected mint state or proof coins, and have not ventured before 1930 in doing so. The truly rare or scarce coins are not in my price range, so this is something I have never considered nor worried about. Like the last person stated, if it speaks to me, I am more likely to buy it. Every encounter is unique.