@rhedden said:
I wanted to start collecting Seated 25c back in the 1990s when I was a graduate student with a meager paycheck. As I recall, they paid us with one expired can of beans per week, which was difficult to trade for Seated 25c.
The problem wasn't the cost, though; Seated coins were way too cheap, and I knew it. I recall wondering how I was ever going to find $3,000 to buy an 1870-CC in Fine. After about a year of trying to find Seated 25c at coin shows and shops, I had an 1859 in F-12 and an 1858 in AU50. I could have potentially done well buying PCGS coins through mail order, but it was a more dangerous game back then, with very few websites showing clear pictures of the coins.
Somewhere around 2007, I was offered a tremendous collection of raw Bust and Seated 25c that had been locked up in a bank vault since the early 1960s. The owner wanted to sell the whole thing, but there were many problem coins included. We worked out a deal so that I did not pay too much for the problem coins, but I got the premium material graded and paid him more than fairly for it. I was left with a partial set of a few dozen nice business strikes, but many holes to fill, which were occupied by proofs or problem coins.
I managed to complete the business strikes in PCGS/NGC holders, minus the 1873-CC NA, roughly two years ago. The last coin I needed was an 1882-P. There is only one coin in an NGC holder - the 1856-S - which might cause some people with OCD to have their heads explode.
My set ranges from VG to MS67, with a focus on coins that are nice for the grade. I did not constrain myself to buying coins in a certain grade range, nor did I force myself to buy CAC material. I did constrain myself to buying straight graded material or raw coins that I could get graded. Most of my coins have never been sent to CAC because I "made" them myself, or else I purchased them before CAC was important. Of the purchases from the past 10 years, probably half of them are CAC approved, while the other half narrowly missed.
Buying coins over a wide grade range means there will be "something for everyone" when I sell my set some day. More potential buyers, more chances to sell coins when I need to. It also allowed me to complete the set, rather than only considering coins in a certain grade range while watching prices escalate with every passing year. I continue to upgrade to nicer coins when opportunities present themselves, but my upgrades have slowed to a trickle.
Rhedden, congratulations on completing your set of Liberty Seated Quarters!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Thanks - it was a long and arduous journey, but now I (hopefully) get to admire them for the next 15 yrs. or so before I retire.
Ah yes, the old "matched set" argument. It does nothing for the owner when he/she breaks up the collection and the coins sell to 73 different bidders. That's my take on it. I don't find anything visually unappealing about mixed grades or mixed holders.
@Walkerguy21D said:
For Jason the OP, here is some information on your topic that I got from forum member Roadrunner quite a few years ago. I was mainly collecting the halves, but dabbled in the quarters a bit. The info may be a bit dated relative to current pop reports, etc, and basically is just generalities based on his opinion, albeit a very informed opinion from years of experience:
What about the CCs?
They fall into the impossible category.
Of the "big 4" my 70-cc was straight graded but crap. 71-cc was details graded so you know it was extra crappy. 72-cc was market acceptable and not a bad coin overall (and is by far the most common of the 4). 73-cc was the only totally original one of the bunch. It probably didn't CAC because they felt it was a 20 rather than a 25.
@Walkerguy21D said:
For Jason the OP, here is some information on your topic that I got from forum member Roadrunner quite a few years ago. I was mainly collecting the halves, but dabbled in the quarters a bit. The info may be a bit dated relative to current pop reports, etc, and basically is just generalities based on his opinion, albeit a very informed opinion from years of experience:
What about the CCs?
They fall into the impossible category.
Of the "big 4" my 70-cc was straight graded but crap. 71-cc was details graded so you know it was extra crappy. 72-cc was market acceptable and not a bad coin overall (and is by far the most common of the 4). 73-cc was the only totally original one of the bunch. It probably didn't CAC because they felt it was a 20 rather than a 25.
And the 76 and 77 cc’s were listed as Common ones no one cares about.
@rhedden said:
I wanted to start collecting Seated 25c back in the 1990s when I was a graduate student with a meager paycheck. As I recall, they paid us with one expired can of beans per week, which was difficult to trade for Seated 25c.
The problem wasn't the cost, though; Seated coins were way too cheap, and I knew it. I recall wondering how I was ever going to find $3,000 to buy an 1870-CC in Fine. After about a year of trying to find Seated 25c at coin shows and shops, I had an 1859 in F-12 and an 1858 in AU50. I could have potentially done well buying PCGS coins through mail order, but it was a more dangerous game back then, with very few websites showing clear pictures of the coins.
Somewhere around 2007, I was offered a tremendous collection of raw Bust and Seated 25c that had been locked up in a bank vault since the early 1960s. The owner wanted to sell the whole thing, but there were many problem coins included. We worked out a deal so that I did not pay too much for the problem coins, but I got the premium material graded and paid him more than fairly for it. I was left with a partial set of a few dozen nice business strikes, but many holes to fill, which were occupied by proofs or problem coins.
I managed to complete the business strikes in PCGS/NGC holders, minus the 1873-CC NA, roughly two years ago. The last coin I needed was an 1882-P. There is only one coin in an NGC holder - the 1856-S - which might cause some people with OCD to have their heads explode.
My set ranges from VG to MS67, with a focus on coins that are nice for the grade. I did not constrain myself to buying coins in a certain grade range, nor did I force myself to buy CAC material. I did constrain myself to buying straight graded material or raw coins that I could get graded. Most of my coins have never been sent to CAC because I "made" them myself, or else I purchased them before CAC was important. Of the purchases from the past 10 years, probably half of them are CAC approved, while the other half narrowly missed.
Buying coins over a wide grade range means there will be "something for everyone" when I sell my set some day. More potential buyers, more chances to sell coins when I need to. It also allowed me to complete the set, rather than only considering coins in a certain grade range while watching prices escalate with every passing year. I continue to upgrade to nicer coins when opportunities present themselves, but my upgrades have slowed to a trickle.
I’ve often wondered why most collectors want their coins to match, ie. the same look and the same grade range. From my perspective my coins are in a safe deposit box and I rarely look at them. Unless I sell my set completely intact (which is unlikely because it’s not a world class or even top set) to one party what difference does it make what the grade or look is as long as they’re nice looking coins when I go to sell.
Stuff like this is visually unappealing when viewed together.
I suppose... but isn't comparing common date Morgan Dollars to Seated Liberty Quarters sort of an "apples to oranges" comparison? Especially so given the rarity of some of the coins needed to complete the set. When I first started back on Large Cents, I opted for the Middle Dates because finding nice coins in VF-AU wasn't that difficult (at least when I first started). When I expanded the set to include the earlier pieces, I realized (quickly) that I wouldn't make significant progress without lowering my expectations... that, and many of the earlier copper pieces I was watching at auction weren't "problem-free" even though the label on the plastic said otherwise. So, I adopted more of @rhedden 's philosophy of just getting coins that are nice for the grade. My Wayte Raymond albums contain coins from AG to AU... I've got a few "details" coins but most would likely straight-grade.
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
@Walkerguy21D said:
For Jason the OP, here is some information on your topic that I got from forum member Roadrunner quite a few years ago. I was mainly collecting the halves, but dabbled in the quarters a bit. The info may be a bit dated relative to current pop reports, etc, and basically is just generalities based on his opinion, albeit a very informed opinion from years of experience:
What about the CCs?
They fall into the impossible category.
Of the "big 4" my 70-cc was straight graded but crap. 71-cc was details graded so you know it was extra crappy. 72-cc was market acceptable and not a bad coin overall (and is by far the most common of the 4). 73-cc was the only totally original one of the bunch. It probably didn't CAC because they felt it was a 20 rather than a 25.
And the 76 and 77 cc’s were listed as Common ones no one cares about.
I guess maybe this falls in between?
I consider it common but it's less common than the other two. The 75-cc is truly in the middle between the big 4 and the other 3.
@rhedden said:
I wanted to start collecting Seated 25c back in the 1990s when I was a graduate student with a meager paycheck. As I recall, they paid us with one expired can of beans per week, which was difficult to trade for Seated 25c.
The problem wasn't the cost, though; Seated coins were way too cheap, and I knew it. I recall wondering how I was ever going to find $3,000 to buy an 1870-CC in Fine. After about a year of trying to find Seated 25c at coin shows and shops, I had an 1859 in F-12 and an 1858 in AU50. I could have potentially done well buying PCGS coins through mail order, but it was a more dangerous game back then, with very few websites showing clear pictures of the coins.
Somewhere around 2007, I was offered a tremendous collection of raw Bust and Seated 25c that had been locked up in a bank vault since the early 1960s. The owner wanted to sell the whole thing, but there were many problem coins included. We worked out a deal so that I did not pay too much for the problem coins, but I got the premium material graded and paid him more than fairly for it. I was left with a partial set of a few dozen nice business strikes, but many holes to fill, which were occupied by proofs or problem coins.
I managed to complete the business strikes in PCGS/NGC holders, minus the 1873-CC NA, roughly two years ago. The last coin I needed was an 1882-P. There is only one coin in an NGC holder - the 1856-S - which might cause some people with OCD to have their heads explode.
My set ranges from VG to MS67, with a focus on coins that are nice for the grade. I did not constrain myself to buying coins in a certain grade range, nor did I force myself to buy CAC material. I did constrain myself to buying straight graded material or raw coins that I could get graded. Most of my coins have never been sent to CAC because I "made" them myself, or else I purchased them before CAC was important. Of the purchases from the past 10 years, probably half of them are CAC approved, while the other half narrowly missed.
Buying coins over a wide grade range means there will be "something for everyone" when I sell my set some day. More potential buyers, more chances to sell coins when I need to. It also allowed me to complete the set, rather than only considering coins in a certain grade range while watching prices escalate with every passing year. I continue to upgrade to nicer coins when opportunities present themselves, but my upgrades have slowed to a trickle.
I’ve often wondered why most collectors want their coins to match, ie. the same look and the same grade range. From my perspective my coins are in a safe deposit box and I rarely look at them. Unless I sell my set completely intact (which is unlikely because it’s not a world class or even top set) to one party what difference does it make what the grade or look is as long as they’re nice looking coins when I go to sell.
Stuff like this is visually unappealing when viewed together.
I suppose... but isn't comparing common date Morgan Dollars to Seated Liberty Quarters sort of an "apples to oranges" comparison? Especially so given the rarity of some of the coins needed to complete the set. When I first started back on Large Cents, I opted for the Middle Dates because finding nice coins in VF-AU wasn't that difficult (at least when I first started). When I expanded the set to include the earlier pieces, I realized (quickly) that I wouldn't make significant progress without lowering my expectations... that, and many of the earlier copper pieces I was watching at auction weren't "problem-free" even though the label on the plastic said otherwise. So, I adopted more of @rhedden 's philosophy of just getting coins that are nice for the grade. My Wayte Raymond albums contain coins from AG to AU... I've got a few "details" coins but most would likely straight-grade.
I think it's apples-to-apples as far as aesthetics goes. You can find all the Seated Quarters well matched eventually, and I don't think it takes any longer than it would otherwise to complete the set. My set was VF-AU and I should have (and could have) stuck to my original goal of a VF-XF set. Most of the lessor quality coins I ended up with were in the AU range because I bought what was available rather than wait.
This has been a great discussion and has helped tremendously! I dont think that I am quite up for the challenge of the full set. However, I like the idea of date sets and even certain mint marks that may make it mentally completable.
@Crepidodera said:
I just finished selling my complete set of seated quarters. Here's one of the coins I kept.
PCGS VF30 CAC
I would have kept that one also. When I had a table at a show, I bought one of these in VF. I kept it in the back case, intending to put it on my website. But about an hour later, one of my best clients came up to the table and said, "Got anything new and cool, Rich?" So I brought out the 1872-S quarter and he bought it.
These 1872-S quarters are more and more difficult to find!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Comments
Rhedden, congratulations on completing your set of Liberty Seated Quarters!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Thanks - it was a long and arduous journey, but now I (hopefully) get to admire them for the next 15 yrs. or so before I retire.
Ah yes, the old "matched set" argument. It does nothing for the owner when he/she breaks up the collection and the coins sell to 73 different bidders. That's my take on it. I don't find anything visually unappealing about mixed grades or mixed holders.
They fall into the impossible category.
Of the "big 4" my 70-cc was straight graded but crap. 71-cc was details graded so you know it was extra crappy. 72-cc was market acceptable and not a bad coin overall (and is by far the most common of the 4). 73-cc was the only totally original one of the bunch. It probably didn't CAC because they felt it was a 20 rather than a 25.
And the 76 and 77 cc’s were listed as Common ones no one cares about.
I guess maybe this falls in between?
I suppose... but isn't comparing common date Morgan Dollars to Seated Liberty Quarters sort of an "apples to oranges" comparison? Especially so given the rarity of some of the coins needed to complete the set. When I first started back on Large Cents, I opted for the Middle Dates because finding nice coins in VF-AU wasn't that difficult (at least when I first started). When I expanded the set to include the earlier pieces, I realized (quickly) that I wouldn't make significant progress without lowering my expectations... that, and many of the earlier copper pieces I was watching at auction weren't "problem-free" even though the label on the plastic said otherwise. So, I adopted more of @rhedden 's philosophy of just getting coins that are nice for the grade. My Wayte Raymond albums contain coins from AG to AU... I've got a few "details" coins but most would likely straight-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.
I consider it common but it's less common than the other two. The 75-cc is truly in the middle between the big 4 and the other 3.
I think it's apples-to-apples as far as aesthetics goes. You can find all the Seated Quarters well matched eventually, and I don't think it takes any longer than it would otherwise to complete the set. My set was VF-AU and I should have (and could have) stuck to my original goal of a VF-XF set. Most of the lessor quality coins I ended up with were in the AU range because I bought what was available rather than wait.
This has been a great discussion and has helped tremendously! I dont think that I am quite up for the challenge of the full set. However, I like the idea of date sets and even certain mint marks that may make it mentally completable.
I just finished selling my complete set of seated quarters. Here's one of the coins I kept.
PCGS VF30 CAC
I would have kept that one also. When I had a table at a show, I bought one of these in VF. I kept it in the back case, intending to put it on my website. But about an hour later, one of my best clients came up to the table and said, "Got anything new and cool, Rich?" So I brought out the 1872-S quarter and he bought it.
These 1872-S quarters are more and more difficult to find!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
If the OP really wants to start a set in VF, he should try to pry that 1872-S out of Doug's hands!
I always liked your 72-s even better than my XF40, which was a touch overgraded and probably should have been a 35.
This was the last one I sold and the favorite coin in my set. Very similar look to your 72-s.
It's the most overrated of the rare SF issues in my opinion though.
I like 👍