Coins I Don't Want
MidLifeCrisis
Posts: 10,613 ✭✭✭✭✭
To "complete" a collection, I have to buy coins I don't want.
This is true if I'm collecting a series or building a type set.
I'm currently using the PCGS EARLY AMERICAN COINS AND TOKENS BASIC DESIGN SET (1616-1820) registry set to help me stay focused as I build a collection of colonial era coins. I was reviewing the list of coins required to complete that set and I was reminded that it contains coins I don't really want...I'm just not interested in.
What do I do?
Of course, the easy answer is don't buy them.
But what if I have severe OCD? (I do.) What if I have a strong desire to complete what I start? (I do.) What if I'm a fierce registry competitor? (I'm not.)
Do I buy cheap / inferior examples of the coins I don't want just to complete the collection?
Do I spend the money, time and effort to buy examples of the coins I don't want that are of similar quality to the rest of the coins in my collection?
What would you do?
Comments
Sounds like you're having a mid life crisis.
Define your list first. Let your OCD follow.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Indeed!
"Do I buy cheap / inferior examples of the coins I don't want just to complete the collection?"
NO.
YOU decide what is on the list. So there is no buying coins you don't really want, since none of those are on the list you need to complete the set.
I wouldn't let PCGS define your collection. I looked at the set in question which has 43 coins.
I don't really like the set parameters at all. It's a hodge-podge of stuff, most of which was never used as money or circulated in Colonial America.
Just my thoughts here but I'd figure out a set of Colonial coins that actually circulated. A 1749 half penny is far more significant to me than something like the "Kentucky token" which is a Conder piece that never saw the light of day in North America.
If you’re not a fierce registry set competitor buy whatever you so desire and don’t become a slave of the registry set.
This is easy. Collect only the coins you want. Define your set without regard to how PCGS defines their set. Complete that set. Should satisfy your OCD. You can still complete what you start. It will hurt registry success, but you said that is not important to you.
When registry sets first came along, I didn’t like them just because I thought they focused too much on the grade (and grading company) and not on the actual coins. I suppose you could also add that they define what a given set contains. I like collecting what I want. It can be random or a specific set I’ve defined, but the key is I’m in control.
"Just" stop using the registry to define that particular set, otherwise your OCD will kick in.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Create a "Collectors Showcase" set instead of a Registry Set.
Then you can create your own custom list of what will be in the set.
The results will still be online, so other people can see your set if you want that.
There are several Colonial sets already in there.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/107
It is still subject to the restriction that the coins be in PCGS slabs.
The problem is that there are apparently some early American coins and tokens out there that you don't seem to want. What's wrong with y'all anyway?
Make a Showcase vs a Registry set and define it as you please
Latin American Collection
Why did Curly Howard just pop into mind 😕
Whether it was coins or anything else I’ve collected, I refused to buy something I didn’t like or want. As I much preferred a partial collection that I liked than a complete one which included examples I didn’t like. Why let someone else dictate what must constitute my set or collection?
Free yourself!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is the way!
Buy what you like and buy coins that you find to have great eye appeal. The goal is to be excited every time you pull out your collection for viewing!
I agree with the replies of "Buy what you want and only what you want". Your collection may set a new precedent as to what should be in the sets. I look forward to the day when one of the top 4 coin grading companies creates a registry accepting any of the top 4 companies holders. Grade opinons shouldn't matter upon completion of collection, let public decide which should be #1, 2 and so on. 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
If you don't like a particular coin/series, why bother? I've been at it for over 50 years, do not like the Morgan dollar design so I do not have any. My registries are just fine without them.
Well, the traditional “colonial” set is simply wrong as it doesn’t in all cases represent coins or coppers that circulated here, as has been pointed out. The way I look at it, I ignore coins that don’t BELONG in such a set and are there merely because of tradition. BTW I have expanded the traditional set to include many foreign coin types that DID circulate in the colonies. Researching and acquiring foreign coins used by colonists is very satisfying. Check out the coins recovered in Jamestown and Williamsburg, for example. I don’t recall any that are in the usual list of “colonials”.
I agree with the general sentiment expressed above. Define your own collecting goals.
But if you do find yourself trying to complete the registry set, do not settle for cheap, lousy examples of the items you don't really want. They'll feel like more of a waste of money than more expensive, decent examples would. Every time you look at them will be a downer. And who knows? You might even change your mind and like them if they're nice. But again - see above...
Collector of Liberty Seated Half Dimes, including die pairs and die states
Rule #1 I only buy coins and designs that I love. My test criteria for a coin, is this coin going to knock my socks off in 5-10 years? Will I still be impressed with the beauty and quality, even after I have looked at it many times? As for set building, and filling gaps, refer to rule #1
As a type collector there were coins I liked better than others. My least favorite pieces among the classics are the Nickel Three Cent piece and the three "With Arrows" silver type coins from 1873-4. Those "With Arrows" coins were expensive and not very thrilling. I bought really nice examples of the quarter and half dollar, but I made a mistake and bought a "C quality Proof coin" for the dime. By then I was sick of the type. That tiny increase in weight was probably part of an "international money" idea, which never got off the ground. The "With Arrows" coins from the 1850s made sense because of the "melts for more than face value" problem.
If you want to see a "C coin," here it is. My bad for buying it. The grade is PR-63.
As for the modern series, it's any of the non circulating crap the mint issues now, which is outside of the Proof set. There are too many of those coins, and they are boring and ugly as hell. I will not waste my money on them.
Some people complain about the common dates in date sets. Frankly I don't mind them at all. When I'm reading a bit of history, it's interesting to refer to a specific date. The complete date set of cents provides that without a break, except for 1815.
I ran into something similar when I was working on my Dansco 7070 type set. There are 76 coins in that set, and 14 of them are Liberty Seated coins. Not that I dislike Seated coins, but it always struck me that almost 20% of the entire type set is one design family. It felt a little repetitive.
Of course, the OCD side of me won out, and I completed them all anyway.
Fast forward a bit. I’ve since completed the 7070, a full Buffalo Nickel set (no varieties), and I’m working through a Wayte Raymond 2-album set of Large Cents. That last project was the one that really changed how I think about “completing” a set.
I realized fairly early on that I probably won’t fully complete the albums. And even if I somehow landed a decent 1793 Chain cent, it would almost certainly stay in a holder. I’m no longer cracking coins out of slabs, so that spot in the album would remain empty even though I technically own the coin.
That was kind of an epiphany for me... along with sending many of my old 7070 coins in for certification. It made me realize that a “set” is really whatever you decide it is. The albums, registry definitions, and checklists are just guides. In the end, the only real constraint is the one you place on the collection yourself... no more, no less.
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.
Or a Mott Token, which is a HTT-era commemorative token.
Define the set parameters as they make sense to you, then make a showcase under US History or join me in "Other".
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
For me, it was liberating to branch out from set-collecting, to "box of 20" collecting; with "box of 20," one defines one's criteria (if, indeed, there are any beyond "I like this coin").
But I still like my set collections! I get satisfaction from completing a set; even something as mundane as Jefferson nickels (which look very pretty in their album pages, shiny and many with a slight patina).
I agree with others about not buying a coin you don't like; this caused me to have one huge hole in my SLQ collection, the 1916 (I was not thrilled about buying a very low-grade example, paying a bunch of money for an unattractive coin; I was unwilling to spend as much as it would cost to get a pretty one). But, I finally decided late last year to fill that last hole, and it was pretty thrilling to have that set complete, with its centerpiece being, by far, the centerpiece of my entire collection.
The downside, of course, is that now the OCD in me is unhappy having the semi-key dates be much lower grade than the 1916, so I'm doing a bit of upgrading.
Some excellent suggestions in terms of creating your own Showcase set. Define it with those coins you like and if a sense of completeness is critical… consider following a box of twenty concept so there will be boundaries and limitations.. Good luck and have fun with the project
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
If it was only one or two coins, then I would stretch and step up to the plate. Otherwise, I would find the most suitable examples that I could for the money.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Really? Why would you ever buy a coin you didn't want, much less "stretch"?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Over the years, I have refined what I buy and dont buy. I used to like keydates, even if it meant settling for a mediocre coins, just to get one I'd do it. Not now, also dosnt have to be top grade either now, I have sold off a couple of coins where the lower choice coin for the grade much nicer than the higher grade example , and kept it instead.
Example had two 16-d dimes 1 in 62FB, and the other in 45cac (the nicest xf on planet earth) Both came from an old customer who passed a couple years ago, I aquired them both for him back in day, and re-aquired after his death. I kept them both for a long while, but finally let the 62fb go thru GC, (actually did well) I let Dave K look at the 45 last time he was here, and he was simply jaw dropped, (if you know dave) you know that speaks for itself.
another one I sold off my 16 SLQ in 63FH and kept a 55 I liked even more.
also, I do pick up a nice type coin here and there regardless of date, used to never do that (only kpet keys), but that has changed over the years.
I thought he meant he didn’t want them because they were low-grade, as he couldn’t afford better examples. If that’s not what he meant, then I was mistaken.
Edit to add: I didn’t read it correctly. Sorry.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
No problem. I was just surprised. But some people are OCD enough to have to fill the holes, so I wasn't sure.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I know it’s not from one of the top 4 grading companies, but you can always use mycollect.com to add slabs from any TPG (or even raw coins!).
Also, if you define you own set, and like collecting raw coins, you can always order a custom album from @The_Dinosaur_Man.
I could post 5 or 10 undesirable coins that I have purchased overthe years because of OCD spurred on by trying to complete a set. The collecting gene is at least 40 percent irrational.
The good news is I have unloaded most of them, often at a loss.
My advice for what it's worth, is a corollary to a Mark Feld tip for coin collecting: if there's something undesirable about a coin, it will only be more so once you acquire it.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Flip a coin 😊
I agree with the sentiment to not buy a coin that brings no joy along with the idea of a showcase set. Another suggestion is you could advocate to PCGS to create a new registry set that is defined differently than the current one!
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
This is a great idea....in theory. In practice, this is likely many phone calls and emails over the course of months and an untold amount of frustration.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Well, we do have a new registry manager! 😘
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
I am going to send @Charles_Morgan a PM and see about getting a Registry started for the somewhat newly recognized TDVs from @keoj 's excellent trade dollar book. Will check back in with progress periodically in the Set Registry forum.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Been there, done that. That OCD thing has cost me quite a bit over the years.
You’re going to sell it someday next guy might like the ones you don’t. Make them match the others.
I get your point, but why am I buying a coin for someone else's wants in the future? Not if I was in MLC's shoes.
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
Set completion is important though. Custom sets are fine, but if you want to start collecting a series or Type coins, just buying the ones you like the most isn’t as fulfilling and also isn’t in the best interest of the hobby. I remember reading that most collectors didn’t collect by mint mark until Coin Albums became available, and that once the albums came out it was a great boon to the hobby.
There wouldn’t be much demand for key dates/mintmarks without the need to complete a set.
Mr_Spud
Which is exactly why it is GOOD for HOBBYISTS to collect by type and not pay the inflated prices that go with "key dates".
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I think good arguments can be made either way.
If one isn't going to get satisfaction/pleasure from completing a set, then it makes no sense to collect sets.
But for those of us who get satisfaction from completing a set, it can be very gratifying. Yes, key dates can be very painful in otherwise moderately-priced sets (e.g., Mercury dimes, with no outrageously-expensive coins other than the 1916-D, which is outrageously expensive). But the flip side is that my observation has been that key dates do better, value-wise, over time than all other dates.
I have no problem with people who want or like sets. I just don't buy the argument that it is somehow good for the hobby and buying coins you don't want is also good for the hobby.
I believe people should collect whatever and however they want. Telling people they should buy coins that they don't want to complete someone else's idea of a set seems inimical to that.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I do not buy coins as an "investment," in the pure sense of the word. There are lots of better way to invest money than collecting coins.
But I do keep in mind that, some day, either I or my heirs will have to sell this stuff, and I look to maximize marketability of what I buy.
For instance, I don't buy "details" coins, because that market is so opaque to me.
Agreed.
If you needed a New Jersey Copper, today is your day thanks to the @CoinRaritiesOnline special Early Bird.
Latin American Collection
Yes, I agree. As a very dedicated type collector, I too got "Liberty Seated fatigue” also. It really set in with the 1873-4 With Arrows coins as I mentioned earlier. I found those coins to be a drag, but given the fact that there is something like 300+ coins in a complete U.S. type set, leaving out three or four did not seem reasonable. If it had been more, I would have pulled the plug, and I have pulled the plug on the “modern crap.” I consider the set complete up to say 1985.