If you could only collect one YEAR, what would it be and why?

Veridicus · November 25, 2003 3:40AM

For me, it would be tough. I've always liked 1796 for the variety and because it's the only year prior to 1849 when all authorized denominations were produced. I also like 1837 and 1839 as transitional years between bust and seated coinage. My favorite 20th century year is 1916, another transitional year. Picking one however, it would have to be 1796.

nwcs · November 25, 2003 3:43AM

1973 because it is my birth year. And I'm sure I could find some great coins in it. It's affordable and available. I've thought of doing this from time to time, but want variety too much.

1957joe · November 25, 2003 3:44AM

1853 because that was my first coin (large cent) and it is an interesting year with a lot of interesting coins.

LanLord · November 25, 2003 3:45AM

While a 1796 set would be a thing of beauty, it would be costly, even in low condition.

I would have to go with a 1873 set. I am slowly (very slowly) putting together a 1873 PROOF set and will probably follow that up with a circ set in mint state (or as high as my lowly budget will allow).

Since there are so many coins in 1873 in both arrows and no arrows, as well as dual 3 cent, a two cent. It seems like a cool year set.

boiler78 · November 25, 2003 3:47AM

I like 1877 because of the fantastic half dollar patterns and the proof only regular issues.

CharlieB · November 25, 2003 3:48AM

Actually that's been the way I have collected for the past 5 years,
focusing on one year, obtaining several examples and then moving to
another year. I am done with 1916. If I went for a year now I think it
would be 1796 too. That was a good pick by Veridicus.

kranky · November 25, 2003 3:55AM

If I thought I could afford it, 1873 (shades of Harry X Boosel!). Counting gold, there are over 40 circulation issue coins! That's before you even get to the open 3 / closed 3 varieties.

Veridicus · November 25, 2003 3:55AM

<< While a 1796 set would be a thing of beauty, it would be costly, even in low condition.

I would have to go with a 1873 set. I am slowly (very slowly) putting together a 1873 PROOF set and will probably follow that up with a circ set in mint state (or as high as my lowly budget will allow).

Since there are so many coins in 1873 in both arrows and no arrows, as well as dual 3 cent, a two cent. It seems like a cool year set. >>

Yes, 1873 is a great year and definately in my top 10, maybe top 5. I think a guy by the name of Harry Boozle (sp?) had a complete 1873 year set back in the 1950's I believe it was the only think he collected and they used to call him "Mr. 1873". The no arrows CC issues would put this year our of my league. If you get the entire proof set, that would be a MAJOR accomplishment. What do you have so far if you don't mind me asking, also any pics?

flaminio · November 25, 2003 3:57AM

Money no object, 1796. On my current budget, 1962 (my birth year).

CarlWohlforth · November 25, 2003 4:00AM

Perhaps one of the earlier years mentioned.

I did have great fun working on a 1907 set. That is a transition year for gold so you end up with some great gold coins! I finished it except for the high relief Saint but have sold off one or two coins from that set.

haletj · November 25, 2003 4:03AM

Depended on how much money I had. Maybe 1860. All of the many denominations are affordable. Maybe 1916 for the 2 key dates and first year of issues, with enough money how about a gem Bu set of 1921 coins!

Barry · November 25, 2003 4:16AM

1793. The first year of US coin(s), and easy to complete the set

FC57Coins · November 25, 2003 4:24AM

1873 - last year of several denominations - first year of the trade dollar

1916 - lots of change in our coinage

MadMarty · November 25, 2003 4:25AM

1964, just to keep Russ from having them all!

mgoodm3 · November 25, 2003 4:43AM

I would do 1879. Why? Well, I already have an 1879 IHC and it will be easier to finish. Lots of things made in that year.

CaptainRon · November 25, 2003 5:07AM

1870, a hundred years before I was born. Plus it has a great var. of coins, plus many are tougher dates for there series.

Only bummer for me is no 20 cent piece.

cladking · November 25, 2003 5:33AM

1969 has got to be one of the greatest coin years for US and world coins. People took coins
for granted so much that few of any coins were saved. There are some great and interesting
coins and a set from this year would require many years of intense effort to complete. Forget
about finding all of these in gem. Many will prove problematical in unc.

Veridicus · November 25, 2003 5:35AM

<< 1870, a hundred years before I was born. Plus it has a great var. of coins, plus many are tougher dates for there series.

Only bummer for me is no 20 cent piece. >>

I've thought about 1868 for the same reason. 16 types just from Philly! Nothing all too important happened that year, unless you're a fan of the Johnson impeachment, so 1868 never really held too much interest for me, but any of the 1866-1872 16 type years are neat on their own, plus 1868 was the Aluminum pattern set year.

stujoe · November 25, 2003 5:38AM

1966 (my birth year) but I would have to include Dark Side as well as US in my year collection to prevent becoming bored with it. Oh....wait...I already am doing that collection.

Veridicus · November 25, 2003 5:43AM

<< 1966 (my birth year) but I would have to include Dark Side as well as US in my year collection to prevent becoming bored with it. Oh....wait...I already am doing that collection.

>>

What's "dark side"

mgoodm3 · November 25, 2003 5:46AM

The evil un-american coins out there.

barberlover · November 25, 2003 5:48AM

1892.

tjkillian · November 25, 2003 5:52AM

1861. It is a year with many different denominations and is one of the easiest years to do. If money were no object, 1796 would also be a ultra cool year.

Tom

Lakesammman · November 25, 2003 6:22AM

Since Boiler already took 1877, I'd do 1858. Many great small cents that year in MS/Proof, varieties and multiple patterns/restrikes.

Pushkin · November 25, 2003 6:24AM

1857 - great Flying Eagle cent clashes, lots of patterns - it was a very strange year numismatically.

Veridicus · November 25, 2003 6:30AM

<< Since Boiler already took 1877, I'd do 1858. Many great small cents that year in MS/Proof, varieties and multiple patterns/restrikes. >>

I've always thought the 1858 cent set was pretty neat. There's also an 1859 with the shield if I remember correctly.

stujoe · November 25, 2003 6:40AM

<< What's "dark side"

>>

Here's an example:

http://www.coinpeople.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25

from 1966 too.

cosmicdebris · November 25, 2003 6:41AM

1902 Click Me to find out why

BillJones · November 25, 2003 6:45AM

I would hate to forced to have collect only ONE year, but if I had to, I'd take 1796.

That's the only year in which one can get an example of every denomination that the first U.S. mint issued. There are also a number of "proof like" coins around although you would need to be a zillionire to afford them.

If I did have unlimted funds I'd collect the coins from that year by die variety.

Keyrock · November 25, 2003 6:47AM

Currently doing a 1909 type set since it was a big year for the coppers. I also liked 1909 for the gold since it includes the only two incuse designs (my favorites the quarter eagles and half eagles).

09/8 variety with the double eagle

S/S on the Lincoln cent

09 S VDB and the 09 S Indian head.

Rich

Edited to add: This is a doable set, my dream set would be a 1793 set (once again, it links to copper)

BigMoose · November 25, 2003 6:56AM

For me it would have to be 1794--56 varieties of Large Cents, all dies cut by hand and all die varieties visible without a loupe! And I like the design as well. There is just something about a liberty cap large cent that does it for me!

oldcameoproofsguy · November 25, 2003 8:32AM

Like mentioned before, an 1873 proof and mint sets would be really cool. It would be like owning a miniature type set all in one year.

shylock · November 25, 2003 8:57AM

Moose (Mr. 1794) is already doing this with 1794 Large cents and it's one of the more memorable date collections you'll ever see. I'd pick 1865 Indian cents. The rush to replentish copper coins hoarded during the Civil War seems to have hit its peek during this year and varieties, errors and major die clashes/cracks hit their peek in 1865 as a result. 1865 is the first date I search for on Ebay.

Robgetty · November 25, 2003 10:03AM

1872. I was born in 1972, so I went back 100 years.

Currently, I am looking for the 1872 proof half to complete the non gold.

I've got:
1 cent PCGS XF45 and PCGS PR64RB
2 cent PCGS VF35 and NGC PR65RB
3 cent silver PCGS MS60 and PCGS PR64
3 cent nickel PCGS MS62 and PCGS PR62
half dime 72-P NGC MS61, S below PCGS MS63, S above AU, PCGS PR64CAM
nickel PCGS MS63 and PCGS PR64, 1872/2 RPD ICG VF30
dime 72-P ANACS AU50, 72-S ICG AU50, 72-CC ANACS net AG3, ANACS PR61
quarter 72-P NGC MS61, 72-S PCGS AG3, 72-CC ANACS net VG10, PCGS PR61
half 72-P NGC AU53, 72-S ANACS net VF30, 72-CC PCGS G4
dollar 72-P NGC MS60, 72-S ANACS VG10, 72-CC PCGS VF30, NGC PR58
dollar (gold) NGC MS61
quarter eagle 72-S PCGS XF40
$3 PCGS XF40
half eagle 72-S PCGS XF40
eagle 72-S PCGS AU50
double eagle 72-P PCGS AU53, 72-S PCGS AU53

It's been a fun set to work on.

Veridicus · November 25, 2003 10:06AM

Very cool set. Any pics?

Robgetty · November 25, 2003 10:08AM

I need to take some. The PR64CAM half dime is beautiful.

Louis · November 25, 2003 10:09AM

1908, my dad's birth year.

Veep · November 25, 2003 10:12AM

1916--- The transition from Barber coinage represented a renaissance in coin designs for the country. I can't think of any three mint state coins more beautiful than a 1916 Std. Lib. Quarter, a 1916-D dime and 1916-S WL Half. Then, you have your Buffalo Nickels including the matte proof. There's the Barbers and a little bit of gold mixed in. Hmm, maybe I've hit on an idea for a collection.

Veridicus · November 25, 2003 10:18AM

<< I need to take some. The PR64CAM half dime is beautiful. >>

If you do, please share them. I'd love to see the set.

RELLA · November 25, 2003 10:54AM

1872...and here's why:

1. 99 years before my birth year (just to be different).
2. All the multiple design fun already mentioned...and every design available in business strike format as well as proof.
3. A LOT of tough coins but no total stopper; many of these coins are undervalued also.
4. The first CC year that isn't a real pain in the neck to collect.
5. I know I'll have friendly competition with Rob working on the same year...in fact I already helped him find his 1872-S Quarter.
6. Two words: Amazonian Patterns!

Strong consideration also for these years: 1969, 1955, 1943, 1935, 1921, 1916, 1909, 1906, 1892, 1873, 1871, 1855, 1853, 1837, 1831, 1822, 1815, 1804, 1796, 1794, 1793

RELLA

fountainheadgold · November 25, 2003 11:13AM

1913 great possibilities

islemangu · November 25, 2003 1:27PM

1915 all the great type coins then and the Pan Pacs as icing on the cake

Merc · November 25, 2003 1:34PM

1916. The most beautiful half, quarter and dime came out that year. You get 2 of the super rarities of the 20th century -the 1916-D dime and 1916 quarter. I would love to have the trial proofs made of those coins too.

HavanaJoe · November 25, 2003 1:46PM

1995- If only to get the beloved Silver Eagle in 1995-W PCGS PR69 DCAM. Of course, 1994 would work too, with the PR70 worth about 6 grand....

Geoman · November 25, 2003 2:45PM

I think I saw one other person pick this year - 1921.

I would have to say a nice Gem BU set for 1921 is what I would pick. It has some of the classic coins I love, the Walking Liberty Half, along with the Mercury Dime...........

lordmarcovan · November 25, 2003 3:41PM

1901. I am collecting Victorian potrait coinage from the British Empire dated 1901.

Our daughter was born in 2001, and only after we had named her Victoria Hope did I remember the coincidence- Queen Victoria's reign ended in 1901, exactly a century before "The New Victorian Age" began.

By a happy coincidence, the British Royal Mint struck a 5-pound Victoria commemorative that year, and I got one. That will be the only non-1901 coin in the set. I have gotten examples of all but two or three of the homeland British types, but will probably branch out into the Empire after that. In 1901, the sun still hadn't set on the British Empire. Great Britain under Queen Victoria was at the peak of its power, and lots of colonies means lots of coinage.

As to United States coins, the transitional years you mentioned are certainly the most interesting- 1873 is the one that sticks out in my mind, and 1916 is a good one. There is an article about this in The Numismatist, either this month or last month's issue- I forget which, since I got around to reading both at the same time.

Veridicus · November 25, 2003 3:44PM

<< 1901. I am collecting Victorian potrait coinage from the British Empire dated 1901.

Our daughter was born in 2001, and only after we had named her Victoria Hope did I remember the coincidence- Queen Victoria's reign ended in 1901, exactly a century before "The New Victorian Age" began. >>

Very cool, and your daughter is very cute by the way.

Baley · November 26, 2003 1:16AM

Has no one chosen 1838? that would be my choice, because you'd have many different designs as a one-year, transition type set. for the gold, you'd get the classic head 5 and 2.5, but the coronet head cent and $10 gold piece. The half dollar would be capped bust, you'd have both capped bust and seated Quarters, and seated dime and half dime, and no half cent or other "odd" denominations. The collection could eventually include a Gobrecht dollar, too!

Pistareen · November 26, 2003 8:07AM

If price is no object, why has no one chosen 1792 yet?

Three cent types: Silver center cent, fusible alloy cent, Birch cent (bonus points for a 1792 Getz "cent")
Half disme: the easy one
disme: copper or silver?
quarter dollar: half credit for a uniface one
half dollar: Getz' private issue is your only option, about as easy as the half disme

If we have to be reasonable, I'll agree with TomT on 1794. I'll never forget my first, a Sheldon-24 in VF-20 from the 1990 Chalkley Sale. Sold for rent money during college ... but when I see that coin again I'm buying her back! I need to work for a few more years before I can buy the Amon Carter 1794 $1 I guess.

relayer · November 26, 2003 8:12AM

2018 - so I could save my money up and buy a nice one

Veridicus · November 26, 2003 9:32AM

If you could only collect one YEAR, what would it be and why?

Comments

Leave a Comment