Options
"Completeness is an obsolete legacy left over from the days of date and mintmark collecting.&qu
RYK
Posts: 35,799 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is a direct quote from a QDB article from the 1970's, reprinted in the second volume of the popular Numismatist's Companion series.
I have mixed feelings about this one. The context was that the "old way" of collecting series in albums, popular in the 1950's and 1960's, was changing. That turned out to be the case in fact, but perhaps in a way that QDB did not anticipate. Slabs and the registries have reinvigorated interest in set completion, but what constitutes a complete set has certainly changed, too. Who would have guessed then that eight proof Kennedy halves would comprise a complete set? I think many collectors today, probably the majority, expect to complete something and are working toward such a goal.
Any other thoughts?
I have mixed feelings about this one. The context was that the "old way" of collecting series in albums, popular in the 1950's and 1960's, was changing. That turned out to be the case in fact, but perhaps in a way that QDB did not anticipate. Slabs and the registries have reinvigorated interest in set completion, but what constitutes a complete set has certainly changed, too. Who would have guessed then that eight proof Kennedy halves would comprise a complete set? I think many collectors today, probably the majority, expect to complete something and are working toward such a goal.
Any other thoughts?
0
Comments
question posed for HRH
Link O Rama
Proof
Link O Rama !
Proof
As a dealer and conduit to some pretty neat and wonderful examples of not only US but World coins, over the years I've tried to motivate customers to work toward completion of a set of coins rather than buy here and there and end up with a confused bunch of coins with no rhyme or reason. In several cases, I've also helped collectors see even deeper in actually naming their collections as well, and the ones that have been sold at auction have sold with this newly created "pedigree". One of these collections recently realized prices at significant premiums because of the completeness as well as the "pedigree" which over the years had taken on a life of it's own.
Since the advent of slabbing coins, I think that even though there seems to be a new wave of buying philosophy which has included buying multiple keys, etc, I don't agree that collecting with the ultimate goal of completeness is obsolete per se. I don't think that the hoarding of certain keys have necessarily been a recent phenomenon either, as years ago I remember buying collections of cents as a case in point which included half-full roll quantities of 22 plains, 09-S VDB's, 1877 Indians etc. But I think that there's just been more of this type of collecting in recent years or I think investing is a more accurate term for it as evidenced by near hoards of certain coins seen at auctions ( High Reliefs's are one that comes to mind)
Perhaps Dave B means that the old days of seeing collectors like Waldo ( Pat) Bolen and people like him pursuing complete collections of dimes as an example have passed us by, but I'd like to think that it's not entirely correct and can happily report that from my own experience, there's still some "sets" of coins out here that have yet to be completed, but will be completed, and when sold will electrify the hobby with every bit the Ooh's and Ahhh's as in the "old days" thereby creating new levels of numismatic excitement for future collectors to learn from and even compete with.
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
I wonder if he intended it as a blanket statement, or if he was referring to certain segments of collecting? (Old classics, he's probably right. Modern and mid-aged types, I think he missed the mark).
And I wonder if he still would agree with it?
Some out there want to only collect 1878 VAMs and want to "complete" a set of those Morgans.
Its really no different in complexity of satisfaction than in trying to complete a date set or complete date/MM set of Morgans, for example.
I think the idea of "completeness" has broadened and that has drawn more collectors into the hobby. It can only be a good thing.
Imagine if we were all still trying to fill holes in Whitman albums to this day. How boring!
The hobby is evolving and has been doing so since it began.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
<< <i>Huh. That's the one I didn't attribute to Bowers. I figured anyone who would write a date-by-date analysis of Morgans and Saints might believe people still looked for completeness.
I wonder if he intended it as a blanket statement, or if he was referring to certain segments of collecting? (Old classics, he's probably right. Modern and mid-aged types, I think he missed the mark).
And I wonder if he still would agree with it? >>
At that time there had been a huge increase in type collecting. People weren't collecting the
later coins and relatively few were pursuing things like buffalos. Collecting uncs and higher
grades had already become pretty common and it put most "collectible" series out of reach of
the average collector. Before this time most rarer dates had substantial premiums but this
trend could be seen in the rising relative prices of the common dates in series after series. This
was especially apparent in those series which were not affordable to most as complete sets.
Type collecting is still quite popular but there are more coins that people consider worth col-
lecting that are more widely affordable. Sets like the silver Roosies in unc are so inexpensive
that most collectors will seek them in at least choice condition and many seek gems. But in the
'70's such sets were considered very common and beneath attention. While most can't afford
und or choice sets of buffalos or WL halfs, there are many returning and new collectors who are
attempting sets in lower grades or splitting the sets and looking for high grades.
Type collecting is especially popular with world coins. This can take the form of "one from each
country" or one every type, or even one coin from each governmental entity. Type collecting
is a great way to learn about history and art and provides a vast array of different coins for
relatively low cost. Date and mint collecting teaches about the market and the nuances of
grading as well as provides insights into the economy and human behavior and how these
change over time.
sounds like he ran out of money too, to complete his sets. shame.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I think many collectors today, probably the majority, expect to complete something and are working toward such a goal. >>
I certainly do!
I would doubt that anyone in the history is numismatics, up to the point when statement was made, had ever made more money in coins.
seriously though, i do not know a single collector who does not categorize
their field.
instead of dates, you collect copper.
instead of mint marks, you collect errors.
instead of a series, you collect one of each.. a la type set.
so, maybe the person who made that statement was drinking bear's fermented honey.
i have never read his autobiography though.
why would he make such a statement? was this at a point in his life
when any coin was reachable for him?
if completeness is an obsolete legacy, we have many users around here
who need to be upgraded with a new legacy.
i have never read his autobiography though.
I think you should read a bit about Bowers. He owned an 1894-S dime in his twenties and has owned every great rarity that I can think of at least once (1804 dollar, 1913 Liberty nickel, etc.). There is more to coins than ebay and the message boards. (I like that pithy statement. I will use it in my sig line for a while.)