Poll: Which aspect of a given coin is typically accepted by all to be...

dizzyfoxx · August 26, 2006 10:09PM

...a definite strong point and coveted by just about all collectors?

-and explain why please...
I'm basically looking for what aspect of a coin creates the least amount of diversity within the hobby, what do we ALL (or the majority of us) like about any given coin?

Whizzard · August 26, 2006 10:17PM

Luster, because it can be appreciated by everyone even non-collectors. Strike I would put at number two.

construct · August 26, 2006 10:37PM

I chose rarity mainly because I'm limited to one choice that most collectors can agree on. The other listed characteristics are weighted differently by different people. Some people like shiney white coins; others like their coins to be toned or darkly original. Some people value luster more highly than marks; others find the marks on a highly reflective coin to be distracting. Hardly anyone wants to have a widget. They want even their widgets to be rare in some way or another.

Of course, I'm not using the word rarity in a strictly numerical sense. I'm using it in the sense of something unusual. It may be something as common as die clashes on three cent nickels, but when a collector looks at it or shows it, he points it out as something you don't see everyday. And rarity always commands a price. Commonness doesn't.

DarkStar · August 26, 2006 10:40PM

I would vote for eye appeal.

RYK · August 26, 2006 10:46PM

Rarity is the only one of these that can be (somewhat) objectively determined.

Barry · August 26, 2006 11:27PM

<< <i>Rarity is the only one of these that can be (somewhat) objectively determined. >>

Not really. Some people consider condition rarities. I don't believe this is a true definittion of rarity, especially when it comes to moderns, as many "condition rarities" could be sitting in a roll (or even someone's pocket) somewhere. That's why I picked luster. It's hard to argue with that.

arlea1957 · August 26, 2006 11:32PM

I voted originality, because most if not all of the other catagories can fit into this and will be appreciated by all.

RedTiger · August 27, 2006 1:19AM

Strike because most collectors can agree on that, even from relatively lousy pictures. Luster is tough to fathom on toned coins and tough to accurately photograph. Toning, some like, some like a lot, some don't like at all and again tough to photograph. Rarity, especially condition rarity is another controversial topic. There are only a handful of truly rare U.S. coins and they are all priced to the moon so it does matter but doesn't come into play for the average collector. Rare tokens or medals don't get anyone excited. High mintage key dates sell for huge money despite huge numbers of coins still out there. Most are not rare in any real sense, but the demand is greater than the supply so prices go up.

Originality, if it could be determined with 100% accuracy would be a big one for veteran collectors. However, the coin doctors are so good, a lot of so-called original coins are just expert doctor projects. It is the ones that the doctors miss on, that stand out like sore thumbs and reassure the masses that their "original" coins are original. Also non-collectors and novice collectors often prefer shiny-shiny to something original.

BillJones · August 27, 2006 1:21AM

All of the above. To me coin has to have a combination of positive aspects to be desirable. Some coins might fall short in some areas, but make up for it in others. Coins that have all of those attributes are often too expensive for most collectors.

Leiana · August 27, 2006 1:27AM

Originality is good. I prefer unmessed with coins.

-Amanda

roadrunner · August 27, 2006 2:50AM

Strike because that it was I've run into time and time again. While it is luster than floats my boat first, the typical buyer seems to note weaknesses in strike first and let's that be the overriding factor.
Most 19th century coins have some weakness in strike somewhere (stars, caps, feet, legends, denticles, etc.). I'm never short of amazed the number of times I've shown a killer looking lustrous gem to someone only to have them comment on the striking weaknesses and walk away: "I'd buy it if the 11th star were fully struck" or "too bad one of Miss Liberty's curls is flat." This is just what I have experienced.

The old timers from the 50's, 60's and early 70's were also strike oriented. Many couldn't care less if the coin was cleaned or stripped.
as long as the strike was full up. To them that was a gem coin...missing luster and all.

roadrunner

Poll: Which aspect of a given coin is typically accepted by all to be...

Comments

Leave a Comment