I don't really like the dead presidents divider. For one thing, the Lincoln cent was introduced in 1909, but all the other coinage still had dead presidents for over 20 years. My gut instinct would be to say that the modern era started on the day the last non-obsolete coin was introduced. So that would be 1964, when the Franklin was replaced by the Kennedy. The other way you could do it would be when the first modern design was introduced, which would be 1959, with the Lincoln Memorial cent.
If you haven't noticed, I'm single and miserable and I've got four albums of bitching about it that I would offer as proof.
Modern Coin: 2000 and past. Classic Coin: any half cent, two cent, three cent, half dime. 1909 for cents 1938 for nickels 1945 for dimes 1930 for quarters 1947 for halves 1935 for silver dollars 1889 for gold dollars 1929 for $2.50 Gold 1889 for $3. Gold 1880 for $4. Gold 1929 for $5 Gold 1933 for $10 Gold
Legislation dated August 3, 1964 authorized the coinage of 45 million silver dollars and 316,076 dollars of the Peace design dated 1964 were struck at the Denver mint in 1965. All were supposedly destroyed. That was the beginning of the MODERN blunders.
Ironically it was a hundred years earlier we had the private coin act of 1864 which ended private coinage (though that wasn't enforced until about 1883 or thereabouts) I'd have to look it up.
As I've written before, I refuse to acknowledge a distinction between "classic" and "modern". I view coins as a continuum from the earliest Lydian pieces to the latest US Mint product.
Collect what you like, and don't let certain online personalities try to dictate the validity of your collection.
I thought long and hard about this one and realized I don't have a definition of modern coin. What's the point to it? I collect coins from 1653 to present day. I don't need to label them in a category other than date, denomination and series. Why do we even have the terms modern and classic? I guess I have been living in a cave, never heard the term till I showed up here.
Main Entry: 1mod·ern Pronunciation: 'mä-d&rn, ÷'mä-d(&-)r&n Function: adjective Etymology: Late Latin modernus, from Latin modo just now, from modus measure -- more at METE 1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : CONTEMPORARY b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time 2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : UP-TO-DATE 3 capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of a language 4 : of or relating to modernism : MODERNIST - mo·der·ni·ty /m&-'d&r-n&-tE, mä-, -'der-/ noun - mod·ern·ly /'mä-d&rn-lE/ adverb - mod·ern·ness /-d&rn-n&s/ noun
I hope this clears it up for everyone, isn't it obvious?
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Will’sProoflikes
1909 to date Lincoln cents 1938 to date Jeffs 1946 to date Roosies 1932 to date Washingtons 1964 to date Kennedy 1965 to date anything else
I don't think you can divide a series into eras when the design hasn't changed significantly, if at all. Include Franklin halfs as modern and the dead president dividing line makes a lot of sense.
...the pyramids were ancient beyond words when the first coins were issued... >>
I'm not sure how true this is. The Wikipedia coin page says some "Mesolithic stone tools and coins" were discovered in China in 1979-1980. The Mesolithic period goes from about 8000 BC to 5000 BC. If we use the Egyptian pyramids for our pyramid reference, it seems that construction began during the Old Kingdom. The Old Kingdom starts in the third millennium BC. Djoser was the first significant ruler during the Old Kingdom and ruled between 2630-2611 BC.
If all that (from various Wikipedia pages) is true, then...
...the first Chinese coins were ancient beyond words when the first Egyptian pyramids were created....
Maybe coins from before the pyramids are classic and coins after the pyramids are modern If we use 8000 BC as the start of the coin era and 3000 BC as the divider between classic and modern then there would be 5000 years of classics and 5000 years of moderns!
I would say it depends on the series I consider modern these
Lincolns 1934 - date Jeffersons 1938 - date Roosevelts 1946 - date Washingtons 1932 - date Franklins 1948 - 1963 Kennedys 1964 - date Ikes 1971 - 1978 SBA s 1979 -1999 Sacagawea 2000 - date Silver Commemoratives 1982 - date Gold Commemoratives 1984 - date SAE 1986 - date GAE 1986 - date PAE 1997 - date
I would like to see a bid/ask sheet for these in certified PCGS/NGC I think would help promote the market on moderns. If you think this is good idea or not please tell me as I am thinking about printing one.
Well, the question is "What is your definition of MODERN?" Seems like many people have differing definitions.
Does PCGS also use 1965 for world coins? Their fee schedule page says 1965-present for US moderns but doesn't give a date for world moderns. >>
I don't know but each country had its own date that it switched to base metal coinage and people quit saving it. While an arbitrary date like 1945 or '65 could be chosen for all world coins these changes happened at different times in different countries.
The eventual shift from symbolic representations on the obverse to dead presidents/historical figures (like Russ said, 1947 to 1948). But when someone says "modern crap" in a thread title, I always prepare myself to see something from 1965 and beyond.
1) Any coin where the huge majority of its value is derived from the plastic holder it's in.
2) Any coin that you could crack out of its holder and spend, and no one would even raise an eyebrow.
3) Any coin that the big submittors send in by the thousands hoping to "hit" on a few, and then dump off the ones that didn't make it for the cost of the slab or less.
4) Most any coin where if the grade on the plastic drops 2-3 points or more it's worth face value.
5) Any coin that if you submitted for grading 10-15 yrs. ago or more people would have laughed at you.
1) Any coin where the huge majority of its value is derived from the plastic holder it's in.
2) Any coin that you could crack out of its holder and spend, and no one would even raise an eyebrow.
3) Any coin that the big submittors send in by the thousands hoping to "hit" on a few, and then dump off the ones that didn't make it for the cost of the slab or less.
4) Most any coin where if the grade on the plastic drops 2-3 points or more it's worth face value.
5) Any coin that if you submitted for grading 10-15 yrs. ago or more people would have laughed at you. >>
In other words moderns are crap. Thankyou for clearing that up.
Post 1940 Cents Jefferson Nickels Roosevelt Dimes Post 1940 Quarters Franklin and Kennedy Halves Ike, SBA, Sac, Presidential Dollars (But I likes my Ikes!)
<< <i>I didn't say that, where did I say that? I was just making some observations.
1) Any coin where the huge majority of its value is derived from the plastic holder it's in. >>
This applies to nearly half of high value moderns.
<< <i> 2) Any coin that you could crack out of its holder and spend, and no one would even raise an eyebrow. >>
This applies to three quarters of all collectible moderns. (edited to add; according to bashers)
<< <i> 3) Any coin that the big submittors send in by the thousands hoping to "hit" on a few, and then dump off the ones that didn't make it for the cost of the slab or less. >>
This applies to very few coins but they are nearly all moderns.
<< <i> 4) Most any coin where if the grade on the plastic drops 2-3 points or more it's worth face value. >>
I don't know if this applies more to moderns or classics but it's a very common bash for moderns.
<< <i> 5) Any coin that if you submitted for grading 10-15 yrs. ago or more people would have laughed at you. >>
1) Any coin where the huge majority of its value is derived from the plastic holder it's in. >>
Actually, an 83-P Washington in unc is worth $30 raw. Very few of the moderns I buy can be purchased at sheet. I wouldn't be opposed to it, mind you. Many of the coins are just extremely difficult to find, price aside. Gem 72-P Ikes are just tough raw. Dcam SMS coins are tough too. Most of the stuff I collect is raw. I holder the things I want to sell, because that's what others trust online.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>I didn't say that, where did I say that? I was just making some observations.
1) Any coin where the huge majority of its value is derived from the plastic holder it's in. >>
This applies to nearly half of high value moderns.
<< <i> 2) Any coin that you could crack out of its holder and spend, and no one would even raise an eyebrow. >>
This applies to three quarters of all collectible moderns. (edited to add; according to bashers)
<< <i> 3) Any coin that the big submittors send in by the thousands hoping to "hit" on a few, and then dump off the ones that didn't make it for the cost of the slab or less. >>
This applies to very few coins but they are nearly all moderns.
<< <i> 4) Most any coin where if the grade on the plastic drops 2-3 points or more it's worth face value. >>
I don't know if this applies more to moderns or classics but it's a very common bash for moderns.
<< <i> 5) Any coin that if you submitted for grading 10-15 yrs. ago or more people would have laughed at you. >>
This applies to all moderns.
Your meaning is quite clear. >>
So you have the same definition of a modern as Dragon. What is the problem with that?
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
This can change slightly according to your favorite series. For half dollars, the cutoff is 1836.
<< <i>Using the steam press as the beginning of modern coinage? >>
Steam press and full hubbing of design. I don't know when this change was made with other series, but the mint began experimenting with fully hubbed halves in 1834.
So you have the same definition of a modern as Dragon. What is the problem with that? >>
There's no problem except that, as is normally the case, some people can't see the simple fact that what applies to some moderns does not apply to all or that ascribing characteristics to something doesn't make it true.
A lot of people still laugh at those who submit coins like a gem 1969 quarter. It is coming to say much more about the laugher than the submittor.
I considered the reasonableness of defining "modern" coins as starting in 1965 as well. Of course, the first clad coinage is what this year (1965) represents.
However...
I thought it more reasonable to consider the end of the gold coin production, exemplified by the rare/ultra-rare 1933 coins, to be the year of the last classics for my own definition.
“I have all the money I want, and there is a better use I can make of my time. We work to become, not to acquire.” — Elbert Hubbard
My case for 1933 being the last year of the "classics" and 1934 being the first year of the "moderns":
ONE CENT-Yes. The most commonly seen of all 1933 coins. As Lincolns go, however, '33's are not "common." FIVE CENTS-None minted. ONE DIME-None minted. QUARTER DOLLAR-None minted. HALF DOLLAR-Yes. 1933-S is by no means a "common" Walker, however. In fact, it is "very scarce" in mint-state condition. ONE DOLLAR-None minted. 2 1/2 DOLLARS-None minted. FIVE DOLLARS-None minted. TEN DOLLARS-Yes. Rare. Only the very wealthy can afford to own a 1933 Eagle at today's prices, however. TWENTY DOLLARS-Yes, but considered illegal to own. See "Illegal Tender."
For all practical purposes, only three denominations (out of 10 that had been made recently, in the years relative to 1933) of coins are available to collectors that bear the date "1933."
1933 is a year of disappearance. 1934 is a year of emergence.
“I have all the money I want, and there is a better use I can make of my time. We work to become, not to acquire.” — Elbert Hubbard
Okay Y'all, thanks for the clarity. I now have 314 working definitions of "modern".
Not really, I have better things to do than count all of the variations on what constitutes moderns presented thus far.
In summary, each person has his/her own definition or has adopted someone else's definition.
The way I see it with all things considered the potential modern basher group based on their definition of moderns vastly outnumbers the "modern lovers" (whatever that means) on this board.
And that could probably be extrapolated to encompass the total of the group of people that consider themselves to be true collectors.
So what would a true collector be??????
I'd bet there are a plethora of answers each with their own subtle nuances.
So why do we spend so much time on things such as this anyway??
I think a true collector appreciates most all coins, "modern" or "classic," no matter.
I am in awe of the South Dakota quarter. What a wonderful design with Mt. Rushmore, the state bird, and stalks of wheat. The Sacajawea dollar is a beautiful coin, in my opinion. Having said that, my appreciation and interest for coins mostly leans towards the "classics" as I, and I alone, define them.
The title of this thread is "What is your definition of MODERN?' and that is precisely what I have been attempting to share with y'all.
The one thing all collectors need to keep in mind is this:
NEVER ever berate another's collection, no matter how meager you might consider that collection to be.
“I have all the money I want, and there is a better use I can make of my time. We work to become, not to acquire.” — Elbert Hubbard
I`m not in favor of 64 being the difining year for the cutoff, but i guess when the silver left the market, it was a great loss for all.
I do find several series that i enjoy collecting more than others, and once the series ended, I lose interest in the next series minted. The walker halves for example. I feel that those are classics, while the Franklins are "semi classic" Kennedys would fall under "Moderns"
I guess i learned what i wanted to learn by starting this thread. We will never agree on what IS or ISN`T a modern or a classic. While i do agree that there needs to be a line drawn for grading purposes such as HRH described,but there should never be a line drawn for collectability.
Thank you all for your time and input. It is greatly appreciated.
If you can read this, your too close.
A DAMMIT BOY from Jonesy 1/25/05
Lieutenant, Covert Operations Subcommittee
my first POTD award 7/16/05 the cat ate my blue fish.
Comments
-- Adam Duritz, of Counting Crows
My Ebay Auctions
So 1965 and above is modern IMO.
Steve
Classic Coin: any half cent, two cent, three cent, half dime.
1909 for cents
1938 for nickels
1945 for dimes
1930 for quarters
1947 for halves
1935 for silver dollars
1889 for gold dollars
1929 for $2.50 Gold
1889 for $3. Gold
1880 for $4. Gold
1929 for $5 Gold
1933 for $10 Gold
Legislation dated August 3, 1964 authorized the coinage of 45 million silver dollars and 316,076 dollars of the Peace design dated 1964 were struck at the Denver mint in 1965. All were supposedly destroyed. That was the beginning of the MODERN blunders.
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Gold: 1840-date.
Silver: 1878-date.
Nickel: 1883-date.
Copper: 1864-date.
The rest of the world could care less.
Hoot
Collect what you like, and don't let certain online personalities try to dictate the validity of your collection.
Pronunciation: 'mä-d&rn, ÷'mä-d(&-)r&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin modernus, from Latin modo just now, from modus measure -- more at METE
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : CONTEMPORARY b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time
2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : UP-TO-DATE
3 capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of a language
4 : of or relating to modernism : MODERNIST
- mo·der·ni·ty /m&-'d&r-n&-tE, mä-, -'der-/ noun
- mod·ern·ly /'mä-d&rn-lE/ adverb
- mod·ern·ness /-d&rn-n&s/ noun
I hope this clears it up for everyone, isn't it obvious?
Will’sProoflikes
<< <i>
I hope this clears it up for everyone, isn't it obvious?
Sure. There used to not be words so any coin with a word on it or struck since the invention of words is modern.
...the pyramids were ancient beyond words when the first coins were issued...
1938 to date Jeffs
1946 to date Roosies
1932 to date Washingtons
1964 to date Kennedy
1965 to date anything else
I don't think you can divide a series into eras when the design hasn't changed significantly,
if at all. Include Franklin halfs as modern and the dead president dividing line makes a lot of sense.
<< <i>Ya' know, when you think about it...
...the pyramids were ancient beyond words when the first coins were issued... >>
I'm not sure how true this is. The Wikipedia coin page says some "Mesolithic stone tools and coins" were discovered in China in 1979-1980. The Mesolithic period goes from about 8000 BC to 5000 BC. If we use the Egyptian pyramids for our pyramid reference, it seems that construction began during the Old Kingdom. The Old Kingdom starts in the third millennium BC. Djoser was the first significant ruler during the Old Kingdom and ruled between 2630-2611 BC.
If all that (from various Wikipedia pages) is true, then...
...the first Chinese coins were ancient beyond words when the first Egyptian pyramids were created....
Maybe coins from before the pyramids are classic and coins after the pyramids are modern
Lincolns 1934 - date
Jeffersons 1938 - date
Roosevelts 1946 - date
Washingtons 1932 - date
Franklins 1948 - 1963
Kennedys 1964 - date
Ikes 1971 - 1978
SBA s 1979 -1999
Sacagawea 2000 - date
Silver Commemoratives 1982 - date
Gold Commemoratives 1984 - date
SAE 1986 - date
GAE 1986 - date
PAE 1997 - date
I would like to see a bid/ask sheet for these in certified PCGS/NGC I think would help promote the market on moderns. If you think this is good idea or not please tell me as I am thinking about printing one.
FYI...
The PCGS definition is 1965 to date...
hrh
<< <i>The PCGS definition is 1965 to date... >>
So let it be written. So let it be done.
<< <i>The PCGS definition is 1965 to date... >>
Well, the question is "What is your definition of MODERN?" Seems like many people have differing definitions.
Does PCGS also use 1965 for world coins? Their fee schedule page says 1965-present for US moderns but doesn't give a date for world moderns.
Nickels 1965-present
Dimes 1965-present
Quarters 1965-present
Halves 1965-present
Dollars 1936-present :-)
Gold 1934-present
Platinum 1997-present
David
<< <i>
<< <i>The PCGS definition is 1965 to date... >>
Well, the question is "What is your definition of MODERN?" Seems like many people have differing definitions.
Does PCGS also use 1965 for world coins? Their fee schedule page says 1965-present for US moderns but doesn't give a date for world moderns. >>
I don't know but each country had its own date that it switched to base metal coinage
and people quit saving it. While an arbitrary date like 1945 or '65 could be chosen for all world
coins these changes happened at different times in different countries.
1) Any coin where the huge majority of its value is derived from the plastic holder it's in.
2) Any coin that you could crack out of its holder and spend, and no one would even raise an eyebrow.
3) Any coin that the big submittors send in by the thousands hoping to "hit" on a few, and then dump off the ones that didn't make it for the cost of the slab or less.
4) Most any coin where if the grade on the plastic drops 2-3 points or more it's worth face value.
5) Any coin that if you submitted for grading 10-15 yrs. ago or more people would have laughed at you.
My World Coin Type Set
<< <i><<< What is your definition of MODERN? >>>
1) Any coin where the huge majority of its value is derived from the plastic holder it's in.
2) Any coin that you could crack out of its holder and spend, and no one would even raise an eyebrow.
3) Any coin that the big submittors send in by the thousands hoping to "hit" on a few, and then dump off the ones that didn't make it for the cost of the slab or less.
4) Most any coin where if the grade on the plastic drops 2-3 points or more it's worth face value.
5) Any coin that if you submitted for grading 10-15 yrs. ago or more people would have laughed at you. >>
In other words moderns are crap. Thankyou for clearing that up.
Jefferson Nickels
Roosevelt Dimes
Post 1940 Quarters
Franklin and Kennedy Halves
Ike, SBA, Sac, Presidential Dollars (But I likes my Ikes!)
I didn't say that, where did I say that? I was just making some observations.
<< <i>I didn't say that, where did I say that? I was just making some observations.
1) Any coin where the huge majority of its value is derived from the plastic holder it's in. >>
This applies to nearly half of high value moderns.
<< <i>
2) Any coin that you could crack out of its holder and spend, and no one would even raise an eyebrow. >>
This applies to three quarters of all collectible moderns. (edited to add; according to bashers)
<< <i>
3) Any coin that the big submittors send in by the thousands hoping to "hit" on a few, and then dump off the ones that didn't make it for the cost of the slab or less. >>
This applies to very few coins but they are nearly all moderns.
<< <i>
4) Most any coin where if the grade on the plastic drops 2-3 points or more it's worth face value. >>
I don't know if this applies more to moderns or classics but it's a very common bash for moderns.
<< <i>
5) Any coin that if you submitted for grading 10-15 yrs. ago or more people would have laughed at you. >>
This applies to all moderns.
Your meaning is quite clear.
Actually, an 83-P Washington in unc is worth $30 raw. Very few of the moderns I buy can be purchased at sheet. I wouldn't be opposed to it, mind you. Many of the coins are just extremely difficult to find, price aside. Gem 72-P Ikes are just tough raw. Dcam SMS coins are tough too. Most of the stuff I collect is raw. I holder the things I want to sell, because that's what others trust online.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>
<< <i>I didn't say that, where did I say that? I was just making some observations.
1) Any coin where the huge majority of its value is derived from the plastic holder it's in. >>
This applies to nearly half of high value moderns.
<< <i>
2) Any coin that you could crack out of its holder and spend, and no one would even raise an eyebrow. >>
This applies to three quarters of all collectible moderns. (edited to add; according to bashers)
<< <i>
3) Any coin that the big submittors send in by the thousands hoping to "hit" on a few, and then dump off the ones that didn't make it for the cost of the slab or less. >>
This applies to very few coins but they are nearly all moderns.
<< <i>
4) Most any coin where if the grade on the plastic drops 2-3 points or more it's worth face value. >>
I don't know if this applies more to moderns or classics but it's a very common bash for moderns.
<< <i>
5) Any coin that if you submitted for grading 10-15 yrs. ago or more people would have laughed at you. >>
This applies to all moderns.
Your meaning is quite clear. >>
So you have the same definition of a modern as Dragon. What is the problem with that?
<< <i>I'd say anything post 1837 is 'modern'. >>
This can change slightly according to your favorite series. For half dollars, the cutoff is 1836.
<< <i>Using the steam press as the beginning of modern coinage? >>
Steam press and full hubbing of design. I don't know when this change was made with other series, but the mint began experimenting with fully hubbed halves in 1834.
<< <i>
So you have the same definition of a modern as Dragon. What is the problem with that? >>
There's no problem except that, as is normally the case, some people can't
see the simple fact that what applies to some moderns does not apply to all
or that ascribing characteristics to something doesn't make it true.
A lot of people still laugh at those who submit coins like a gem 1969 quarter.
It is coming to say much more about the laugher than the submittor.
I considered the reasonableness of defining "modern" coins as starting in 1965 as well. Of course, the first clad coinage is what this year (1965) represents.
However...
I thought it more reasonable to consider the end of the gold coin production, exemplified by the rare/ultra-rare 1933 coins, to be the year of the last classics for my own definition.
“I have all the money I want, and there is a better use I can make of my time. We work to become, not to acquire.” — Elbert Hubbard
ONE CENT-Yes. The most commonly seen of all 1933 coins. As Lincolns go, however, '33's are not "common."
FIVE CENTS-None minted.
ONE DIME-None minted.
QUARTER DOLLAR-None minted.
HALF DOLLAR-Yes. 1933-S is by no means a "common" Walker, however. In fact, it is "very scarce" in mint-state condition.
ONE DOLLAR-None minted.
2 1/2 DOLLARS-None minted.
FIVE DOLLARS-None minted.
TEN DOLLARS-Yes. Rare. Only the very wealthy can afford to own a 1933 Eagle at today's prices, however.
TWENTY DOLLARS-Yes, but considered illegal to own. See "Illegal Tender."
For all practical purposes, only three denominations (out of 10 that had been made recently, in the years relative to 1933) of coins are available to collectors that bear the date "1933."
1933 is a year of disappearance. 1934 is a year of emergence.
“I have all the money I want, and there is a better use I can make of my time. We work to become, not to acquire.” — Elbert Hubbard
Okay Y'all, thanks for the clarity. I now have 314 working definitions of "modern".
Not really, I have better things to do than count all of the variations on what constitutes moderns presented thus far.
In summary, each person has his/her own definition or has adopted someone else's definition.
The way I see it with all things considered the potential modern basher group based on their definition of moderns vastly outnumbers the "modern lovers" (whatever that means) on this board.
And that could probably be extrapolated to encompass the total of the group of people that consider themselves to be true collectors.
So what would a true collector be??????
I'd bet there are a plethora of answers each with their own subtle nuances.
So why do we spend so much time on things such as this anyway??
I am in awe of the South Dakota quarter. What a wonderful design with Mt. Rushmore, the state bird, and stalks of wheat. The Sacajawea dollar is a beautiful coin, in my opinion. Having said that, my appreciation and interest for coins mostly leans towards the "classics" as I, and I alone, define them.
The title of this thread is "What is your definition of MODERN?' and that is precisely what I have been attempting to share with y'all.
The one thing all collectors need to keep in mind is this:
NEVER ever berate another's collection, no matter how meager you might consider that collection to be.
“I have all the money I want, and there is a better use I can make of my time. We work to become, not to acquire.” — Elbert Hubbard
a) Classic Commemoratives (1892-1954), although I could personally easily end it prior to the 1946 Booker Ts and Washington Carvers.
b) Liberty Nickels (1883-1912)
c) Barber Dimes, Quarters, and Half Dollars (1892-1916)
d) Morgan Dollars (1878-1921)
e) Indian Head Quarter Eagles and Half Eagles (1908-1929)
f) Indian Head Eagles (1907-1933)
g) Saints Double Eagles (1907-1933)
I consider everything later "modern"
Modern -- coins with IGWT
Classic -- coins without IGWT
Flame on!
I`m not in favor of 64 being the difining year for the cutoff, but i guess when the silver left the market, it was a great loss for all.
I do find several series that i enjoy collecting more than others, and once the series ended, I lose interest in the next series minted.
The walker halves for example. I feel that those are classics, while the Franklins are "semi classic" Kennedys would fall under "Moderns"
I guess i learned what i wanted to learn by starting this thread. We will never agree on what IS or ISN`T a modern or a classic. While i do agree that there needs to be a line drawn for grading purposes such as HRH described,but there should never be a line drawn for collectability.
Thank you all for your time and input. It is greatly appreciated.
A DAMMIT BOY from Jonesy 1/25/05
Lieutenant, Covert Operations
Subcommittee
my first POTD award 7/16/05
the cat ate my blue fish.