Options
Are these Widgets? Enter your guess here
coinkat
Posts: 24,593 ✭✭✭✭✭
LETS HAVE SOME FUN...
In view of the ongoing use of the term "widgets" to describe certain types of coins, perhaps the time has come to better define the term by determining whether any of the 6 coins referenced below meet the criteria. I will reference each coin and provide an accurate description. Are these widgets?
1. 1844-O $5 Lib- A nice strike highlighted by lovely original surfaces. The eagle and shield are bold but show even wear that is expected for the grade. This date is the most common of the New Orleans "No Motto" $5 Libs. This example is graded AU53 by ANACS.
2. 1867 Seated Liberty Dollar- While the strike may be considered a slight disappointment, this example has excellent lustre hightlighted by original surfaces. The coin is raw and is worthy of an EF45 grade.
3. 1946 WLH DDR- Satin white fields highlight this well struck example of the best known double die of the series. This example, graded MS64 by PCGS, is the perfect candidate for a Registry set.
4. 1900-s $20 Lib- Nice color with slight chatter in the fields. Graded MS62 by ANACS. Exceptional look for the grade.
5. 1872 Seated Dollar- Well struck example with excellent lustre for the grade. While this date is likely the most common for the "Motto", the surfaces are likely not original but that does not detract from the overall appearance of the lightly toned example graded AU50. Great coin for a type set.
6. 1937-D Three Legged Buffalo- This well struck example, graded AU53, would make a terrific addition to any Buffalo collection.
Are these widgets? Why or why not?
In view of the ongoing use of the term "widgets" to describe certain types of coins, perhaps the time has come to better define the term by determining whether any of the 6 coins referenced below meet the criteria. I will reference each coin and provide an accurate description. Are these widgets?
1. 1844-O $5 Lib- A nice strike highlighted by lovely original surfaces. The eagle and shield are bold but show even wear that is expected for the grade. This date is the most common of the New Orleans "No Motto" $5 Libs. This example is graded AU53 by ANACS.
2. 1867 Seated Liberty Dollar- While the strike may be considered a slight disappointment, this example has excellent lustre hightlighted by original surfaces. The coin is raw and is worthy of an EF45 grade.
3. 1946 WLH DDR- Satin white fields highlight this well struck example of the best known double die of the series. This example, graded MS64 by PCGS, is the perfect candidate for a Registry set.
4. 1900-s $20 Lib- Nice color with slight chatter in the fields. Graded MS62 by ANACS. Exceptional look for the grade.
5. 1872 Seated Dollar- Well struck example with excellent lustre for the grade. While this date is likely the most common for the "Motto", the surfaces are likely not original but that does not detract from the overall appearance of the lightly toned example graded AU50. Great coin for a type set.
6. 1937-D Three Legged Buffalo- This well struck example, graded AU53, would make a terrific addition to any Buffalo collection.
Are these widgets? Why or why not?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
0
Comments
There is no such thing as a widget to a collector.
To investors and coin snobs, "widget" is relative to their "budget"
1. Nice coin, but common date. If I had to select one coin out this group, this would be it.
2. Weak strike equals a problem. Not rare enough to want a problem example.
3. MS64 late date Walking Liberty Half...widget all the way, regardless of it having a DDR.
4. MS62 equals widget. Do you want to play the crack-out game?
5. Common date, not original...nothing more needs to be said.
6. I hate 37-D three-legged Buffalos. I think they should be delisted from the price guides and dropped from the albums, as they are nothing more than a relatively unimportant variety that was hyped long ago.
The market is getting more and more selective. These coins won't pass muster in such a market.
All The Way - And Then Some
I collect Modern Commemoratives
and anything Franklin.
If a coin is not common enough to be replaced in one month, it is then NOT a widget.
Thanks for your military service. I like your airborne commem and appreciate the DAV note.
Regarding your question, widgets seem to be whatever coin(s) one regards as somehow "not worthy" of their time, money or interest. What I like about this thread is that it further demonstrates that no two collectors would agree on the definition, in part because no two collectors would define "collecting" quite the same as we have seen in many threads.
raz
I don't disagree with this statement, but a related and somewhat circular definition might be "a widget is a term used to facilitate the marketing of very expensive coins to wealthy and sometimes insecure individuals who need to assure themselves that they themselves do not purchase widgets"
I am kind of amused by the distinction between widgets and high-end widgets. Above the high end widgets there may be "almost-not-widgets." Perhaps as a board we can work to fine tune the market segmentation.
<< <i>Above the high end widgets there may be "almost-not-widgets." >>
Would that be a "widgette?"
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>My understanding of the term was that it applied to common, low-priced, TPG slabbed coins that aren't worth the slabbing fees but become overpriced because of the plastic. In this scenario it seems to help people avoid cracking out coins when they will most likely lose value without the plastic. >>
That just refers to maxxed-out, overgraded low-priced coins, IMO.
To the extent the term is worth using (which may not be much), a "widget" is basically like an interchangeable part. A common-date MS-65 Morgan or an MS-63 Saint would be widgets. You could sell one and immediately have NO trouble finding a similar replacement.
Cheap coins aren't always widgets, and widgets aren't always cheap coins. You could say, for example, that an '09-S VDB in (say) 63RB is a widget. A four-figure widget, yes, but if you sold one, you'd find plenty more available on the market. In contrast, there's plenty of darkside stuff and exonumia that can be had for $20 or less and is definitely NOT a 'widget.'
CG
<< <i>
<< <i>My understanding of the term was that it applied to common, low-priced, TPG slabbed coins that aren't worth the slabbing fees but become overpriced because of the plastic. In this scenario it seems to help people avoid cracking out coins when they will most likely lose value without the plastic. >>
That just refers to maxxed-out, overgraded low-priced coins, IMO.
To the extent the term is worth using (which may not be much), a "widget" is basically like an interchangeable part. A common-date MS-65 Morgan or an MS-63 Saint would be widgets. You could sell one and immediately have NO trouble finding a similar replacement.
Cheap coins aren't always widgets, and widgets aren't always cheap coins. You could say, for example, that an '09-S VDB in (say) 63RB is a widget. A four-figure widget, yes, but if you sold one, you'd find plenty more available on the market. In contrast, there's plenty of darkside stuff and exonumia that can be had for $20 or less and is definitely NOT a 'widget.' >>
Thanks for the clarification. From all the responses here I think I heard wrong and it's good to be corrected
This is clearly the tone from most of the discussions I've heard on this board. And, it's regrettable.
I knew it would happen.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
<< <i>Language is local and language evolves. Like it or not, "widget" has come to have a certain meaning on these boards. I would define it as "an easily replaced, unexceptional coin". It has nothing to do with value. There are many $100 coins that are obviously not "widgets" by my definition, and there are many $50,000 widgets. >>
I agree and therefore I would pck as widgets #3, 4, and 5.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>IMHO the coins listed here are not of sufficient quality or significance to rise to the level of a widget. >>
I'll do better next time...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
All would be considered "widgets" by those who embrace the proper use of the term. I own four of the six and am not the least bit offended by the "widget" term.
all coins are widgets.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Join the NRA and protect YOUR right to keep and bear arms
To protest against all hunting of game is a sign of softness of head, not soundness of heart. Theodore Roosevelt
[L]http://www.ourfallensoldier.com/ThompsonMichaelE_MemorialPage.html[L]
There is no such thing as a widget to a collector.>>
Some of my coins are in the six figure range, if you count the numbers after the decimal point
<< <i>All of the coins listed are not scarce and are easily replaceable. >>
Are you sure?
I am not a fan of the term and it seems I am in the minority. My thoughts are as follows:
Not all coins are created equal even though such coins may currently be housed by the same TPG in plastic with identical grades. Rarity must be measured not just by grade and surviving population but by the quality of the coin itself. I selected these coins for various reasons (strike, originality and color). The purpose was to engage as well as encourage a thought process as to what attributes of a coin that should be considered if a term like widget is mainstreamed in this hobby.
Lets start with the 1844-O 5 Lib... Yes the coin is common and readily available, but is it readily available with the type of appeal and undisturbed original surfaces? The population of original coins, especially for No Motto Gold is significantly less than what population reports would suggest which would make finding one to rival this example a challenge with a realistic expectation that it can be done. Does that make it a widget? I would say no.
Original Seated Dollars, especially 1867, in this state of preservation, falls outside the scope of a widget.
As for the 1946 DDR WLH, It boils down to an issue of the strike and the clear separation of EPLURIBUS UNUM. While this variety can be found, the strike for this example, in my view, takes it out of the widget catagory.
The 1900-s $20 Lib, 1872 Seated Dollar and 1937-D Three legged Buff could be replaced at any major show.
Categorically dismissing coins as widgets may lead to lost opportunities that one may later regret.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Rarity must be measured not just by grade and surviving population but by the quality of the coin itself. I selected these coins for various reasons (strike, originality and color). The purpose was to engage as well as encourage a thought process as to what attributes of a coin that should be considered if a term like widget is mainstreamed in this hobby. >>
What you are talking about can be called "conditional rarity for the grade" but is more typically called PQ for the grade. There are a lot of people that go for PQ but others may go for conditional and unconditional/absolute rarity.
<< <i>Categorically dismissing coins as widgets may lead to lost opportunities that one may later regret. >>
Categorically dismissing coins for any number of reasons may lead to lost opportunities but people collect in different ways.
<< <i>I maintain that "widget" is relative to "budget". They're directly proportional. >>
Not necessarily. A lot of the price is related to the demand for a certain piece. Many pieces have very low mintages but also low demand that lead to low prices. As ziggy29 says:
<< <i>there's plenty of darkside stuff and exonumia that can be had for $20 or less and is definitely NOT a 'widget.' >>
Try putting together the 80+ CSNA silver medals. Most of them are R4 with a few R3s and R5s. Inexpensive but not readily available. Also try putting together the set of 16 HNS Gobrecht silver medals.
<< <i>Widget is defined as a coin common enough that one would be able to find a similar one in less than one month, for less than $10,000.
If a coin is not common enough to be replaced in one month, it is then NOT a widget. >>
Hmmm.... then all I have are widgets by this definition.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>
<< <i>Widget is defined as a coin common enough that one would be able to find a similar one in less than one month, for less than $10,000.
If a coin is not common enough to be replaced in one month, it is then NOT a widget. >>
Hmmm.... then all I have are widgets by this definition. >>
I thought I said all coins are widgets in the scope of things
And now you know your place
Next lesson:
Wannabe !
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
<< <i>Widgets are NOT defined by price, they are defined by rarity. Not all rare coins are expensive. Not all expensive coins are rare. >>
If that's true, is the designation with its perjorative connotations really useful? Coins are already "commonly" described as common and rare, those seem more informative than a term that has to be explained every time it's brought up.
I do think there is confusion on what "common" or "rare" means in the coin market. I think this is in part due to people wanting to believe that their coins are truly rare and from sellers that hype their coins with L@@K RARE POTTY DOLLAR COIN!!!11 hyperbole.
What do people think of these definitions:
Common coins are ones I can easily find; the only thing preventing me from buying one is budget or inclination. Every coin in my type set is common. I had a great deal of trouble finding problem-free Seated Liberty Dollars in common dates, but that was again more an issue of price and grade (I wanted EF-AU in common dates) than true rarity. Had I been willing to drop several thousand dollars per coin several MS coins would have been available at any point in time.
Rare coins are ones seen by anyone in the field once a blue moon and are found in vanishingly small quantities. Coins that generate a lot of attention simply because they are being sold would qualify. We might expand "found in vanishingly small quantities" to be a function of demand. Not so that they are merely expensive, but in such demand that they are very hard to find at any price. I can't think of a coin that qualifies as "rare due to demand only" at the moment
I don't think the modern high demand coins such as the extra leaf quarters, speared bison nickels, or no lettered edge washington dollars qualify, you can buy any of those on ebay with a mouse click.