Options
The "One Coin Per Year Type Set"
RYK
Posts: 35,801 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is an idea that I have bandied about for a while and recently discussed it with James Garcia (EarlyUS.com and former forum member). He has written an article on the topic, and, if you would like, I will post portions on this site for discussion. If there is no interest, I won't. 
Because James is such a good guy and honorable seller, I will also post a link to his website: (except that it is down for construction).
So here is the introduction:
The Numismatic Year Set - an Idea for Collectors
This article is a Copyright © of EarlyUS.com, March 9,2006 1
Most often, the method by which coins are acquired for a collection in an organized
manner falls into one of two categories: collecting by series, or collecting by type. Of
course, we may also legitimately pursue the hobby by merely acquiring coins that
randomly strike our fancy at some point in time, and there is nothing wrong with such a
disjointed approach, but generally speaking, most collectors prefer to have a
predetermined notion of the structure they would like their coin collection to reflect as it
nears completion. As with any pastime, the manner by which the collection is engaged
is wholly at the discretion of the collector, and there is no right or wrong way to do this.
The purpose of this discussion is to propose an idea that many collectors may not have
thought of, yet which should provide a challenge and plenty of numismatic satisfaction
in its pursuit. Furthermore, it should find appeal to both series collectors and type
collectors. It is a collection of coins that consists of one representative from each
consecutive year since the inaugural official mint issues of 1793.
As of the date of this article (March 15, 2006), that would be a total of 214 coins, since
there are no years in which zero coins have been produced by the United States Federal
Mint. The challenging aspect of this collection lies in determining what coin would be
most appropriate (or inappropriate) for each year, as there will be certain dates for
which the available possibilities are very limited, and indeed, there may be only a single
practical representative for many dates.
As is my usual philosophy, one of the most important driving forces in selecting coins
for this collection will be to pursue only issues which are practical candidates for
acquisition. Thus, our preference will be for coins that are affordable, attainable, and
available on today's market, yet present themselves attractively. There is not much
point in pursuing a set if the chances of ever completing it are nonexistent, but it just so
happens that there are no dates that feature zero Federally issued coins for practical
acquisition. In other words, we are lucky that there's at least one reasonably affordable
example of U.S. coinage for every year of mintage. Only collectors of the most meager
means would lack the ability to pursue this set.
Factors that affect the choice of coins for the set
It is true that the age of a coin is not directly a determining factor in its value, but it is
also generally true that, through the process of attrition, representatives of older series
tend to be the scarcer and more difficult coins to locate. So the logical progression of
this discussion will be to proceed more or less chronologically through the years,
beginning with 1793, since we expect these early dates to be most elusive. Later dates,
and certainly nearly every coin in the 20th century and thereafter, should offer no
difficulties.
Because James is such a good guy and honorable seller, I will also post a link to his website: (except that it is down for construction).
So here is the introduction:
The Numismatic Year Set - an Idea for Collectors
This article is a Copyright © of EarlyUS.com, March 9,2006 1
Most often, the method by which coins are acquired for a collection in an organized
manner falls into one of two categories: collecting by series, or collecting by type. Of
course, we may also legitimately pursue the hobby by merely acquiring coins that
randomly strike our fancy at some point in time, and there is nothing wrong with such a
disjointed approach, but generally speaking, most collectors prefer to have a
predetermined notion of the structure they would like their coin collection to reflect as it
nears completion. As with any pastime, the manner by which the collection is engaged
is wholly at the discretion of the collector, and there is no right or wrong way to do this.
The purpose of this discussion is to propose an idea that many collectors may not have
thought of, yet which should provide a challenge and plenty of numismatic satisfaction
in its pursuit. Furthermore, it should find appeal to both series collectors and type
collectors. It is a collection of coins that consists of one representative from each
consecutive year since the inaugural official mint issues of 1793.
As of the date of this article (March 15, 2006), that would be a total of 214 coins, since
there are no years in which zero coins have been produced by the United States Federal
Mint. The challenging aspect of this collection lies in determining what coin would be
most appropriate (or inappropriate) for each year, as there will be certain dates for
which the available possibilities are very limited, and indeed, there may be only a single
practical representative for many dates.
As is my usual philosophy, one of the most important driving forces in selecting coins
for this collection will be to pursue only issues which are practical candidates for
acquisition. Thus, our preference will be for coins that are affordable, attainable, and
available on today's market, yet present themselves attractively. There is not much
point in pursuing a set if the chances of ever completing it are nonexistent, but it just so
happens that there are no dates that feature zero Federally issued coins for practical
acquisition. In other words, we are lucky that there's at least one reasonably affordable
example of U.S. coinage for every year of mintage. Only collectors of the most meager
means would lack the ability to pursue this set.
Factors that affect the choice of coins for the set
It is true that the age of a coin is not directly a determining factor in its value, but it is
also generally true that, through the process of attrition, representatives of older series
tend to be the scarcer and more difficult coins to locate. So the logical progression of
this discussion will be to proceed more or less chronologically through the years,
beginning with 1793, since we expect these early dates to be most elusive. Later dates,
and certainly nearly every coin in the 20th century and thereafter, should offer no
difficulties.
0
Comments
waiting for the 22nd Century to roll around.
Camelot
<< <i>This is an idea that I have bandied about for a while and recently discussed it with James Garcia (EarlyUS.com and former forum member). He has written an article on the topic, and, if you would like, I will post portions on this site for discussion. If there is no interest, I won't.
>>
Keep them coming, please.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
The Numismatic Year Set - an Idea for Collectors
This article is a Copyright © of EarlyUS.com, March 9,2006 2
Completeness: We want to be able to actually complete this collection, so the most
important goal in pursuing this set will be to choose coins that are going to be
attainable. Fortunately, there are only a very few years for which the supply of some
coin is extremely limited, though there are several years for which the supply is limited
to only one realistic choice. Consider 1793, for example. Even in the lowest grade of
"Good", a representative for this year could cost multiple thousands of dollars.
Thankfully, for the vast majority of dates, there will be plenty of choices. Generally
speaking, the very earliest dates will be the most challenging, as the early mint's
facilities and capabilities limited the variety of coins they were capable of producing.
Still, it is rather remarkable and fortuitous that the typical coin collecting budget is
sufficient to facilitate completion of a complete run of United States coins by date.
Diversity: Especially in the early going, copper coins will prove to be the easiest
examples to obtain for many dates - and still remain affordable. Thus, one might
expect a preponderance of early copper in this collection, and we need to be cognizant of
this so that the early coins in the set don't become monotonous in appearance. This
being the case, we will want to choose something other than half-cents or large-cents as
often as possible for dates earlier than, say, 1803, when bust halves present a silver
alternative to the expected abundance of copper. Furthermore, at the earliest practical
opportunity, it would be favorable to select occasional gold coins for the set. Affordable
gold does not appear until 1834, when the early Classic Head coins were minted. So
during the selection process, bear in mind that in a situation where there are multiple
candidates for a year's slot, we may not always choose the least expensive coin if an
opportunity to add variety to the collection presents itself.
Cohesiveness: This concern deals primarily with the grade and appearance of each
coin in relation to the others near it in date and age. Naturally, earlier coins will tend to
be of lower grades, but there will be occasion to obtain a hoard coin - a coin that offers
both availability and reasonable price due to an abundance of specimens. Not only is it
feasible to acquire a coin for every year in a complete run of dates, but most often, there
is at least one denomination that was minted in such abundance that a high-grade
example can be acquired. As might be expected, only for the very earliest few decades
will this be untrue.
Let's turn now to a detailed look at coins recommended for this endeavor....next installment...
<< <i>Is there a shorter version to read?
Yes:
Obtain one coin for each year. The End.
<< <i>
<< <i>Is there a shorter version to read?
Yes:
Obtain one coin for each year. The End.
<< <i>
<< <i>Is there a shorter version to read?
Yes:
Obtain one coin for each year. The End.
Very straight forward.....
Inexpensive........
OK, PCGS.....Add them in there!
Gardnerville, NV
=========================
Our Website -->Innovation, Native & Presidential Dollar Errors, Lincoln Cents and more
Check it out --> Our eBay Auctions
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Is there a shorter version to read?
Yes:
Obtain one coin for each year. The End.
Very straight forward.....
Inexpensive........
OK, PCGS.....Add them in there! >>
I am not a registry player, but it would be an interesting idea for a registry set. One would be competing for both grade and type and would make for some interested weighting controversies.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Is there a shorter version to read?
Yes:
Obtain one coin for each year. The End.
Very straight forward.....
Inexpensive........
OK, PCGS.....Add them in there! >>
I am not a registry player, but it would be an interesting idea for a registry set. One would be competing for both grade and type and would make for some interested weighting controversies. >>
I can already imagine the pissing and moaning.
It would be a beautiful thing, no?
"My 1794 S$1 in G-4 should be worth more than your 1794 1c in MS-65..."
<< <i>I can already imagine the pissing and moaning.
It would be a beautiful thing, no?
"My 1794 S$1 in G-4 should be worth more than your 1794 1c in MS-65..." >>
It would certainly be interesting.
<< <i>That sure is alot different from what I was expecting; I thought you could only collect one coin per year. At that rate every one would croak before finishing their set.
That's the "One Coin Per Year of Life Date Set". Coincidentally, the last coin is usually dated either the year you die or the year before the year you die.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>what are the most challenging years? for which years would you have the most choices? the fewest? >>
Well, grasshopper, these questions will be answered in the ensuing posts.
The only year with one option is 1816 (large cent).
The most expensive year is probably 1793 (four options). If you avoid the large cent for 1796, it is probably the second most expensive year.
<< <i>What if I wanted to do a "One Coin Per Year Type Set" of just colonial era coins? Could I get a coin for every year from, say, 1652 to 1792? >>
Believe it or not, I have actually thought of that. I would probably start at 1792 and work backwards, including such coins as Mexican silver, Brazilian gold, etc. It would probably a significant but enjoyable challenge.
Nice avatar, BTW.
<< <i>
<< <i>What if I wanted to do a "One Coin Per Year Type Set" of just colonial era coins? Could I get a coin for every year from, say, 1652 to 1792? >>
Believe it or not, I have actually thought of that. I would probably start at 1792 and work backwards, including such coins as Mexican silver, Brazilian gold, etc. It would probably a significant but enjoyable challenge. >>
Excellent concept for a collection! I'll get to work on it!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What if I wanted to do a "One Coin Per Year Type Set" of just colonial era coins? Could I get a coin for every year from, say, 1652 to 1792? >>
Believe it or not, I have actually thought of that. I would probably start at 1792 and work backwards, including such coins as Mexican silver, Brazilian gold, etc. It would probably a significant but enjoyable challenge. >>
Excellent concept for a collection! I'll get to work on it!
Excellent! PM sent with coins for sale.
I want some of what this guy is smoking.
“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
The idea is not such a bad one but,for the typical collector of ordinary financial means I don't see this concept going much beyond a series or two series that adjoin.I would say that only 5% or less of collectors would have the financial ability to complete a year set,1793 to present, like the author talks about.
For example,I am working on a one-a-year set of small cents,bronze issues only,1864-1942.The challenge for me,with cohesiveness,completeness and affordability in mind, will be finding the "right" 1877.
I'd rather go without than settle for a relatively cheap beat up 1877 to go into my set of otherwise nice bronze cents.I guess I'm a collector with only the most meager of means.
My beat up 1877 would irritate the hell out of me everytime I got the set out to view.My amazingly toned (Naturally) 1942-S deserves better company.
“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
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
My beater broke down at Mediterranean Avenue.
Where is this Poorhouse Place you speak of?
“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
Another complete layer would be added to my set by including '08-S or '09-S IHC.
Another layer that would add interest to my set would be to include all possible designer initials types.1864,no L and 1909 Lincoln with VDB on reverse would be required to completely add this layer. I don't need the pricey '64 with L,in other words.
1909 V.D.B.,with all periods prominent, is the coin I would be seeking out for my set.
1877 is a key Indian so I could,maybe should,go with a key Lincoln for yet another layer of "completeness." I've got it in mind that the key Lincoln for my set would have to be a '14-D.
Anyone have any more ideas for another layer that I could consider for my set?
“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
Even better: one coin per millennium!
My set's already complete - a 1999-D cent in XF and a 2003-P nickel in AU. A coin collection with deep historical significance!
Your millenium collection is not even complete unless you have a coin that a Viking lost or buried in North America 1000 AD or so.If it has the date "999" or before? We're talking really deep historical significance here.Why settle for less?
Of course,to acquire the Viking coin you'll need,as described above,you'll have to have financial means beyond the most meager.
“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
That is an astonishing piece! Think of the stories it could tell if it could talk.
The "3" in the date does look a little off to me.It might be okay but you might consider getting an expert opinion about authenticity since 39 BC is a popular year for collectors of zeroth millenium coins.Counterfeits are known for this year. I'm not sayin here that yours is but you would be prudent to have that checked out.Think of how much better you would sleep at night knowing that you have the real deal in your collection.I'll cross my fingers for you,okay?
“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
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>Next installment?
Lane >>
Did you see this one?
Does anybody know what a HALF CENT could buy in 1793?
“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>"There is another reason to choose the half-cent. Circumstances dictate that many of the early years after 1793 will be represented by large-cents, as the other denominations are either much scarcer, and therefore more expensive, or are entirely unavailable due to non-production by the Federal mint."
Does anybody know what a HALF CENT could buy in 1793? >>
A coin that looks like this:
Good answer, but I was thinking more in terms of groceries.
“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>
<< <i>
<< <i>Is there a shorter version to read?
Yes:
Obtain one coin for each year. The End.
How about a shorter version with even less words and more pictures
Okay:
One coin per year.