Perfect Nice and Damaged Coins

Damaged, Nice and Perfect Coins
by Michael E. Marotta

It is simply and broadly true that you should buy the best materials
you can afford. Therefore, generally speaking, you should not buy
damaged collectibles. It is also true that "one man's trash is
another man's treasure" - and several nuances can be found in that
short statement. If you see something you want, and you can afford
it, then buy it! My warning against doing that is a result of several
considerations.

First, when you try to sell your flawed purchase, the next buyer will
likely discount the object for the flaw. A knowledgeable buyer - a
coin dealer, an experienced collector - may not want the item at all
at any price. That is reality.

Furthermore, there are what can only be called "spiritual"
considerations. If you sell an item that you know to be flawed to
someone who does not perceive the problem or who misunderstands the
markets for damaged goods, what have you done to your own experiences?
Yes, let the buyer beware. Yes, one man's trash and all that… The
bottom line remains that if you want to look yourself in the eye in
the mirror, you have to take the honorable road, harder though it may
be.

Another intangible - but very real - consideration is how you view
your own collection. If you have "cheaped out" buying undesirable
objects at even the smallest fraction of the price of the real thing,
what can you actually feel when you look at your hoard?

Consider a Large Cent, 1836. A reputably certified mint state coin
(60 to 63) might cost about $500. You can find a nice AU for half
that and a nice Extremely Fine for half again, that is, an EF for
about $75 to $125, depending. My personal recommendation is not to
buy the EF or the AU. The price range $100 to $500 is in the same
order of magnitude. If you have $100 in pocket money - or if you can
save $100 conveniently - then the $500 coin is within your budget. It
is better to save for the nicest coin.

There are other factors, of course. If $100 is outside your "coin
budget" because it represents the monthly electric and gas bills
combined, then you have to make a different set of choices.

With that scenario, however, it makes no sense to me, to buy a coin
with "Mint State details" and a gouge which gives it a net Extremely
Fine grade, bringing its market price from $500 to $200. A damaged
Mint State coin is not worth as much as an honest Extremely Fine.

The matter is complicated. If you seek to build a complete Year Set
of Large Cents, and if you want them to all look like a set, then you
have to be rich, indeed, to be able to pursue only Mint State coins.
Most collectors building such a set collect in Good to Fine. There is
nothing wrong with that. It is of the essence of our hobby, and an
example of the truest form of enjoyment. However, if you are offered
a damaged Very Fine, for Very Good money, I recommend against adding
that coin to your set. It is damaged, gouged, nicked, scratched or
whatever. It is not the best coin you can afford. Your money is
better spent on other coins that are not damaged, whose technical
grades and market grades are closer to each other and that will look
good in a set.

Of course, the matter has more dimensions. With Large Cents in
particular, damage of all kinds is common. With some US Colonials and
other similar issues, we might know of only a few examples of which
two are holed. You have to take those kinds of factors into
consideration as an informed collector. This is why old cleaning is
often overlooked when buying Seated Dollars.

Also to be considered is the fact that there are many kinds of coins,
from ancient Greeks and Romans to U.S. Colonials to even modern issues
such as the 1932-D and 1932-S Washington Quarter for which
Uncirculated examples are so rare that they are outside the
consideration of the average collector. For many coins - historically
for all but a very few types - there are no Mint State examples, no
Proofs. For many examples, such rarities are found only in public
museums. That is simply a fact of life.

On the other hand, because about one-third of all Morgan Dollars are
Uncirculated, a cleaned - holed, gouged, rim-nicked - Morgan Dollar
would have to be very special indeed to have any problem overlooked.

To look at that from a different angle, most of the modern coinages
since 1980 are available in Proof direct from the issuing Mint.
Whether such an example is Proof-65 or Proof-68 or Proof-70 may or may
not be important to the enthusiast. If perfection is the goal - and
it is a worthy goal - then buying reliably certified Proof-70 coins is
in fact the target of that collection and correctly so by personal
choice. On the other hand, given that we all direct limited
resources, it is perfectly fine to take whatever the Mint issues as
Proof and enjoy it for what it is, rather than spend the extra money
pursuing a few marginally utilitarian degrees of perfection. These
kinds of choices are not in the same class as paying "market" money
for a "high grade" coin that has "problems."

Another case in point is the Doubled Die 1955 Lincoln Cent. This coin
is perhaps The Classic Doubled Die and for many collectors of Lincolns
it ranks with the 09-S VDB and 14-D as a "must" have. For collectors
of Error coin, this is also an import addition. The price $300 to
$1000 is the range for grades EF to Mint State. It is my personal and
professional opinion that buying a die-chatter damaged "poor man's
double die" will not add a bit of value to your collection. If you
have to open a special bank account and save five years for a real
55-P DDO (or 14-D or 09-S VDB), the purchase will be that much more
valuable to you.

If you would buy a die-chatter 55 that looks like the real thing to
the uninitiated, would you buy a fake 14-D cent because it is
affordable? Would you buy a copper-plated 1943 cent? Where would
this stop? To me, a fake 1943 Copper Cent is in the same class as a
damaged MS-65 net graded to EF money: it is not an Extremely Fine coin
any more than a copper plated 43 is a bronze 43.

If you buy only the best coins you can afford, you will have a
collection worth owning. If you cut corners, look the other way,
cheap out, skim, and slide, you will have a large pile of junk that no
one else will want - and ultimately, you will not be happy owning it.
If you pursue the highest, best, and most attractive material,
whatever your budget will reasonably allow, your collection will be an
achievement worth being proud of, an achievement whose elements are
attractive and desirable in their own right, in your own eye, and in
the opinions of others.

good advice to those with a lot of money to spend. for the rest of us it is
meaningless, as even a $500 coin is often out side our coin budget, or might
represent 1/2 a year's budget.

"Michael E. Marotta" wrote in message
om...
Damaged, Nice and Perfect Coins
by Michael E. Marotta

It is simply and broadly true that you should buy the best materials
you can afford. Therefore, generally speaking, you should not buy
damaged collectibles. It is also true that "one man's trash is
another man's treasure" - and several nuances can be found in that
short statement. If you see something you want, and you can afford
it, then buy it! My warning against doing that is a result of several
considerations.

First, when you try to sell your flawed purchase, the next buyer will
likely discount the object for the flaw. A knowledgeable buyer - a
coin dealer, an experienced collector - may not want the item at all
at any price. That is reality.

Furthermore, there are what can only be called "spiritual"
considerations. If you sell an item that you know to be flawed to
someone who does not perceive the problem or who misunderstands the
markets for damaged goods, what have you done to your own experiences?
Yes, let the buyer beware. Yes, one man's trash and all that. The
bottom line remains that if you want to look yourself in the eye in
the mirror, you have to take the honorable road, harder though it may
be.

Another intangible - but very real - consideration is how you view
your own collection. If you have "cheaped out" buying undesirable
objects at even the smallest fraction of the price of the real thing,
what can you actually feel when you look at your hoard?

Consider a Large Cent, 1836. A reputably certified mint state coin
(60 to 63) might cost about $500. You can find a nice AU for half
that and a nice Extremely Fine for half again, that is, an EF for
about $75 to $125, depending. My personal recommendation is not to
buy the EF or the AU. The price range $100 to $500 is in the same
order of magnitude. If you have $100 in pocket money - or if you can
save $100 conveniently - then the $500 coin is within your budget. It
is better to save for the nicest coin.

There are other factors, of course. If $100 is outside your "coin
budget" because it represents the monthly electric and gas bills
combined, then you have to make a different set of choices.

With that scenario, however, it makes no sense to me, to buy a coin
with "Mint State details" and a gouge which gives it a net Extremely
Fine grade, bringing its market price from $500 to $200. A damaged
Mint State coin is not worth as much as an honest Extremely Fine.

The matter is complicated. If you seek to build a complete Year Set
of Large Cents, and if you want them to all look like a set, then you
have to be rich, indeed, to be able to pursue only Mint State coins.
Most collectors building such a set collect in Good to Fine. There is
nothing wrong with that. It is of the essence of our hobby, and an
example of the truest form of enjoyment. However, if you are offered
a damaged Very Fine, for Very Good money, I recommend against adding
that coin to your set. It is damaged, gouged, nicked, scratched or
whatever. It is not the best coin you can afford. Your money is
better spent on other coins that are not damaged, whose technical
grades and market grades are closer to each other and that will look
good in a set.

Of course, the matter has more dimensions. With Large Cents in
particular, damage of all kinds is common. With some US Colonials and
other similar issues, we might know of only a few examples of which
two are holed. You have to take those kinds of factors into
consideration as an informed collector. This is why old cleaning is
often overlooked when buying Seated Dollars.

Also to be considered is the fact that there are many kinds of coins,
from ancient Greeks and Romans to U.S. Colonials to even modern issues
such as the 1932-D and 1932-S Washington Quarter for which
Uncirculated examples are so rare that they are outside the
consideration of the average collector. For many coins - historically
for all but a very few types - there are no Mint State examples, no
Proofs. For many examples, such rarities are found only in public
museums. That is simply a fact of life.

On the other hand, because about one-third of all Morgan Dollars are
Uncirculated, a cleaned - holed, gouged, rim-nicked - Morgan Dollar
would have to be very special indeed to have any problem overlooked.

To look at that from a different angle, most of the modern coinages
since 1980 are available in Proof direct from the issuing Mint.
Whether such an example is Proof-65 or Proof-68 or Proof-70 may or may
not be important to the enthusiast. If perfection is the goal - and
it is a worthy goal - then buying reliably certified Proof-70 coins is
in fact the target of that collection and correctly so by personal
choice. On the other hand, given that we all direct limited
resources, it is perfectly fine to take whatever the Mint issues as
Proof and enjoy it for what it is, rather than spend the extra money
pursuing a few marginally utilitarian degrees of perfection. These
kinds of choices are not in the same class as paying "market" money
for a "high grade" coin that has "problems."

Another case in point is the Doubled Die 1955 Lincoln Cent. This coin
is perhaps The Classic Doubled Die and for many collectors of Lincolns
it ranks with the 09-S VDB and 14-D as a "must" have. For collectors
of Error coin, this is also an import addition. The price $300 to
$1000 is the range for grades EF to Mint State. It is my personal and
professional opinion that buying a die-chatter damaged "poor man's
double die" will not add a bit of value to your collection. If you
have to open a special bank account and save five years for a real
55-P DDO (or 14-D or 09-S VDB), the purchase will be that much more
valuable to you.

If you would buy a die-chatter 55 that looks like the real thing to
the uninitiated, would you buy a fake 14-D cent because it is
affordable? Would you buy a copper-plated 1943 cent? Where would
this stop? To me, a fake 1943 Copper Cent is in the same class as a
damaged MS-65 net graded to EF money: it is not an Extremely Fine coin
any more than a copper plated 43 is a bronze 43.

If you buy only the best coins you can afford, you will have a
collection worth owning. If you cut corners, look the other way,
cheap out, skim, and slide, you will have a large pile of junk that no
one else will want - and ultimately, you will not be happy owning it.
If you pursue the highest, best, and most attractive material,
whatever your budget will reasonably allow, your collection will be an
achievement worth being proud of, an achievement whose elements are
attractive and desirable in their own right, in your own eye, and in
the opinions of others.

I find amusing all the angst associated with grade, price and rarity in
the hobby (go read the PCGS US board to see many examples). Often people
will go crazy over a 1916 MS67FB but poo-poo a 1916 no problem VF.

But, if it is a dinged up VF 1916D, WOW! because of its rarity, at
least in theory. But, show them a world coin with a mintage of around
6000 (I have a few), and the poo-poo'ing will begin again. So, when it
all comes down to it, it seems sometimes price that is what is really
inferred when talking about grade and rarity.

I agree with not buying coins with distracting problems but I think
there is often too much worry in this hobby over perfection and grade. I
guess when you are spending at or above your maximum comfortable range,
it is an issue that requires worry to one extent or another.

But, there is a whole army of hobbyist/collectors out there who don't
lose sleep over it or obsess about it quite so much. Someone has to be
buying all those no problem VF Mercs out there...and enjoying them.

--
Stujoe
Email: http://tinyurl.com/wu00
Grading Challenge, Coin News, Virtual Coin Museum and mo
http://www.CoinPeople.com

Michael E. Marotta wrote:
If you cut corners, look the other way, cheap out, skim, and slide, you
will have a large pile of junk that no one else will want - and ultimately,
you will not be happy owning it.

I have bought a few coins along the way that I wish I had waited on
obtaining. I think I have now progressed to the point where I am able to be
patient ... and buy a specimen that I will not only be happy with, but one
that others would also be interested in if I elect to part with it for some
reason.

Some very cogent thoughts, indeed! Thanks for some good reading, Michael!

Larry

Larry Louks wrote:
Michael E. Marotta wrote:

If you cut corners, look the other way, cheap out, skim, and slide, you

will have a large pile of junk that no one else will want - and ultimately,
you will not be happy owning it.

I have bought a few coins along the way that I wish I had waited on
obtaining. I think I have now progressed to the point where I am able to be
patient ... and buy a specimen that I will not only be happy with, but one
that others would also be interested in if I elect to part with it for some
reason.

Some very cogent thoughts, indeed! Thanks for some good reading, Michael!

Larry



While Michael states common sense in the main. it does not apply in all
cases. It really comes down to what you actually collect to make any
real sense.

If you collect 2003 Lincoln cents, then the advice to settle for nothing
less than top notch coins is common sense.

If however you collect 1794 cents, your choices are pretty limited by
availability on the market, and even the poorest states might be outwith
some peoples budgets. So, do you buy a decent grade example which has
been cleaned and within your budget or do you buy a washer that is
barely recognizable but hasn't been cleaned (and possibly live on
cornflakes for the rest of the month too)? That is entirely up to the
collector involved.

To me, it is only where you have been `conned' into buying a damaged
coin that you stand to lose out in terms of `value'. You should be made
aware that `damaged' coins (cleaned and holed and ex mount)sell every
day of the week. Dependent upon exactly what they are, they can sell for
cents or sell for hundreds of dollars. As with any coin, if you haven't
a clue about what you are buying, you will always be vulnerable to being
suckered. Then again, if you know what you are buying you might still
end up buying a `damaged' coin because it represents stonking good value!!

If you want to collect outwith the scope of US or ancient coins, then
you can discover a whole new vista of `damaged' coins including
counterstamped and countermarked coinage, cut coinage (emergency
coinages in the main). This `type' (and there are many examples and
varieties all over the world) were `damaged' deliberately by the issuing
authorities (as opposed to an act of mindless vandalism committed by a
dremel owner). Also some `chop marked' coins values are actually
enhanced by having one or two such marks. To some collectors it is a
demonstration that they actually circulated in terms of the purpose
(trade) for which they were struck. They may be diminished in some eyes
by having six or seven chop marks. I recall one Maria Therese Thaler
that was literally smothered by chop marks and sold for £50. The same
coin type is available on nigh on every street corner (numismatically
speaking) in Bunc or Proof condition for around £5. My point to you is
that `damage' does not necessarily mean `doomed' (in terms of value or
collectabilty).

Again, many exceedingly rare coins only exist in the form of `once
cleaned, now retoning' condition or `pity about the mount marks'. Yes,
it may well be true that their value is diminished....but in relation to
what? To most bona fide collectors of rare coins, `damage' is something
that tends to come with the territory.

Of course `population' plays a part in terms of `value'. Of course
`condition' in general plays a part(to my mind wear is merely the
naturally occurring manifestation of `damage' brought about by being in
circulation). Of course the relative popularity of the coin with other
collectors also plays a part.

It would be erroneous to dismiss all `cleaned' and damaged coins as
being a `mistake' to collect. You might get a real buzz out of getting
hold of a real rarity within your budget just because it was `once
cleaned'. It all depends on what you want to get out of collecting in
the first place. Not all collectors see the hobby in terms of financial
investment or reward but to be totally fair, few would voice objection
to their collection increasing in value. ;-)

Ian

Stujoe wrote:
[a lot of true things]
But, there is a whole army of hobbyist/collectors out there who don't
lose sleep over it or obsess about it quite so much. Someone has to be
buying all those no problem VF Mercs out there...and enjoying them.

First I thought Michael was right with what he wrote but
recognized I will never play that league, now you wrote
exactly what completed Michaels text to a credo of collecting.
Congratulations
Wolfgang

Michael,

Very nice article. Many of the points are well taken. What is missing is the
realization that collecting has different meanings to different people. Many
collector/investors should hold you analysis as their credo. Others, not
even close.

For example, I like damaged coins. I collect circulated coins, for the most
part. My main interest is Flying Eagle and Indian Head Cents. I'm looking to
move part of my efforts into medals -- topic for another post.

I could never afford a BU set of FE&IHC. If I won the FL lotto for 40mil, I
still couldn't. To me afford means money that I can use without compromising
the priority items in my life. My goal is VF/XF for the entire set. Pretty
pricey and it will take me a long time to complete. Yes, I'll have to save
for more than two years to get an 1877.

I have seen many damaged coins that I would love to own. I'm really
fascinated by the history that a particular coin may have witnessed or even
been part of. The $20 gold piece from the Henley, damaged as it is, would be
the collection piece of a lifetime. I think that as life moves on things
happen to coins, they get damaged, drilled, punched, scrapped, shot, cut,
counterstamped. I like them all. I don't have a holed or counterstamped IHC.
I'd happily purchase either if the conditions were right.

Please let me also add that I'm not in the least concerned about the value
my heirs will receive for my coins. I get upset by all of the posts about
"Dad died and had these old coins. How can I sell them." "Keep them, they
must have been special to him", would be my reply.

Thanks for allowing me to rant. I hope that everyone had a great
Thanksgiving.

--
God Bless!
Art



"Michael E. Marotta" wrote in message
om...
Damaged, Nice and Perfect Coins
by Michael E. Marotta

It is simply and broadly true that you should buy the best materials
you can afford. Therefore, generally speaking, you should not buy
damaged collectibles. It is also true that "one man's trash is
another man's treasure" - and several nuances can be found in that
short statement. If you see something you want, and you can afford
it, then buy it! My warning against doing that is a result of several
considerations.

First, when you try to sell your flawed purchase, the next buyer will
likely discount the object for the flaw. A knowledgeable buyer - a
coin dealer, an experienced collector - may not want the item at all
at any price. That is reality.

Furthermore, there are what can only be called "spiritual"
considerations. If you sell an item that you know to be flawed to
someone who does not perceive the problem or who misunderstands the
markets for damaged goods, what have you done to your own experiences?
Yes, let the buyer beware. Yes, one man's trash and all that. The
bottom line remains that if you want to look yourself in the eye in
the mirror, you have to take the honorable road, harder though it may
be.

Another intangible - but very real - consideration is how you view
your own collection. If you have "cheaped out" buying undesirable
objects at even the smallest fraction of the price of the real thing,
what can you actually feel when you look at your hoard?

Consider a Large Cent, 1836. A reputably certified mint state coin
(60 to 63) might cost about $500. You can find a nice AU for half
that and a nice Extremely Fine for half again, that is, an EF for
about $75 to $125, depending. My personal recommendation is not to
buy the EF or the AU. The price range $100 to $500 is in the same
order of magnitude. If you have $100 in pocket money - or if you can
save $100 conveniently - then the $500 coin is within your budget. It
is better to save for the nicest coin.

There are other factors, of course. If $100 is outside your "coin
budget" because it represents the monthly electric and gas bills
combined, then you have to make a different set of choices.

With that scenario, however, it makes no sense to me, to buy a coin
with "Mint State details" and a gouge which gives it a net Extremely
Fine grade, bringing its market price from $500 to $200. A damaged
Mint State coin is not worth as much as an honest Extremely Fine.

The matter is complicated. If you seek to build a complete Year Set
of Large Cents, and if you want them to all look like a set, then you
have to be rich, indeed, to be able to pursue only Mint State coins.
Most collectors building such a set collect in Good to Fine. There is
nothing wrong with that. It is of the essence of our hobby, and an
example of the truest form of enjoyment. However, if you are offered
a damaged Very Fine, for Very Good money, I recommend against adding
that coin to your set. It is damaged, gouged, nicked, scratched or
whatever. It is not the best coin you can afford. Your money is
better spent on other coins that are not damaged, whose technical
grades and market grades are closer to each other and that will look
good in a set.

Of course, the matter has more dimensions. With Large Cents in
particular, damage of all kinds is common. With some US Colonials and
other similar issues, we might know of only a few examples of which
two are holed. You have to take those kinds of factors into
consideration as an informed collector. This is why old cleaning is
often overlooked when buying Seated Dollars.

Also to be considered is the fact that there are many kinds of coins,
from ancient Greeks and Romans to U.S. Colonials to even modern issues
such as the 1932-D and 1932-S Washington Quarter for which
Uncirculated examples are so rare that they are outside the
consideration of the average collector. For many coins - historically
for all but a very few types - there are no Mint State examples, no
Proofs. For many examples, such rarities are found only in public
museums. That is simply a fact of life.

On the other hand, because about one-third of all Morgan Dollars are
Uncirculated, a cleaned - holed, gouged, rim-nicked - Morgan Dollar
would have to be very special indeed to have any problem overlooked.

To look at that from a different angle, most of the modern coinages
since 1980 are available in Proof direct from the issuing Mint.
Whether such an example is Proof-65 or Proof-68 or Proof-70 may or may
not be important to the enthusiast. If perfection is the goal - and
it is a worthy goal - then buying reliably certified Proof-70 coins is
in fact the target of that collection and correctly so by personal
choice. On the other hand, given that we all direct limited
resources, it is perfectly fine to take whatever the Mint issues as
Proof and enjoy it for what it is, rather than spend the extra money
pursuing a few marginally utilitarian degrees of perfection. These
kinds of choices are not in the same class as paying "market" money
for a "high grade" coin that has "problems."

Another case in point is the Doubled Die 1955 Lincoln Cent. This coin
is perhaps The Classic Doubled Die and for many collectors of Lincolns
it ranks with the 09-S VDB and 14-D as a "must" have. For collectors
of Error coin, this is also an import addition. The price $300 to
$1000 is the range for grades EF to Mint State. It is my personal and
professional opinion that buying a die-chatter damaged "poor man's
double die" will not add a bit of value to your collection. If you
have to open a special bank account and save five years for a real
55-P DDO (or 14-D or 09-S VDB), the purchase will be that much more
valuable to you.

If you would buy a die-chatter 55 that looks like the real thing to
the uninitiated, would you buy a fake 14-D cent because it is
affordable? Would you buy a copper-plated 1943 cent? Where would
this stop? To me, a fake 1943 Copper Cent is in the same class as a
damaged MS-65 net graded to EF money: it is not an Extremely Fine coin
any more than a copper plated 43 is a bronze 43.

If you buy only the best coins you can afford, you will have a
collection worth owning. If you cut corners, look the other way,
cheap out, skim, and slide, you will have a large pile of junk that no
one else will want - and ultimately, you will not be happy owning it.
If you pursue the highest, best, and most attractive material,
whatever your budget will reasonably allow, your collection will be an
achievement worth being proud of, an achievement whose elements are
attractive and desirable in their own right, in your own eye, and in
the opinions of others.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/03

Art O'Connell wrote:
Please let me also add that I'm not in the least concerned about the value
my heirs will receive for my coins.

A good thought, indeed. I join you in that stance, Art, in that I have no
concern about that value either.

Larry

"Michael E. Marotta" wrote in message
om...
Damaged, Nice and Perfect Coins
by Michael E. Marotta

It is simply and broadly true that you should buy the best materials
you can afford. Therefore, generally speaking, you should not buy
damaged collectibles. It is also true that "one man's trash is
another man's treasure" - and several nuances can be found in that
short statement. If you see something you want, and you can afford
it, then buy it! My warning against doing that is a result of several
considerations.

snippety

Allow me to present a contrary view.

First, anecdotally.
My principal collecting interest is Australia's so-called "Proclamation"
coins.
http://www.australianstamp.com/Coin-...s/proclmtn.htm
or
http://www.triton.vg/proclamation.html

My collection is now *almost* complete - save for the two Johannas which are
hideously expensive in any grade. (Still looking, though.)

Note that I say "complete", not "finished". I will always be looking to
upgrade.

Proclamation coins, by definition, are well over 200 years old. (I know
that's now't compared to a collection of Greek philosophers, but...)
Examples of any of them in anything approaching "mint state" are
outrageously expensive. With the exception of the cartwheel pennies, I'm
not aware of any proof examples extant. I could be wrong...

My collection is circulated, graded poor - EF. If I were to take my entire
investment in Proclamation coins, and apply it instead to only Mint State
examples, I *may* be able to afford one coin, maybe two, rather than the
scores I now enjoy.

Those MS examples I would feel obliged to encapsulate (not "slab") and
probably I would feel the need to store them off-site. I would *never*
handle them glove-less and I would feel compelled to hold my breathe when
admiring them.

In short, I would not have much opportunity to *enjoy* them.

As for my current collection, I frequently spill them out of their box, and
run them through my fingers. I heft their weight and daydream about the
possibilities:

"Did Governor Hunter, or Lachlan Macquarie, or Marsden-the-flogging-Parson
handle these actual coins? Was *this* penny used to pay a coachman for a
trip to colonial Parramatta 200 years ago..." (etc ad infinitum)

Daydreams over, I return them (respectfully) to their box to await the next
(forgive me) "glomming" session. (hehehe)

Now, if I cashed them in on a single PF-69 Cartwheel penny, then:
1) I would *never* handle it;
2) I would be absolutely bloody paranoid about spotting, toning, PVC,
sulphur etc;
3) I'd have to go to the bank to "visit" it; and
4) why bother anyway? I *know* that the history of this coin is:
(i) struck as a proof
(ii) bought by a collector
(iii) kept safely out of sight for two centuries;
never handled in non-numismatic commerce.

Boring!

This can be a self-referential hobby: "I wonder which exciting coin
collector first owned this proof coin", but I much prefer to think of the
commonplace and everyday transactions which were completed using my old,
honestly-worn coins.

Bushrangers, governors (same thing really), grocers, butchers, bakers,
prostitutes, schoolteachers, swashbuckling sea-farers...

....much more interesting than just mint workers and coin collectors. Hey!
I've been to the trade shows. I know what a boring bunch we numismatists
are.

================

I do have other collecting interests - any and all of Australia's
pre-decimal coinage (and notes) for example. This includes colonial Brit
issues.

I do buy, and enjoy examining, modern proof coins, if for no other reason
than to experience the ultimate in technical numismatic endeavour.
http://mendosus.com/2004proof.html They're cheap, too. ;-) As a technical
marker, or reference point, they're interesting. As a piece of history or
as inspiration for daydreams, they're worthless.

I have type sets which are complete or almost complete (darn that 1930
penny) and I confess to upgrading these sets piece-by-piece as I can afford
it, with the goal of assembling the best sets I can.

-But-

I have hundreds upon hundreds of coins in many, many categories. I *enjoy*
all them, right down to the almost basal-state pennies and threepences.

If I cashed my whole collection in (or, better, had never bought them and
used the funds instead) I still would not be able to afford the Aussie Holy
Grail, the Holey Dollar - or the 1930 Penny. If I did own one of those
dream-coins, I seriously doubt that I would enjoy it. ("Dammit! The bank is
closed. I can't go and look at my coin collection.")

==============

I approach my coin collection the same way that that I choose motor cars.
Pragmatic and compromising. The old Ford serves me well. Reliable, roomy,
comfortable. I sure would like the British Racing Green V12 Jaguar, and I
*could* afford it (hang the house mortgage!) If I did buy it, I couldn't
drive it to work (it'd be scratched to pieces in weeks), I couldn't take it
shopping, I couldn't use it to transport my metalworking stuff...

The best you can afford is not always a good deal.
Sometimes you just buy headaches you don't need - security considerations
and obsessive protective worries.

When I buy a coin or a car, I consider the money spent as *instantly* gone.
Re-sale is not an issue. I keep my cars until their re-sale value is
negligible, and I just *don't* sell my coins. My heirs may (and probably
will) but that will be their problem (or joy).

The value of my collection is infinitely (well... "considerably") more than
its actual market value. I just *don't care* what a dealer will give me for
it - or what I could flog it off on eBay for.

================

I like my car - I like my coins.

If they were top-of-the-range items, I think I'd be *frightened* of them.

YMMV
Jeff

Art O'Connell wrote:

Art

Very nice article. Many of the points are well taken. What is missing
is the realization that collecting has different meanings to
different people. Many collector/investors should hold you analysis
as their credo. Others, not even close.

That was it what I wanted to say, Michael said a lot of things
I think are true but after Stujoe added his thoughts, all together
became a credo for collecting (not only collecting coins). In my
opinion at least (...but I didn´t say that before).

Please let me also add that I'm not in the least concerned about the
value my heirs will receive for my coins. I get upset by all of the
posts about "Dad died and had these old coins. How can I sell them."
"Keep them, they must have been special to him", would be my reply.

That is another point I have to agree. It hurts reading all that
posts about selling dad's or grandpa's collection. I know a guy who
collected postcards and stamps for about 30 years now, he always
tells us he will sell his whole collection when he is 60, because he
doesn´t want his children selling his treasures for cheap money.
I don´t know if that is the right way but I understand his thoughts.

Regards
Wolfgang