| Author |
 Replies: 36 / Views: 6,335 |
Page 3 of 3
|
|
|
|
New Member
United States
19 Posts |
Frankly, when I have extra money, I like to buy new bullion(mostly silver 1 ounce coins) and fractional gold coins. It depends on a couple things. Whether your looking to make a quick buck and profit, or because you just enjoy the hobby. It can be both
I personally like low mintage new coins and colorized coins, although some will definitely tell you not to buy "gimmick" coins.
Every coin has a history in my opinions, old or new. They will all change hands, be passed down, run over, found in the dirt, be kept pristine for hundreds of years, etc.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12477 Posts |
Quote:
Honestly the best way is probably just to ignore them. You aren't likely to change the opinion of people who are that misinformed, and people like that forget that there's always better collections than their own that could say the same thing about them As is often the case, basebal21 sums up my feelings quite well. I asked CCF what I should collect as a first album. As a newbie on a limited budget, many suggested Jefferson nickels. I took that to heart, but I also noticed the lack of interest in the coin across the forums. So, I have set out to learn more about this coin and put together an awesome set. It really depends on how much you want to spend. If you want to own the very best of every Jefferson nickel, including varieties, you're gonna have to cough up some major dough. If you want that for LWCs, that's even more money! Those are both relatively common modern coins that many start their collections with. Perspective is key. As basebal21 pointed out, there will always be someone better. That's something I learned early in music competition. In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
|
|
New Member
United States
9 Posts |
Here is why I collect moderns
· It is a good beginners place to start
· They are budget friendly
· Accomplishment in completing a date/mm set in MS
· Even though they are everyday coins it becomes quite an impressive collection when you get so far in
· I enjoy the hunt of buying below guide prices
· There are so many avenues with varieties and error coins
· My wife would kill me if I collected what I wanted to - Roman Coins!
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
So I was just wondering what do you think is the best way to respond to detractors and snobs who dismiss such interests... As indicated by others, just walk away. Your energy is better spent working on your collection.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
101 Posts |
It's modern now but when I pass it to my kids and grandkids, it wouldn't be consider modern then. Patience is a virtue.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
It's modern now but when I pass it to my kids and grandkids, it wouldn't be consider modern then. Patience is a virtue. A nice way to look at it.  |
|
Valued Member
 United States
77 Posts |
@ cladking. So it's basically based on a 50+ year old grudge? Are you saying that the problem people have is not so much with the coins themselves, but rather with what the coins represent to them? (Debasement, mass produced (common), started during a time when coin shortages were blamed on coin collectors.)Well let's break that down, shall we? Debasement: Nickel 3 and 5 cent pieces were debased versions of silver trimes and Half Dimes, yet classic collectors still like them. Plus the mint still makes silver proof dimes, quarters and half dollars, as well as gold, silver, platinum and starting just recently palladium bullion coins and gold and silver commemorative coins. So it isn't about debasement. Maybe it's the fact that they're mass produced (common): Mercury dimes, Indian Head cents, Buffalo nickels and Morgan dollars are all extremely common in the coin market as a whole, and yet again, classic collectors love them. So it isn't that either. Sure the mint treated collectors less than fairly when clad coins started. But shouldn't that cause distain for the mint of the time, and not with the coins themselves. Plus the mint eventually admitted they were wrong. In recent years the mint has been very collector friendly. The only two complaints I could see is the cost that the mint charges for some coins is a little high and the fact that in some years the mint makes too many types of coins at a time. That last one is a good thing because they're offering people different options to choose from. It's only bad if you're an obsessive compulsive completist or you're extremely indecisive. It could be because of the designs, which is perfectly fine. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I will say however, that when you take into account all of the state, territorial, and America the Beautiful Quarters, the Lincoln bicentennial cents of 2009, the Westward journey nickels of '04 and '05, the Sacagawea and Native American dollars, the Presidential dollars, the first spouse $10 gold coins, the different reverse designs of the platinum eagles and the different commemorative designs, that there's been more diversity in coin designs from the U.S. mint in the last 19 years than in their first 205 years combined. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
It's modern now but when I pass it to my kids and grandkids, it wouldn't be consider modern then. Exactly, some people forget that every coin was a modern at one point. Quote:
So it's basically based on a 50+ year old grudge? For a lot of older collectors it is, for whatever reason a portion of collectors don't consider clad coins to be coins. Some are just bias against newer coins as well which is fine, but there are people who think only gold and silver is money. Younger collectors just consider them to be coins while some older collectors look down on them. Quote:Debasement: Nickel 3 and 5 cent pieces were debased versions of silver trimes and Half Dimes, yet classic collectors still like them. The 3 cent nickel is honestly probably the least popular series of any classic coin |
|
Valued Member
United States
77 Posts |
Well, the large copper cents were debased to small copper nickel cents and the Half Dime was debased to the nickel five cent piece. Most collectors, even traditionalists like small cents. And you can't deny the popularity of the Buffalo nickel. Shield nickels? Well ok, to most people it's probably not as attractive as some other coins. The Liberty Head nickel is fairly popular though. Maybe not Morgan dollar popular, but still popular. And yes, clad coins are money. Copper and nickel may not have the scarcity or value of gold and silver, but it's still based on a fixed supply and intrinsic value. If we replaced our quarters with silver ones would prices for everyday items drop, or would the quarters essentially just become three dollar silver pieces? That might be a stupid question, but I'm genuinely curious. Edited by rbjr85
04/23/2018 11:19 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:And you can't deny the popularity of the Buffalo nickel. Shield nickels? Well ok, to most people it's probably not as attractive as some other coins. The Liberty Head nickel is fairly popular though. Nickels overall are one of the less popular series, though to me that is more because of the designs than anything else. The buffalos are popular from the nice designs. Good designs will always rule the day and make any metal popular. Quote:
And yes, clad coins are money. Exactly. Younger collectors will agree with that generally hence the increasing popularity of moderns |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2273 Posts |
Quote:
@ cladking. So it's basically based on a 50+ year old grudge? The coins are considered debased junk which are common and uncollectible. They are believed to be unartistic and not historical. Old time collectors often had a visceral hatred of the coins caused by numerous factors. This has been passed down to newbies for many years. Early issues were very poorly made from worn tired dies. Proof and mint sets were discontinued. There were two date freezes and Congress considered a bill that would make modern coin collecting illegal. Mint marks were discontinued. Old coins disappeared. 1964 to 1969 was a very bad time to be a coin collector. It didn't matter what you collected you were still impacted by the events. Time don't fly, it bounds and leaps.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
77 Posts |
@cladking. Well, I can tell by your user name and avatar that you aren't against these kinds of coins. You just understand where the other side is coming from. Would that be accurate? As for the first point you brought up: Why can't something be collectible if it's common. Maybe we need to tell all of the baseball card, comic book and bottle cap collectors that they've been approaching the concept of collecting the wrong way their whole lives. It's like they're mixing up the word collectible with the words scarce and valuable. Collectible just means it can be arranged into a set of some kind.(categorical, denominational, chronological etc.) It has nothing to do with scarcity or value. As far as I'm concerned Lincoln memorial cents and Clad Washington quarters are just as much of a collectible as proof Morgan dollars and St. Gaudens double eagles. As for them being unartistic? I'll admit, I used to have the same attitude about them. Lately however, I've started to appreciate them more. Not historical or not from a romanticized version of history that they read about in books? Or do they mean not historical as in made too recently? Well everything started out as new at one point. Poorly made coins from worn dies is nothing new. Proof strikes and mint marks were discontinued? That just makes it easier to complete a 1965 to 1967 set. I'm glad congress realized passing a bill to make collecting modern coins illegal is a stupid idea. Old coins disappearing from circulation was bound to happen eventually. The growing popularity of coin collecting, especially of older obsolete series, as well as the rising price of silver, combined with the general wear and damage that coins go through after spending decades in circulation, make that an inevitability. The same thing is happening today. Minus the part about silver of course. Quarters for example. I see less clad quarters of '65 to '98 than I used to. Although they're still very common I've been seeing less of them every year. For every one Washington quarter of 1965 to 1998 that I see I see about 15 to 20 state, territorial or "national park" quarters. And those differences are only increasing. I'm not saying that they'll ever be as rare as classic silver coins of the 19th or early 20th century. But I could imagine them becoming almost as elusive in circulation in the future as later date Lincoln wheat cents are today. From what I understand the 1960's was a weird time for a lot of people, not just coin collectors. Edited by rbjr85
04/25/2018 12:08 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12477 Posts |
Quote:
From what I understand the 1960's was a weird time for a lot of people, not just coin collectors. I can agree with that, and I wasn't even born yet!  Seriously though, if you consider finding modern coins in circulation in a few decades, look no further than the zinc cent. Primarily, the composition and resultant rapid deterioration of the coins will prevent them from tolerating any considerable amount of circulation. On top of that, they may not survive policy if, within the next few decades, the decision is made to do away with the cent coin altogether. (I don't want to start that debate, just point out the place of the cent in the future of modern coin collecting!) I am also pleasantly surprised to receive a quarter, nickel or dime from the 1970s nowadays (I even got a nice 1971 Kennedy half a couple weeks ago!). The period of mainstream collecting of "modern" coins is just beginning. I believe it will happen, but we are in a transition of sorts. There are many members here who are younger than me and I certainly have no connection to the 60s as far as coin collecting, so the grudge is not one that I carry. Even the copper to zinc cent transition happened before I was born.  In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
Edited by spru
04/25/2018 12:57 am
|
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
On top of that, they may not survive policy if, within the next few decades, the decision is made to do away with the cent coin altogether. Decades?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2273 Posts |
Quote:
@cladking. Well, I can tell by your user name and avatar that you aren't against these kinds of coins. You just understand where the other side is coming from. Would that be accurate? Nobody hated clad more than me in 1966. But after the date freezes were lifted I was among the first to have my heart thaw out as well. Most collectors are still hardened to these coins. Quote:
As for the first point you brought up: Why can't something be collectible if it's common. Most importantly they aren't common. They never were common in nice condition but no one knew this. But now days a 1969 quarter is only common in highly degraded condition and even here they aren't common in nice attractive evenly worn condition. Of course common coins can be collected. I collect some common things just because they make nice looking collections. Quote: It's like they're mixing up the word collectible with the words scarce and valuable. Collectible just means it can be arranged into a set of some kind.(categorical, denominational, chronological etc.) It has nothing to do with scarcity or value. As far as I'm concerned Lincoln memorial cents and Clad Washington quarters are just as much of a collectible as proof Morgan dollars and St. Gaudens double eagles. In some ways I find the moderns more collectible because the competition is lower. It's hard to collect something if the guy who got there before you bought it already. Not many collect moderns even today so interesting specimens are more likely to be seen. Quote:
As for them being unartistic? I'll admit, I used to have the same attitude about them. Lately however, I've started to appreciate them more. Me too. Quote:
Not historical or not from a romanticized version of history that they read about in books? Or do they mean not historical as in made too recently? Well everything started out as new at one point. Poorly made coins from worn dies is nothing new. Proof strikes and mint marks were discontinued? Some think that if a coin isn't old it hasn't seen much history but a 1965 quarter has seen the moon landing and the advent of the internet age. Changes are coming fast and furious and the worlds is much different than it was in 1964. Quote:
That just makes it easier to complete a 1965 to 1967 set. I'm glad congress realized passing a bill to make collecting modern coins illegal is a stupid idea. Old coins disappearing from circulation was bound to happen eventually. I think the only reason they didn't is no one wanted any moderns anyway. Quote:
Quarters for example. I see less clad quarters of '65 to '98 than I used to. Although they're still very common I've been seeing less of them every year. Not only are there fewer and fewer old quarters every year but the old ones are more and more worn with each passing day. Quote:
But I could imagine them becoming almost as elusive in circulation in the future as later date Lincoln wheat cents are today. From what I understand the 1960's was a weird time for a lot of people, not just coin collectors. I doubt they'll ever be that scarce in circulation but there's a huge difference; there are countless millions of the wheat cents set aside in top condition. There are countless millions sitting in boxes. Not many clad quarters are out there especially in nice attractive BU condition. Time don't fly, it bounds and leaps.
|
|
Page 3 of 3
|
Replies: 36 / Views: 6,335 |
Page 3 of 3
|
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 04/20/2018 01:25 am
