| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 870 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
398 Posts |
Been working on my set for a few years (OK, since Covid broke out) and of course there's no one right answer. Some folks fill in a Dansco 7070 and that is fine, others stretch it out earlier to include the 1790s stuff. There's some very rare expensive stuff like the Half Disme, the $4 Stella, the Gobrecht dollar. And what about those early draped bust silvers with the small eagle, can you get by with the much cheaper large eagle coins? .. in other words do I really need to shell out for a 1796 quarter when my 1806 looks the same on front? And then there's the issue of gold.. The definition I have settled on - For the early coins, I need a Fugio cent and all three of the unique 1793 coppers. I need all three flowing hair silver coins, but then all the draped bust silvers after that can do without the small eagle reverse, thus my 1806 quarter gets to hold down the fort. No Stella or Gobrecht, super cool but they just don't make the cut. The gold is so expensive that one example from every generation will suffice regardless of the denomination. Thus one each from the 1800-ish draped bust (forget the small eagle), the two capped coins from 1807-30 or whatever, a classic, a princess, a liberty, two Indians and a Saint-Gaudens. That'll do. I don't give a hoot about arrows on my Seated Liberty, or motto/no-motto, all that, a type's a type. The one killer is the Half Disme, I feel my set will never be complete without it, I consider it truly the first US coin and the keystone of any type collection, but that slot will likely remain empty for all time. Anyway enough rambling, would like to hear your thoughts. |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5047 Posts |
Quote:
I don't give a hoot about arrows on my Seated Liberty, or motto/no-motto, all that, a type's a type. Arrows meh, motto maybe, but I'd try to include the two 1853 rays types for sure if I can find those. They brighten up the whole reverse and it's a travesty that the 7070 ignores them. I'd take the 1837-38 No Stars as well if they're available, but they're less of an obvious priority. Still not sure about the motto. On the small eagles, mathematically I'd find a type set reaching into that period (i.e. not stopping at 1800 or something) incomplete without them, but of course they're tricky as ch*rp to find (on the quarters and halves at least). I'm not sure in advance about the gold. No Stella, probably no Gobrecht, almost certainly no Fugio (as part of the set - if it gets that far I might get one for other reasons), dunno about the Half Disme but indeed it's real hard to get one of those. Absolutely nonsensible decision: for large cents I'd want to include both of the funky transitional heads from 1839.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10996 Posts |
Any way you want to define it. It's your set and your story to tell. Every collection is intimately personal. I'm thinking of telling the story of my collection via a series of videos on youtube.
IN NECESSARIIS UNITAS - IN DUBIIS LIBERTAS - IN OMNIBUS CARITAS My coin e-commerce website: https://fairfaxcoins.com |
|
Valued Member
 United States
398 Posts |
Quote:
I'm thinking of telling the story of my collection via a series of videos on youtube. I'd sure be interested, and I'm sure many others on this board would be as well. Hope it would include your idea of what coins would make the cut for a US type set. Keep posted!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21645 Posts |
Depends what criteria one may apply to the definition "Type set". To assemble a US type set of all circulated types since 1793 even in lower grades, would be beyond the reach of most collectors, and impossible for almost all, in medium and higher grades, if gold is included. Probably best for collectors decide those criteria for themselves, so that the personal definition that they arrive at suits their budget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I collect across the whole of numismatics, such that a 'type set' is not only impossible to define, even for myself; it is also impossible to complete. Many instances where I am forced to accept a coin in what ever grade it may be. That does not stop me from trying for the whole of my life. Lots of numismatic fun along the way. My learning curve has always been steep. As a bonus, have learned lots about World cultures, their history, and geography along the way.  There is some satisfaction in completing a type set, (I completed an Australian type set with gold, many years ago). but for all of us, (including myself) most of the fun is in the hunt. Edited by sel_69l
12/30/2023 05:22 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4081 Posts |
Quote:
Arrows meh, motto maybe, but I'd try to include the two 1853 rays types for sure if I can find those. They brighten up the whole reverse and it's a travesty that the 7070 ignores them. The Arrows and Rays quarter and half are included in the 7070 - or at least you can choose to include them in the 1853-55 arrows slot as I have. It should be fairly obvious that I have used the 7070 as the definition for my type set. There's a few coins missing but it works well enough for me.
Edited by KenKat
12/30/2023 1:39 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
33743 Posts |
Find an album that you like and use that as your base collection. Danso 7070 is popular now but you can pick up an older set of albums like Whitman Bookshelf, Library of Coins or one of the others.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21645 Posts |
Build up a short type set, and extend from that.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
398 Posts |
I guess the thing that got me pondering this question was a note in a HA 1796 quarter auction declaring it a unique type to the point where a type set is not complete without it. Googling, "The acquisition of a 1796 quarter dollar is required by any collector that endeavors to build a complete type set of United States coins. This makes it one of the most sought after, and one of the costliest, of all U.S. type coins." Then there's the 1796-7 half dollar, even more pricey. Again according to Heritage, "Collectors attempting to complete a type set of U.S. coinage ultimately are faced with the acquisition of a 1796 or 1797 half dollar. " And that's not the end of it, they add "the 1796 No Stars and 1808 quarter eagles" are distinct types and yet rarer. So up and up the ladder it goes. I suppose at some point it gets hard talking about your type set without it feeling like bragging about wealth. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5047 Posts |
Quote:
So up and up the ladder it goes I'm not actually confident it does go past those quarter eagles, or at least I'm not aware of any rarer non-pattern type. Of the quarter eagles, the 1808 is certainly its own type (CCF US Coin Facts lumps it with the post-1820 issues, despite those having both a different design and a different size; CCF US Coin History has a separate entry), the 1796 No Stars is arguable. As I mentioned in another thread, the 1796-7 half dollar is worthy of inclusion in any "complete" US type set for a different reason: it's apparently the only US silver coin type to feature its denomination as a fraction. (When I saw one of those in a video about a particularly ridiculous collection of US coins, that "1/2" really struck me - I knew early US copper did the fraction-of-a-dollar thing but didn't know any US silver did. Apparently it was only on this one very rare type; everything else had either nothing, words, or a number in cents.)
|
|
New Member
United States
10 Posts |
I like to go by circulating issues.
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 870 |
|
Posted 12/26/2023 12:27 pm
