| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 1,608 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1081 Posts |
I collect Newfoundland (1st) and Province of Canada (2nd) coins. As I've contemplated my priorities I've come to view scarcity and eye appeal as two defining points of interest. Eye appeal is relatively easy - a combination of grade and overall balance, surface, etc.... Scarcity is a little more complicated. At the most basic it's just a coin that's graded much higher than most of its peers or a coin that was minted in (or has survived in) especially small numbers.
Against that backdrop there are rare years (e.g. Newfoundland 1888 50c; 20,000 produced) and there are rare varieties (1945 5c, narrow date; est. 1,700 out of >200,000 produced). Those are both high priority coins for me. (I've got one but still looking for the other!).
But there are other varieties that, while rare, I find much harder to get excited about. Little minting boo-boos that are so tiny you can only see them on a digital photograph that's been blown up 20x or more. Some of the variety spectra are so big as to be demotivating: the 1881 and 1882 Canadian 1 c for example - at least 6 varieties *each*, not including die clashes/cracks etc...etc....
I can imagine a white-whale goal of getting all of those varieties but, across the whole span of coinage, I just can't get excited about many of those tiny mutations.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United Kingdom
17894 Posts |
 Minor die varieties have never been as widely collected in the UK as in North America, although there are signs that this is changing! While there are some obvious varieties, such as the modifications to Queen Victoria's portrait over the lifetime of the 1860-94 bronze penny series, which I do find interesting and worth collecting, I just can't get excited about variations on modern 10p coins where the 'I' of Elizabeth points to a dot instead of a space! |
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1081 Posts |
@NumisRob - yes, exactly that! But I guess the question is where's the dividing line? Is there a rational reason for interest in one variety but not another? My ad hoc rule-that-has-many-exceptions is that I'm potentially interested in varieties that can be seen with the naked eye. The aforementioned 1945 narrow date sticks out like a sore thumb so it's on the list. If you need an electron microscope to see the variation then...not so much.
Though one thing that is certain in all this is that I will disagree with myself within 24 hours.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
34395 Posts |
Quote:
where's the dividing line? Seems like we each would have our own line, right? And I'm not sure that is a bad thing--what excites me may or may not excite you. "If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
51 Posts |
Quote:
I find much harder to get excited about. Little minting boo-boos that are so tiny you can only see them on a digital photograph that's been blown up 20x or more. Oh LORD, LOOKING FOR MINTING BOO-BOOS WAS MOST BORING THING I EVER DID @ MY TRASH WORTHLESS COINS I HAVE! lol. Yesterday I spent like 4 hours looking for minting boo-boos on a bunch of random coins in hopes one would be worth some $. Only found 1, and turns out.. ITS JUST DAMAGED and GROSS and LAME!! at least that's what some nice folks told me on this site when I posted it lol. but I'm not actually a coin collector anyways, but if I was.. that would be the most un-fun part of coin collecting lol. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
789 Posts |
I'm just getting started on Canadian Victoria large cent varieties. 1859 alone will be driving me around the bend soon. They are much cheaper than the US Large Cents I've been agonizing over lo these many years. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7273 Posts |
I'm not interested in most varieties and mint errors, unless visible naked eye and not crazy priced I just skip. Even in the Canadian Small cent collection of all the varieties the only ones I wanted was the 1947 Maple Leaf and the 1936 Extra Dot. The extra dot, I may have to skip ;) The No Shoulder Fold/Shoulder Fold, point 5, small dots/large dots, I just filled in with the year. Its not boring, its like the VAM's, people get into the details of the die that made the coin, I'm just not interested. I'm a pretty bad coin collector. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7933 Posts |
It's an interesting question, and I agree with @spence ... whatever floats your boat. As for me, I kind of resonate with this: Quote:
such as the modifications to Queen Victoria's portrait over the lifetime of the 1860-94 bronze penny series I enjoy similar variation in my Kingdom of Poland series. There are some dates where within a single year at a single mint, there are several major variations in the portrait (including clothing styles). And additional variety across different mints. Once my OFEY in that series is more complete, I'd consider working on a few of those. But like a few others who have responded, I'll never be interested in varieties that require a magnifying glass. |
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 1,608 |
|
Posted 02/13/2020 05:25 am
