| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 5,248 |
|
|
New Member
United States
46 Posts |
As an amateur collector planning to invest more serious sums of money into coins in a couple of years, this is an important issue that has bugged me for a while and that I've never been able to find a definite answer for. Basically, I encounter a lot of these and even have a dealer that will dramatically slash prices on coins for me due to rim nicking. Not having expertise in this matter I almost always try to err on the side of caution and pass them up, but sometimes I'll encounter coins that look really, really good in spite of the nicks and think to myself that surely these nicks can't be that detrimental to value when they don't aesthetically hinder higher-grade coins. With that mindset I recently returned to said dealer that drops prices for nicks and purchased this for $20:  Multiple nicks, but otherwise looks great (even better in person--I have a bad camera.) So, I think it's safe to assume that all rim nicks are bad, but do they really dramatically affect value/grade? Is the decrease in value dependent on the severity/number of nicks, the type of coin nicked, or just arbitrarily based on how much the nicks uglify a given coin? I guess I just have to know whether I've been rightly passing up junk coins or if I've been passing up good opportunities. Thanks for all help. |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2520 Posts |
I would consider that a damaged coin. Other than the obvious, it's a nice looking coin. Almost looks like someome filed notches into it. IMO, that would decrease value by a good percentage.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
16677 Posts |
 I would also consider that damage as opposed to your basic rim nick. This coin I agree has some nice detail (VF35 obverse IMO) but, the damage looks deliberately done rather than receiving a nick due to commerce or having been dropped. I would put this coin at the $35 price range - the damage. For $20, a tad high IMO. Do you have a reverse pic? swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
New Member
 United States
46 Posts |
This probably was a bad example considering the multiple nicks. The likelihood of this being intentional damage didn't occur to me, but now that it's been mentioned, that many accidental rough run-ins with sidewalks and drawers is unlikely, even for a 157-year-old coin. I'd provide a single-nick example, but I just returned from a trip and almost all of my coins are still in a safe deposit box. For those interested, here is the reverse pic:  Plenty of nicks, not all match up to locations on the obverse. I take it, then, that intentional damage is considered worse than unintentional damage. Good to know, provided that I can ever actually tell the difference. What would any of you say the average rim nick decreases the value of a coin by percentage-wise? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1055 Posts |
I would consider it damaged, but look at the bright side...It will be less noticable in an album.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2520 Posts |
Quote:
I take it, then, that intentional damage is considered worse than unintentional damage. No! Damage is what it is....damage. Intentional or not. The extent of the damage is what is going to effect just how much it will effect the price. Certainly one small rim nick wont lower the price as much as all the nicks on this coin. I can't be certain that your coin was intentional damage, but it looks like it could have been. |
|
New Member
United States
46 Posts |
I should have clarified what I meant, because the way that sounds it would definitely seem like I made a pretty stupid statement :P I should clarify that I was working under the premise that intentional damage is more likely to appear more severe than unintentional damage (and thus detract more from the coin's value per its greater severity), as the expert verdict seemed to be along the lines of "these nicks are too large and too many to all be accidental". Blunt instruments and brute force are probably going to leave larger marks than a three-or-four-foot drop to the floor. Said premise might not even be true at all, in which case I own up to faulty logic/jumping to conclusions, but at least anecdotally, come to think of it, the large majority of rim nicks I've seen have either been paper-thin slices or otherwise smaller and shallower than the ones on my large cent. Whew, keeping my on my toes with my phrasing Edited by pierrot
07/20/2009 10:08 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
Take a pass on coins like that in the future. Coins with significant problems (excepting rarities) are not worth much to collectors.
That coin has significant problems but for $20 it is a very cheap learning experience.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
383 Posts |
I'd much rather that coin in my type set, than a $20 undamaged coin. Obv it's a matter of preference, but in my type set I'd rather have a coin with details than one with a perfect rim and less detail.
|
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 5,248 |
|
Posted 07/20/2009 8:12 pm
