The coolest piece I have seen walk in the door in a while...

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by LostDutchman, Oct 22, 2010.

  1. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Typically, for a coin to be of great value it has to at least be part of a set. And there also has to be enough of them to make a market. So when coins of rarity have neither one of these conditions met, rarely do they ever acquire great value.

    I have owned several coins with mintages under 50 pieces, one even under 35, and I bought them all for bullion content.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

    I'm not beyond getting on both knees and begging.:D
    In my early days I got to work both sides of the counter. I miss those days. Some of the stuff that walked in just blew me away and so many times you would never see the person again. Hope you catch that one Matt.
     
  4. spock1k

    spock1k King of Hearts

    well mine was with a mintage of less than 20 so there
     
  5. spock1k

    spock1k King of Hearts

    nice very nice
     
  6. bqcoins

    bqcoins Olympic Figure Skating Scoring System Expert

    That is an exceptional piece.
     
  7. BadThad

    BadThad Calibrated for Lincolns

    Very cool piece!
     
  8. hiho

    hiho off to work we go

    Not something you see every day. Thanks for sharing Matt!
     
  9. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot Supporter

    I disagree with your premise, Doug. There are several coins that have value, low mintage and don't belong to any set. For example:

    1792 Half Disme (3 known in silver and 15 known in copper) which sells in the mid-5 figures

    1804 Draped Bust Dollar (not really part of a Bust Dollar set) we all are familiar with their value

    $4 Gold Stellas

    Confederate restrikes of both the Cent and the Half Dollar.

    and those are just a few that I could name in 5 minutes.

    Many people like to collect pattern coins. They are rare and some (not most) are voraciously collected. They make little news, however, and for that reason are largely unknown in the hobby.
     
  10. illini420

    illini420 1909 Collector

    Those are the numbers known for the 1792 Disme which is a 6-figure coin.

    The 1792 Half Disme is usually a 5-figure coin in most grades but there are hundreds of them out there (1500 mintage).
     
  11. jello

    jello Not Expert★NormL®

    Thanks for sharing this one! Dutch!!!

    Nice one Matt!!!:thumb:

     
  12. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot Supporter

    I sit corrected. I was looking at the Disme mintages and values, not the Half Disme.

    Both coins make my point as they are not part of any set, the mintage is low (a minuscule mintage on the Disme) and the value is high.

    Thanks for correcting my info, Illini
     
  13. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I would disagre Mike, they part of a set. To me a set is merely defined as a type of coin, such as a half disme, that was produced by the mint for use in circulation. Just because there are only a few of them doesn't preclude them from being part of the set. The 1792 half disme was definitely made for use in circulation. That makes it part of the set.

    Regarding the 1804 dollar, yeah I agree, they are not part of a set since they are not even coins per se, but fantasy coins.
     
  14. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot Supporter

    These are dictionary.com definitions of the word set:

    - a collection of articles designed for use together: a set of china; a chess set.
    - a collection, each member of which is adapted for a special use in a particular operation: a set of golf clubs; a set of carving knives.
    - a number, group, or combination of things of similar nature, design, or function: a set of ideas.

    each of these definitions mean that a set must consist of more than 1 object and in that regard the Half Disme and Disme do not qualify as a set.

    Just because it was made for circulation doesn't make it a set. It might be more accurately described as a series of 1, but a set by it's very definition infers more than 1 item are included.
     
  15. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Well standard definitions don't always apply to coins. My point is this, there are other half dismes, so any half disme is part of the set of half dismes - excepting patterns or fanatsy coins.

    What you are claiming would mean that the '76 half dollar and quarter are not part of the set. And I don't know of anyone who would claim that.

    I will agree with you that they are different a type, but that doesn't preclude them from the set.
     
  16. Merc Crazy

    Merc Crazy Bumbling numismatic fool

    Agreed.
     
  17. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot Supporter

    Doug, I always try to listen, understand and learn, but that makes me question things (and to your dismay at times I have demonstrated this).

    There are other Half Dismes and Dismes? They made a date other than 1792?

    In reference to the 1976 coins, they make my point, they are part of a larger number of objects. they are a type of 1 year, but they belong to the sets (of more than 1 date). How does this parallel the Half Dismes?

    We have talked about definitions before (perfect uncirculated) but the word "set" is not a coin collecting term. A collection may more aptly fit your description. The word collection can mean, 1 or a million objects. I maybe be rigidly thinking, but a set needs more than 1 object in my world.
     
  18. Merc Crazy

    Merc Crazy Bumbling numismatic fool

    All they did was change the spelling. It's the same size, weight, diameter, country of issue, face value... it's the same set.
     
  19. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot Supporter

    If it's the same, Merc, then why is it not with the dimes and half dimes in the Redbook? why are they listed before the regular issue United States coins instead of with them? or at the very least included in the section with the other dimes and half dimes?

    I tend to think of them as I do pattern coins, but that is my own definition, not one from any book that I have read.
     
  20. Merc Crazy

    Merc Crazy Bumbling numismatic fool

    Because it's the opinion of R.S. Yeoman or whomever edited his work.

    My opinion is that they are the same. They were struck for and released into circulation, highly differentiating from patterns, which are struck and intended to be destroyed or used only privately as examples.

    The copper strike half disme(s) are what I consider to be patterns... but the silver strikes were undoubtedly intended to be circulating coins.
     
  21. Ripley

    Ripley Senior Member

    Well we all love IMG_0165.jpg it when "Street Walkers" come strolling by ..... :devil:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page