Stabbed Coins and the Coin Album Dilemma

THAT'S the part that doesn't work for you? Wow. What about the pointless distinction at 1964?!?

Earth to kanga, earth calling kanga ... THAT'S 53 YEARS AGO!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I could only wish I had a type set as extensive.

 

Hmmm, I'd call stopping at 1964 intuitively obvious.
The last year of US business strikes in 90% silver.
I find the intrinsic value of silver coins a plus.
BTW my type set is about complete; I'm short about 6-8 coins, all in the 1790's.

 

Seriously, why on earth should that matter?

 

...and several dozens post-1964.

 

Maybe my age shows but I have an issue with modern coinage since the mint has opened Pandoras box as to the number of coin types. I have no problem if ones cup of tea is collecting the multitude of Washington quarters since 1999 and others over the past few decades. I like to stick to traditional issues, learning some history in the process. The modern mint has gone commercial and is trying to make money.

 

What the devil's wrong with both simultaneously? I'm working on completing the Washington Quarter series in BU, and "complete" means right up until this day, proof and BU, all metals offered. Some (actually quite a few) are tougher in MS65 and up as clads than in silver.

 

I didn't say there's anything wrong with it if that's what you like; all power to you. That's what's nice about numismatics; many options. For me, going back to older issues may be related to my early years of collecting which I had to put off for 30+ years. I'm happy you found an avenue which interests you.

 

I'm just forever bemused (not amused - it's different) with the pathological significance and artifice surrounding 1964 and the end of silver circulating coins. Nothing matters less to me or my son. I learn by watching him. He's NEVER found 1964 to be important. The whole "end of silver" thing is no more relevant to him than "seated with arrows" is to my experience.

 

I was collecting nothing but lincoln cents and jefferson nickels by the early 70's at the age of 8. For cents it was 1958 or earlier (duh). For the nickels it was 1964 or earlier (I'll leave it up to you to guess why - it has nothing to do with silver, at least directly).

 

I just keep in mind that for a 21-year-old numismatist (and ANA-certified numismatic exhibit judge), 1964 is as far into ancient history for him as the change from the raised date to recessed date change on the Standing Liberty Quarter is to me. He was born when I was 40. Every year that goes by, the crowd that finds 1964 important gets smaller and smaller, and will soon enough die off, IF we avoid infecting them with our generation's biases and proclivities.

Clad coins happened fully 31 years before he existed.

 

End of mint marks? Really?

 

Yep. End of mint marks on the reverse. Talk about arbitrary eh?

 

Mind you, once i picked up collecting again at the age of 45, I quickly filled in all of the post-58 cent holes and the post-64 nickel holes in a matter of a few weeks from pocket change!

 

Wow. I can see doing that initially. I was ticked off too that my Blue Whitman nickel folder already was pre-printed for a 1965-D hole, but I got over it quickly. How long did it take you?

I'm all about questioning old decisions and resetting.

 

When I came back full bore, NOTHING was from pocket change. ALL my post-1964 EVERYTHING is from mint set or proof set breakouts, except 1982 and 1983, of course. I'm a quality snob. I'd rather have an empty album hole than fill it with a crummy coin.

 

I wasn't around when most of the coinage I'm interested in were circulating. I don't see a generational bias in what I'm interested in. I'd hope that your son would find an interest in obsolete as well as current issues.

 

Oh he does, and in obsolete NATIONS too. He has the best Soviet collection I've ever seen. But the U.S. 1964/65 transition means absolutely NOTHING to him. We've discussed it at length.

I don't assume anyone's familiarity with Soviet coins, but once you've plowed that field, composition changes in coins is pretty unremarkable, generally speaking.

 

The nice thing about a type set is that people get to define it as they please.
Stopping at 1964 pleases me.

How many collectors do you know that define an SLQ type set as 3 coins?
I do.

 

You've got my curiosity. What are the three types? I can only think of two. I'm not a SLQ collector as of yet but hope to add a few as time goes by. I really want a 1916 since it was my mothers birth year but that will take some time. 1916 is not a good year to build a year set