Ugly and rare, or common and beautiful?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I really enjoy the artistry and design of coins supported by attractive toning, strong luster and/or flashy fields. I love looking at coins and ones without good eye appeal just don't make the cut for my collection.

 

I would choose the gold in a collectable condition. Though I would still have to wait for the right buyer. They both have there same Caveats.

 

Interesting question and good question. I don't always go for rarity, but if a nice rare coin shows up in a low grade I will take it (and I can afford it). And I agree the 2 posted are not bad at all. I like them - and doubt I could afford either of the two. So I am not going to vote.

 

It depends what the piece is. If it's a Brutus EID MAR, ugly and rare!

 

Ahhh but beauty is in the eye of the beholder! While I much prefer problem free coins I will often accept a good looking details coin to fill a slot that I might not otherwise afford normaly. At other times the price was right enough to accept them as hole fillers for the harder to come by pieces.

 

I see beauty in rarity. Not that I own anything truly rare. It depends on what someone is collecting and the level of knowledge required as well. Say there's two Morgans of the same date/mint, but one is a very scarce VAM. The generic collector goes for the pretty one, the VAM specialist jumps on the uglier VAM.

 

Yes, I'd much rather have an ugly Jovinus or Sebastianus than an EF Hadrian (which I'd also like to have).

Mine's a qualified answer; If the rarity is only a so-so rarity, then I'd like common and beautiful. If the rarity is something along the lines of the Brutus, then I'd like the other category.

 

I voted for "beautiful but more common" mostly because rarities often exceed my budget parameters. In a perfect world I'd say both are equally desirable factors.

 

I'm in on the aesthetics vs the ugly/rare. I agree with the idea that I want to show off my coins to others, and they will be disinterested if my set is rare but ugly.

 

I am not so concerned about beauty, worn used coins are fine with me, as long as they are not heavily damaged or difficult to recognize. I have a few MS of the more common of each type I collect just to be able to see all of the details, how they originally looked, but the tougher dates are mostly lower grade, many cleaned and slightly blemished, but still beautiful in my eyes.

 

I would certainly like to be in both categories simultaneously, but my wallet usually does not afford me such pleasures. Given the choice between the two options, I would take the more common but beautiful coin over something ugly but rare.

 

I'm on the other side. For me rarity is important even if it is ugly. Those preety common coins are just that, common. They are always available, just get the money together and go get one. But a lot of the coins I chase are rare. We are talking from around 10 known at the low end to 75 at the "common" end. And those are the number known in ALL grades. MOST of them are low grade and often "ugly". They do NOT come along very often. So if I am chosing between pretty common coin I can buy any day of the week and an ugly rarity that I may not have a chance at again for a decade or more, I'm going for the rarity.

 

The criteria is "equal value" though. So i'm having trouble thinking of an ugly coin with only 10-75 known whose value is equal to a "beautiful" coin. Something in MS68 perhaps? But then we're talking about a condition rarity.