Are you a "Hole filling" collector?

This...

And this...

I'm for the most part an opportunistic generalist, but I also have my boxes to check/holes to fill/coins on my want list to cross. If I ever stop being a "hole-filler", it will only be because I've filled them all. Probably won't happen in this lifetime?

Speaking of holes and filling them, here's my latest holed coin...



No, I'm not going to fill the hole... it's the coin itself that fills a hole in my nascent Holed Twelve Caesars set. Yes, the hole looks to be of modern manufacture, but as far as I'm concerned, as long as it has a hole, I'll consider the hole filled. Two down, ten to go.

Hey... don't judge! You have your holes to fill, I have mine .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have no problem with the concept of filling holes as long as I am the one defining the holes I am to fill. You can pick your holes, too, as long as you have any idea what that hole is. Of the Roman sets mentioned so far here, the ones that appeal to me are:

3. It would seem a more popular hole set is "The Twelve Most Obscure, Least Significant Romans". Can you name 12 rulers that lasted a short time, accomplished nothing of note and never actually had a good shot at ruling the whole Empire? Those holes being filled first show the popular desire to prove what a big dog you are.

4. Yes!

 

I try to fill holes in my specialized collections and subsets (Divi series, Dombes, etc...)
As for my generalist's roman coins collection I guess there's only one big (enormous) hole to fill, hence I get what appeals to me and that's it

Q

 

It does seem to me that all collecting is more or less a process of "hole filling." If not a literal hole, as in a coin album, than an emotional or intellectual hole. Those who say that they don't fill holes, they buy what speaks to them or something of the sort... well, this is also true for me to a great extent. But this is really another way of saying that there is a hole that needs to be filled — a figurative hole, which is the urge to possess that particular coin. Otherwise we would be satisfied to not own it. We would just look at it and say, "wonderful coin!" and that would be the end of it.

If we buy what speaks to us long enough and accumulate enough, I think most of us start to identify patterns to our preferences, and it's natural to want to think about developing these patterns into literal sets. When arrived at in this way, "hole filling" is less rote exercise and more of an exploratory and educational process. We learn something from each new coin that we acquire, and each coin placed within the context of other coins brings progress to the story that we are telling through our material, or the story that the material is telling to us.

One thing I really like about collecting ancient coins versus collecting modern coins is that it is easier to define for ourselves the particular set of holes. This is my perception at least. For example, with US coins, there are well-defined standard "sets" that most collectors stick with. Every CC Morgan dollar, or a complete set of proof Ikes. There is a need for completion that is part of human nature, and there's nothing wrong with this. A complete set of anything is very satisfying! If my interest lies with Ike dollars and I've nearly completed a set of them, why should I be content to never fill that last hole? "A Complete Set of Ike Dollars," or "A Complete Set of Ike Dollars Except for One"?

Ancient coins offer such incredible scope for creativity, flexibility, and quirk. Certainly there are standard "sets" with ancients as well, such as the Twelve Caesars or Gallienus's Zoo. Who would be truly satisfied to own eleven Caesars but never pursue the twelfth? That person would be quite exceptional, like a Buddhist monk or something.

But with ancients there are so many emperors, mints, types, and so many minor varieties being discovered every day, so many unknowns and extreme rarities, many of which are quite obtainable because there is little demand for obscure stuff. Every ancient coin is unique, even if struck from the same dies. How can completion be defined for us externally then? I honestly don't think it can, and this offers a great sense of freedom. Ancient coins are an ideal collecting area for which buying what speaks us and filling literal holes can converge in a very satisfactory way.

 

I am kind of a hole filler, but kind of not. If a particular coin appeals to me then I will go for it regardless of which emperor it is. My other activity is hole-filling, whether I will complete the usurpers however, is unknown.

 

LOL!!! What an awesome idea! Great write-up!

Here is a hole filler... I did not have a Lepidus... now I filled a HOLE:


RImp Spain Lepida-Clesa Lepidus - mon C Balbus L Porcius Colonia Victrix Ivlia Lepida Victory - Bull holed RPI 262 plate 19

He served as a Consul with Julius Caesar in 46 BCE, succeeded after Julius Caesar's death in 44 BCE as Pontifex Maximus for 31 years! and was a Triumvir with Octavian and Marc Antony.

 

Growing up I did as MANY others did (and I presume many still do), by using the blue Whitman folders for Indian Cents, Lincoln Cents, Jefferson Nickels, Mercury Dimes, etc. The clear intentional modus operandi was to "fill the holes"... all the holes... each and every one of the holes. I have always taken the term "hole filler" as a descriptor for doing exactly that. With that in mind then, a true Judean and/or Biblical coin collector, who also was a "hole filler", would literally desire and work toward getting an example of each and every Hendin reference number. Ray, I don't see you attempting to do that. Yet.

I love the chart you made! It makes me want to do likewise. And you have some lovely examples!!!

If I may, I'd like to humbly offer some edits/refinements:

I notice the first five coins utilize the Hendin reference numbers from Hendin's Volume 4, while the remainder of the coins utilize the current reference numbers from Volume 5. By changing to all Volume 5 numbers it would put the coins in an improved order... chronologically if nothing else.

The chart is titled coins of Jerusalem, but not all the coins shown were struck in that city. At least one is from Tiberias in Galilee (Antipas), at least one is from Samaria (Herod I 8-prutot), at least one from Ashkelon (Hendin_1120), and I believe there may be a type or two from Caesarea Maritima.

The Hendin_1170 is a four-prutot issue, rather than a two-prutot.

The Hendin_1360 is accurately shown specifically dated to 67/68AD. However, with the same specificity, the Hendin_1369 can be listed as 69/70AD rather than the slightly broader range as shown (66-70AD).

Forigve what some may view as a nitpick, but the Hendin_1131 says "Antiochus VII under Hyrcanus I" even though Hyrcanus was never above the Seleucid emperor. At most it can only be said, "Antiochus VII with Hyrcanus I" (which is the way David Hendin terms this type).

But having said all that, again I say, I love your chart so much it makes me want to do likewise with my own coins! And as the well-known saying goes, "imitation is the highest form of flattery"!

 

Greetings @philologus_1 —Thank you for your excellent comments. I'm definitely going to apply them to my next version of the poster. The older Hendin classification numbers do cause some problems with the chronology and I'm going need to re-work the order in which they appear. Also, I confess that all of the coins are not from the Jerusalem Mint and I'm open to suggestions for a sub-title.

Actually my original collection was entirely from Jerusalem because all of my coins were purchased from the L. Alexander Wolfe company in Jerusalem.

Again, I appreciate your comments! It's great to exchange ideas with another collector who is interested in Judaean coins. I'm really just a beginner with a credit card and a lot of enthusiasm

 

Thinking your a rare breed there. Not thinking most will agree with you. But the moral of the story is. We are what floats or boats

 

Hear daht

 

It seems the term "hole-filler" has at least two rather distinct usages:

"Hole-filler" (noun). Referring to a coin collector: a pejorative label for someone who acquires coins with the simple goal of checking a box, filling a literal hole in a coin album, or for no purpose other than completion of a set; the collector has little interest in educating himself or herself further about the coin.

"Hole-filler" (noun). Referring to a coin: an inferior coin acquired as a placeholder or as compromise for a coin that is otherwise out of reach financially or that is infrequently available.

I assume the vast majority of posters on this Ancients board do not fit the first definition After all, we're here every day dissecting the minute details of our lovely coins

 

What you said sounds like all of us members. But you said it first. Big Gold Star

 

Not the prettiest coin but i think I'd like to have that one. Great detail for such ware. Did you drill that hole yesterday

 

You're welcome! My pleasure! I enjoy sharing what I've learned from other collectors over the past 25 years.

I appreciate your humor re: all your "Ancient Jerusalem" chart coins actually being from Jerusalem because they went through the hands of Lenny Wolfe. :-D In that same vein, I should make a chart of the several nice ancient biblical coins in my collection which are actually attributable to NY, USA! I could call them my "Big Apple" set. ;-)

 

I personally have a less specific definition of this type of collector. As many here know, my goal is basically to check off all Roman Republic types and varieties(which isn't possible, but it gives me something to work towards). Rather than blindly checking them off without learning about the coins, part of my goal in checking so many off is also to look for coins that add new holes, new varieties and whatnot. I know a handful of other collectors with similar goals who might not object to the term "hole-filler" but who would certainly have a different definition of it.

 

Yeah... there are definitely more than two meanings to the phrase and I wasn't disparaging your intellectual style of collecting

 

@Pompeius @Ryro @Jwt708 @Severus Alexander @Orfew @Sallent @Cherd @Nathan401 @randygeki @Pellinore @TIF @Roman Collector @ominus1 @David Atherton @Gavin Richardson @zumbly @dougsmit @Cucumbor @benhur767 @ancient coin hunter @Alegandron @philologus_1 @Cheech9712 @red_spork


I wish to
Thank All of You
for your interesting and inspiring
comments!

The thought that I come away from this discussion is:

Hole filling is okay,
so long as you're learning and
Having Fun

​

 

Thanks for the poster, Deacon Ray!

I like to use your posters as a reference for my own collection and what coins I need to get.

I have a lot of holes, but I look forward to being able to start filling them!

Erin

 

Thank you, Erin! That's great that you can use them as a reference. They're not perfect however and I appreciate when Ancient Forum folks proof read them for me. My actual collection doesn't resemble the posters.

Here's my collection

 

On another thread @dougsmit suggested "buying appealing coins that are available when they are available rather than saying 'my next coin will be a Hadrian sestertius'".

When I go to a coin show I am looking for the best coin of type I don't already have. I usually pass on underpriced incredible coins if I already have an example in F. In this way I am very much a hole-filler and would have a much better collection if I was into upgrading.

In the book Greek Coins by John Anthony (a different John Anthony) he warns of the danger of trying to collect specific coins. There are many coins so rare you are unlikely to ever come across a nice one, or a good price, during your entire life. Yet he was writing before the Internet. I am sure many of us have seen 10x or 100x as many photos of coins as John Anthony saw actual coins. Maybe it is possible to imagine a collection and achieve it.