Do you like old coins that look old?

I had read another post with pictures of a beautiful gold coin from over 100 years ago. The coin looked brand new and had a very high grade. It is human nature to want something perfect. You can see this in coins that are graded "cleaned". People obviously cleaned them to look perfect. It got me thinking of what I like. Its weird. I want my coin to not have scratches or dings. I want the raised surfaces to look good so I can have a true example of the coin. However, I like the imperfections. I like the wear. I like to know that my coin might have been in someone's pocket in 1900 in New York City. My coin might have rode in a Zeppelin. My coin might have purchased land out west. It comes down to the story. I am curious how many of you that are looking for coins look for lets say the perfect coin that isn't too perfect to be questioned as real. Something with character.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I like some character on my coins. To know they were used as intended. And to think of what they have seen in their lifetime.

 

You have my heart...... I enjoy a blast white solid strike too..... But my heart always lies in the dealers "bargain box" for just the reasons you described. I am afraid though, that you will find that you and I are in the minority here!

 

All of the above, I guess, because that's what I have in my collection. If I were to choose a word to describe how I like my old coins, I would pull out a word I've used before -- wholesome. The 1795 Flowing Hair dollar in F15 I recently posted, a nicely toned 1572 British sixpence in AU, an evenly gray 1840 seated dollar in VF, a milk chocolate AU58 1871 2c piece. 1889 PR66 3c nickel? That's straight from the mint into a collection, then another, then another, then eventually mine, competently cared for for 129 years.

 

I love seeing the details of a coin whether it is 5 years old or 400 years old.
But then, the $$$ may make it prohibitive to own.
But I still try.

So a XF+ for much older coins is my target but may be less.
Old US gold coins many can be bought at AU for a small premium. More scarce varieties start pushing the price up.

 

I'm not so sure about that Randy. I also like my coins well circulated because that means it has a great deal of history behind it.

 

Depends on the coin really, and its history. If it is a common coin, higher grade is better because you can see more detail. However, if from an interesting period I like some wear on them, like coins struck where Buddha lived, or when Jesus was alive in Jerusalem, etc. Wear on coins in those periods make a coin more interesting to me since you cannot prove Buddha or Jesus DIDN'T use a certain coin, and it is worn and we know it circulated where they lived.

But, then again, most ancient collectors are not nearly as picky about condition as modern collectors are, so my "higher grade" means VF.

 

Thats what I was trying to say actually..... I think my wordiness clouded my intended meaning..... As frequently happens to me.

 

I expect proofs of any age to be uncirculated when I consider them. I expect post-Great Depression coins to be mint state. From there back, it depends on the age. I will NEVER go for a AG3 or lower coin, no matter how rare. I'd rather have an empty spot. I keep all current sets up to date with each new year's offerings - one set strictly from circulation, and one set strictly from "direct from Mint" purchases. Right now I'm mostly working on finishing my Mint State Washington Quarters, and have 5 to go.

Since my ONLY 19th century collection is by type, I look for the best I can get.

 

I try to get coins that don't have problems, and if they look nice, but are a lower grade, that is fine to me.
For Lincoln cents, I buy brown coins when possible, because most 'red' coins are much more expensive, you see more problems on them, and some have been coated.

 

I like circulated coins just for the story behind it and you can tell that it is old. When a coin is over a 100 years old and it's in shape, it can sometimes be nice, but it doesn't look real.

 

Personally I love coins with stories or coins that have stories but are unknown.

One of the coins in my collection is a 1783 2 Reales which was recovered off of the shipwreck 'El Cazador'. This ship was sending hard currency(coins) by orders Charles III of Spain to New Orleans. The coins were to aid the failing economy of News Orleans which was suffering from undervalued currency in circulation and counterfeit paper money. The ship sank 50 miles off the coast of New Orleans and caused the economy of New Orleans to fail so the territory of New Orleans was given back to the French, who then turned around and sold it to The United States of America which we like to call The Louisiana Purchase.

 

Now THAT is a coin with some history. That's as cool as it gets @BlackBeard_Thatch !!

 

What I find extremely cool is a pre-1933 gold in AU55 or AU58, showing just a touch of having been in commerce. Can you imagine trading with a gold coin today?

 

I like 'em all. The ones I can't afford pristine, I can appreciate the history. My latest which I would love to have as a FDC, but still love despite her beauty marks (test cuts).

 

I like them all....

Shinny 2000 year old beauties




dark 2000 year old beauties full of character



and straight from the ground 2,000 year old beauties



I like 100 year old coins too, though they are not old, they are modern to me.

 

I like luster, so im in the gem BU camp myself. 63 64 65s make up the majority of my collection. Preferably under graded with a splash of color.

 

ok uncirculated coins bring the money so I like coins for that reason, but I really don't have uncirculated coins so I like the stories of the others. Uncirculated coins are kind of spoiled because they haven't been in circulation and they haven't seen things that circulated coins have.

 

I collect Ancients. I enjoy coins that have been circulated as they have been used for their original intent: commerce. These have been touched by folks during the time history was being made.

Personally, I consider "Moderns" after AD 200.
This one was minted within two weeks of Julius Caesar being assassinated:


Roman Republic / Imperatorial
Julius Caesar
P. Sepullius Macer. Moneyer
AR (Silver) Denarius Jan. - March 44 BCE,
19mm. 4.1 g
Obv: CAESAR – DICT PERPETVO Veiled and wreathed head of Caesar r.
Rev: P·SEPVLLIVS – MACER Venus standing l., holding Victory and sceptre resting on star.
Ref: B. Julia 50 and Sepullia 5. C. 39. Sydenham 1074a. Sear Imperators 107e. Crawford, 480/14.

FORUM COINS:
"The coin that killed" Caesar The obverse legend declares Caesar is "Dictator for Life" (DICT PERPETVO) and he wears the veil, symbolic of his life-term position as Pontifex Maximus. Caesar would be both the dictator and high priest of Rome for the remainder of his life, but his life would end only a few weeks after this coin was struck. For Caesar to put his image on coins and in effect declare himself king was too much for Brutus and his republican allies. On the Ides of March (15 March) 44 B.C. Caesar was stabbed to death by as many as 60 conspirators, led by Brutus and Cassius. According to Plutarch, a seer had warned that harm would come to Caesar no later than the Ides of March. On his way to the Theater of Pompey, where he would be assassinated, Caesar passed the seer and joked, "The ides of March have come," meaning to say that the prophecy had not been fulfilled, to which the seer replied "Aye, Caesar; but not gone." This meeting is famously dramatized in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, when Caesar is warned by the soothsayer to "beware the Ides of March."

Minted for Caesar's planned Parthian war, this type was often carelessly struck indicating the mint was working under great pressure.

 

I hear this argument brought up time and time again about how circulated coins have real history to them, as if somehow uncirculated coins of the same age do not. It's a flawed argument. A hundred year old coin is a hundred year old coin. A coin that has survived in mint state does not have any less history, it's just that it took a different path to get there.

I definitely enjoy and appreciate the history of circulated coins, but I find the history of uncirculated coins to be much more interesting. You may speculate on who may have used a coin in commerce, but the odds are that it wasn't anyone of note, and the coins likely circulated a bit and then ended up in some box or drawer for a long time, which is why the example survived.

Compare this to the history of a hundred year old mint state coin. Was the coin set aside and lost for a century to be found in pristine condition by accident, or kept in a coin cabinet with care for generations? Was it owned by a prominent collector or given to a dignitary as a specimen? Was it treasured by a family who passed it down from generation to generation? What extraordinary set of circumstances allowed a coin to survive for 100+ years in a hyper gem state? Aside from the appreciation of the sculptural beauty and the historical interest, I find pondering questions like these to be at least just as interesting as contemplating the life of a heavily-circulated coin.