Ok, without the hole, I probably could not have purchased this coin for under 20 dollars... Even with the hole, I couldn't pass up this coin for 19 bucks. Tell me this doesn't make you cry.
OK. It doesn't. I realise my views might be contrary but i'm kind of `weathered in' to seeing coins that have been made into key fobs, pendants, brooches, pins etcetera. They all tell a tale of their history. Your reactionto the perception of `damage' will be down to your reason for collecting in the first place. For example, some coins in mediaeval times were holed and worn as charms against disease and evil. To get hold of such coins usually carries a premium! Some coins (especially silver coinage of Malta circa 1600 -1800's) are nigh on impossible to find without scars of having been part of some jewellery item or another. Some coins again you wouldn't stand an earthly chance of owning unless they had been considered `damaged' by the big bucks collectors due to their scarcity. Yet other `damaged' coins carry a premium because some (misguided?) love struck individual has decided to carve the initials of a loved one on it and nowadays it magically falls into a category called `love tokens'..... and carries a premium. Weird eh? Then we have `carved coins' such as hobo nickels ....or the trench art of the Franco- Prussian war / the Boer War, and WWI. We also have smugglers pieces, pill box talers, enamelled coins.....etc. etc. etc. We also (least I forget to make mention) have `officially butchered coins in the form of cut coins, holey dollars and `bits', countermarked / counterstamped coins, and chop marked coins. All of which are highly collectable. So....why should your damaged coin raise a tear or two when others in much worse condition don't? Is it a shame that the coin you have is `holed' and that you can afford it? Or is it a bounty that you have it in your possession because someone else didn't appreciate the value of it as highly as you? Sure....wouldn't it be great if we all had the money necessary to get perfect examples of everything. I don't, and i'm pretty sure that that goes for most others too. As such, for some coins in my possession I am gratefull in the main that someone had the foresight to `damage' them in the past, and that some collectors are too myopic to realise that some coins are REALLY rare whether `damaged' or not. The main factor however is that perceptions of `damage' change. They are `fashions'. At one time it was fashionable to clean coins/ wear them / enamel them/ coat them with clear resin.... etc. Who is to say that a particular `fashion' won't come around again? ;-) Ian `Holy coins Batman!'
A strange request, but since you insist......I hereby declare that from today onwards you shall be known as `old fashioned Ian'. Old fashioned or otherwise, it is important that we put these issues in to some perspective and not just follow a modernist line of thinking. Some people (myself ...and obviously the original poster included) really don't mind having a damaged coin in lieu of an undamaged one. More so if an undamaged one is financially unattainable. The most painfull `ouch' is the one on the pocket (at least for a Scotsman) sometimes `near enough is good enough' ;-) Ian
I don't mind coins like that if i want them for use as fob pieces or as pocket pieces to carry around with me and chuck about. But i'd never view them as a collectable coin... hence why i'd treat them so flippantly. I have a counterstamped 1697 William III halfcrown that was in F grade, it's been jingling around in my pocket for some time now and is decidely bright and shiny and not F anymore. So yeah i like damaged and holed coins but only because i can treat them roughly and not have to worry about the consequences of my actions on them. Although i don't count those coins as part of the collection. I am very picky Ian as you know.
Being picky is fine. I'm very picky too, but tastes differ as widely as collecting interests, and THAT is my point. For example see the following items:- The first, an enamelled crown of George III. Yep....it's been well and truly `damaged'. It has been carved, then pasted and kiln cured. From a `purist coin collector' perspective many would say it is no longer `collectable' yet consistently these coins sell for higher than an undamaged coin in mid range condition. Why is that if it is not `collectable'? Now let's look at a few `smuggler's pieces. The first image being a US trade dollar, the second being a French 10 centimes. The third showing them `open'. Sure....damaged beyond redemption as far as the `purist' is concerned? I wonder. Not collectable? Emminently collectable is more like it. Next, this one is one half of a `box' taler. Being a taler collector in the past this one really did bring a tear to my eye at first. It is a rather rare taler which has indeed (to my mind) been butchered in the unique `box taler' way. But...is it collectable ? you betcha bottom dollah it is! Then have a look at a modern `hobo' nickel. (Now I really do consider this one to be butchery!). Collectable? Well even though I think it is pretty crap, I know I can sell it for WAY over `face'. I keep it for that particular fact, even though this is totally at odds with my main reason for `collecting'. Then an officially `damaged' coin which I think actually adds to the coin rather than detracts from it. A Ryal with the crowned thistle counterstamp. `Undamaged' ones used to attract higher prices. This is no longer the case. I've plenty of other examples ranging from contemporary countermarked ancients, holed or ex mounted / still mounted rare coins, trench art carved coins. Maybe i've just got more of an eclectic taste when it comes to `collecting' but my point is `damage' does not make a coin uncollectable. Less people actively collecting them? Yes, but still collectable and in many cases...more highly sought after as a consequence.
I'll revisit this thread when i get home from work in 4 hours time and give a better reply. But i have to admit i do have a fascination with those enamelled coins, i positively like those.
I see your point, Ian. In some respect, you're right, I would not have been able to afford this coin without the hole. Without it, it probably would not have even been available - and even with the hole, I picked it up for a price that I personally would not part with it for. Even with the damage, I think it's worth twice what I paid at least. That's my opinion, of course. I still think it's a bit of a shame. This is not a common coin - at least it isn't a common coin in my experience as I have not seen many in this sort of shape (short the hole). To me, this coin represents one less. It's still nice. I still paid money for it, but it's hard not to look at it and say 'gee, I wish that hole wasn't there'.
Yes, it is indeed still nice, and of course it is VERY understandable to wish that that hole wasn't there. It is always good to get hold of nice coins in collectable condition. My point is that both you and I would appear to deem that coin of yours to be `in collectable condition', ......at least until such times as a better example appeared at an affordable price. We collectors get a sense of pleasure / satisfaction from each item we add to our stash. Sometimes it is short lived, sometimes it lasts a lifetime. That `factor' is bought and paid for, and let's face it, for what you paid for that particular coin, you certainly won't lose out on the deal when / if it comes time to sell. So....why shed any tears. ;-)
While I can feel for the damage dont to this beautiful coin, I have to laugh. In one of the other forums they were talking about a "shotgun toned" coin, and as I look at thisone, it reminds me of one piece of buckshot going thru it.
Actually, I find the hole interesting, becuase both sides show an outer punch. That may not be unusual, I don't know - but I find it odd. It looks like an older hole, but who knows why someone put the hole there? If it were for jewelry it should be at 12:00 and not 6. There are a lot of possibilities, but the hole looks old even though the punch is not worn down and the coin does not display excessive wear. Here's another damaged coin I picked up at the same show. This is a more common practice - this one was counterstamped with someone's initials. I guess it could be for many reasons from theft protection to advertisement or accounting. I picked this one up for a couple bucks - had to have it.
There are similar debates amongst gun collectors. I have a Colt Model 88 DA, serial number No.8, which is in pretty fair condition for a pistol that has been kicking around for more than 100 years. It was issued to a sailor at about the turn of the 20th Century, and represented the first non-cap-and-ball double-action service revolver issued to navy personnel. I think it replaced the famous .36 caliber Navy Colt cap-and-ball pistol. The original (probably) owner of thia handgun carved "HIPPO" on the butt of the pistol. I have no idea why, but perhaps it was his nick-name. The carving supposedly lowers the vlaue of the gun, which is not great anyway. But to me, it has always been a curiosity, not so much a detraction. By the way, this really is what Bonedigger affectionately refered to as a "hog leg". As you may recall, he showed us a Kimber semi-automatic pistol. The term "hog leg" comes from the shape of the grip.
I find those box coins fascinating but i like them not because they're coins but because they are pieces of history. Yes i know coins are pieces of history in their own right, but when a coin has been altered to me it stops being a coin. An enamelled coin becomes a piece of fashion/artwork. A holed coin becomes a piece of jewerly (just like a sovereign ring is more jewerly than coin). Of course they are all still 'coins', it's just that i don't use that noun first to describe them once they've been altered. Coins to me are for spending, if the primary purpose has been altered beyond spending then the coin becomes something else to me. i.e jewelry, smuggling box, luck charm, love token... It semantics to me. I have a very narrow definition of what makes a coin a coin, even proofs fall outside of that definition to me.
Counterstamped coins / chop marked coins / cut coins all remain `coins'. I tend to agree with that excepting holed coinage still spends. Whether it did `back then' I don't really know. I guess if I was a trader and expecting full payment, a silver coin with a hole in it would be a no no.....but then again, so would a `shaved' coin.....? I agree with that. A transformation from one thing into another. Some may grieve for the death of the former. Some may praise the creation of the latter. I think over the years my initial very narrow definition ands interests widened significantly from being a UK only collector to europe, to world, to world and medals, to world and medals and jetons and tokens. That's probably why i've got so many bits of this n' that. Somewhere in there IS focus.....but it's blurry at the best of times :smile
I'm going the other way narrowing down more and more due to both financial and time constraints. It's lucky if i get out of the 12th century England/France these days. Although i occasionally pay a visit to the 1st and 2nd century Rome and 10th century England. That's about my lot though.
