I get a kick out of this, you can have two coins, one a near flawless example, but a common date, and another in far less pristine condition but a keydate, and show the two and everyone flocks to the ugly key and oohs and aahs over it.
Morning Sir, and Happy Father's Day to you as well. In response to your question. I don't think they (the key ugly coin) look better in as much as they are HTF. I think that if an individual is "coiny " enough to know a coin is a "key date" from a common date then they are going to be impressed more by rarity than luster. Just My Opinion Bone
Happy father's day to all Bone is right I am more impressed by the rarity but it must be a good grade. Why have a key date coin if you can hardly read the date. But I don't think I have ever seen a ugly key date or any coin for that matter they are all special in there own way like the song says.
Pretty much all old uncirculated/ high grade AU's all look great. I don't really think that this is a question. But a rare coin is to be admired and awed at. I really think that there are two heads to this coin question. Pun intended. Everyone loves a good (not necessarily intended as the grade) key date, but on that same note everyone will equally appreciate high grade coin.
In my opinion it all boils down to one thing - money - and to me that's sad. You see, most people, even collectors, don't care too much about the originality, quality, beauty or history of a coin when it comes to being impressed by it. What impresses them is how much it is worth
I am more impressed by a key date coin than by a common, near-flawless coin regardless of their relative prices. If a coin is old or scarce or both, that is something special even if it is worn. If a common coin is in a high state of preservation, all it basically means is that the coin never made it out of a vault someplace or was quickly preserved after it did. You might as well call up Rawlings and ask them if they have any old baseballs in a warehouse someplace that were never delivered for use in a major league game, and somehow attach more value to that ball than to a home run caught in a World Series game because it was never used and is therefore in better condition. Condition is important, up to a point. Beyond that point it becomes more of a shared delusion, not a real value. Key date and high grade coins both seem somewhat overpriced these days in my opinion, but I'd rather have the key date.
I would be more impressed to see an XF 1916 SL quarter then say a ms 67 1958 quarter just because I do not run across the 1916 SLQ's to often.
Seems like I always find the opposite is the case. Whenever I look thriugh a lot of Indian cents for instance, I find nice chocolate brown common ones and if there happens to be a key or semikey in with them, it always has a hole or is corroded or worn to half its original thickness then cleaned to death!
I don't think it is money that makes people flock to the key date. It is the lack of money for people to afford it that make them appreciate them more. Take two key dates a 1909 s vdb in Vf and a 1916 d merc in g. Both are roughly worth the same. Do you think that anyone is going to favor the vf over the G or are they going to go ga ga over both of the coins because of their scarcity. Personally I just love the keys in higher circulated conditions, that means they actually did some traveling and they showcase their history as well as their rarity. Its a win win situation for me. (not that I cana afford many of the keys in higher circ or lower circ grades for that matter.)
Scarcity ?? :goof: This perception is commonly held by many, but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Take the '09-S VDB. Below are some population numbers (from NGC & PCGS alone) in some of the higher grades. MS66 - 2300 MS65 - 3500 MS64 - 7000 MS63 - 7000 That's almost 5% of the total mintage for the coin graded as MS63 or better. Scarcity ? :kewl:
I disagree - I have seen some ugly keydate coins . In indians I have seen some ugly 1877's - on one the only thing you could really see was the date. And my local dealer must have the ugliest 1793 chain cent and 1799 draped bust cents in the world(both AG to G). Of course I would love to own them - but they are still ugly. I spent about a 1/2 hour on saturday looking a collection they just purchased. Probably 10-15 large cents from 1793 to 1810. Most were over 1k with the two keys at 2k - the only two that I really liked were the 1808 and 1809. All dates and devices were clear, but most were slightly porous. I hope they still have them in a month or two - I might buy a couple of them.
I disagree as well. There are ugly key date coins out there, I own a 1921-D Dime thats barely G-4. The point of owning an ugly keydate coin, though is if you can't afford a good example. I recently graduated high school, and used a portion of the money to buy a coin, and I took a good long look at a very ugly AG example of an 1877 Indian head. Those coins are appealing because they're alot of people's only chance of owning such a rarity.
I didn't really state it, but my question also challenges the necessity to make your collection be a one of every date from a specific type.
I collect key dates of British Commonwealth coinage,but sometimes a worn or holed one is the only one available as a space-filler.I picked up an East African 1921 10c. coin.This piece has been struck slightly misaligned,but it is a scarce coin.As the old saying goes,"You have to take what you can find.More often than not,another one may never turn up".This was true in the case of the 1788 Barbados 'Negro Head' 1d. token.This piece was issued by Sir Phillip Gibbs,who was a plantation owner.A holed example turned up in a dealer's stock.He had a price of NZ$3 on it,so I quickly bought it,knowing full well that another one was unlikely to turn up.Since then,another one has never turned up,but an example of the 1792 Barbados 'King Neptune' 1d. token did turn up.I also bought that one as well for the same reason. Aidan.
I think this is a hard question because of the issue of value. It seems to me that a lot of people will flock to a coin because of its value rather than its rarity vs. condition. But, here is how I look at it. I know that using Red Book for "values" isn't the best idea but I asked myself which I would rather have. A 1914-D Lincoln Cent graded F-12 or a 1924-S Lincoln Cent at MS-63? Both are about the same range in value (around $250 according to Red Book)...close enough to not make much difference. I'd rather have the 1914-D; to me the scaricity is more important than the condition if all else is equal. So, I'd take the key coin.
I agree, I love my 1888O HotLips but it is in, at best, F condition. I just loved owning one of them. It will never bring much money its just the mystique of having one. And yes it IS ugly. I find myself somewhere in the middle, scarcity vs condition. The ONLY chance I could get a VAM4 is in "not so good" conditions. It'll be a LONG time before I can spend 7000 on a AU HotLips.
