Are you a "Hole filling" collector?

@Baskan, Google translate
https://translate.google.com/
says your writing is in Turkish. You could use it to translate your question into English and ask it in a new thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Google translate

"This workpiece is great, and I have been able to find it on excellent posters on many posters. Also, [USER = 56859] [USER = 56859] @TIF [/ USER] [/ USER] has defined a mini-collection. I bet there are not three or a collector of world competitions. (I'm kidding - there is no picker for the internet "Pink Floyd" piece to fill, but there are many people for the "animals" section). You can not just tell a few people trying to complete an Indian head synthesis!"

 

...haha!..wow... that's sum purdy deep stuff der... i'll have to drop a tab to understand that translation... thanks Ryro..

 

My motivation and focus of interest in coins (and stamps too) is probably going to seem a bit "out there" to some, but it is what it is. I am only mildly interested in the history of the people on the coins. The economics of currency and denominations gets perfunctory attention, but isn't my driver. I am fascinated by the distinct and distinctive ways in which the ancient artisans approached the design challenges the system of minting required them to face, and the diversity of the output from the places where they worked. In studying a coin my goal is to get inside the head of the person(s) who made it. That cannot be done in an absolute sense, but something of that does appear when one collects a coin type in relation to others like it. For me, collecting by mint is not so much about mindlessly seeking to "get one of each" whatever. Rather it is about seeing patterns to the ways different nameless artists approached the same assignment, and trying to uncover the why of it all. Acquisition matters to me in proportion to what new levels of discovery it will bring to me. (Ah, so THAT'S why they have those particular field marks there!!! What a kick.)

 

The lrbguy system as I see it described above allows me to collect what other people consider duplicates. Among other things we try to understand why some coins are 'better' in style or how many different 'hands' produced dies or the issue. There are many ways to collect.
Are the coins below very alike one another or each very different? The answer depends on which way you collect.

 

[QUOTE = "Valentinian, yayın: 3087570, üye: 44316"] [USER = 95549] @Baskan [/ USER], Google çevir
https://translate.google.com/
yazınızın Türkçe olduğunu söylüyor. Sorunuzu İngilizce'ye çevirmek ve yeni bir konudan sormak için kullanabilirsiniz. [/ QUOTE]

İngilizce yazdım. Tercüme etmek.

 

I wrote in English. But google translated and wroted this cointalk. Can i do what?

 

Hello there. is this in your database? Can you give information about the period? this is an obol silver.

 

I just buy a bunch of what I like. Does that mean I am a hoarder.

(This is my new stuff that I have not yet given the proper initiation into my collection yet.)

 

I think I need to change my initial answer due to changes in the way I collect.

In some respects I can be a bit of a "hole filler". Examples of that is my Gordian III collection, my 12 Caesars for $3000 collection, and my 3rd Century Secessionist Empires collection.

However, in other areas my collection is more free spirited. For example, I have no specific pattern for collecting 2nd Century Roman coins, late Roman bronzes, or Republican era coinage, and the same goes with Greek coins (I buy whatever attracts my attention and I can afford).

 

As with stories of antiquity, the ending is not nearly as important as the journey. I guess we moved away from that somewhat since books became mass-produced and the ending became important. But think about a story like the Iliad. Everyone knows that Hector will die, but that's not why you read it. In the Germanic epic Niebelungenlied the fate of the characters is given away right at the beginning. Even Shakespeare's plays of well-known characters have very predictable endings.

Similarly, in our collecting experience it's not just about putting coins in places in a tray or album, it's about the history, the stories, the collecting experience. Discussing coins with others, going to shows and meeting people in person. Haggling and bargain hunting. Discovering new and interesting things that escapes the literature. Reminiscing about the thrill of the hunt, the best finds and the one that got away.

In the end a set like the 12 Caesars is easy enough to buy, with enough money and no concern for condition you could probably source the coins in a day or two, but that's not the point. In that sense having a budget makes collecting more fun, sure there are coins you can never afford, but it makes the ones you manage to eke out that much more satisfying.

 

This is really the best statement of why being a collector is fun and satisfying.

John

 

@Baskan — Antik sikke forumuna hoş geldiniz!

I hope I said that correctly, my Turkish is a little rusty.

 

Well stated and mirrors my collecting habits. I focus on the HISTORY and coins, et al, are the placemarkers that I can touch and share that history.

This was a wonderful journey for me (fast, surprisingly only 2 years!):


Now, onto Gold!

 

Awesome Etruria collection!

Not many people have one.

John

 

I am curious, what are your collecting parameters for Gordian III? BTW, love the signature!

 

Budgets can limit us both ways. We see many collectors who seem to define coins worth collecting as expensive coins. To me, there are cheap coins worth having. I'll point out that Clio has outbid me and not just those of you who collect the 'good stuff'. I would respect a collection more if it contained good examples of interesting coins that did not cost thousands. There is a good reason we who have limited budgets don't have the high end material - we can't afford it. What is the reason high end collectors don't all have fine collections of common coins? There are aurei I regret not owning because they would fit my collections. I'd love a COS II Emesa aureus and really love an Alexandrian Septimius. Are there denarii that aurei collectors deem worthy?

 

I used to be a hole filler - until I ran out of cement !!!

 

This statement contains so many unreasonable, unproven, and crypto-hostile assumptions about ancient coin collectors and collecting that it’s hard to know where to start in responding to it.

"What is the reason high end collectors don't all have fine collections of common coins?"

This question tacitly assumes that it’s unreasonable to collect specific ancient coins simply for their beauty and history – that a “real” collector would have “purer” reasons for collecting ancient coins than just beauty. Haven’t you written (many times) that collectors should collect for their own reasons, not to mimic reasons that other collectors might collect ancient coins?

"We see many collectors who seem to define coins worth collecting as expensive coins."

Whom do you believe those collectors on this site to be, Doug? Why do you believe your assertion is true about those collectors? Do you have some knowledge and insights about these mythical collectors that others on this site lack? If so, feel free to share those insights with us.

"What is the reason high end collectors don't all have fine collections of common coins?"

Quite possibly, some of those “high end” collectors are collecting for reasons different from your reasons. Are you denigrating those reasons? Are your own reasons for collecting the only valid reasons that should compel an individual to collect ancient coins?

"I would respect a collection more if it contained good examples of interesting coins that did not cost thousands."

So, is this the criteria that separates a “real” collector from a dilettante in your opinion? That a “high end” collector also collect lesser coins that you would deem collectible, even if they aren’t interesting to the high end collector?

A hypothetical question: an ancient coin collector is drawn to a particular sestertius for its history and uniqueness – say, a Caligula Three Sisters sestertius. He/she can afford a high-quality example that represents the artistry and beauty that the original engraver intended to portray. Should this hypothetical collector purposely spend less on a poorer example, with less artistry and crispness of features, in order to prove that he/she is a “real” collector?

 

Doug, I have to agree with Ides on this . You know I admire you and value your friendship, your numerous contributions to the hobby, and your collection but many times you've said things that make it seem like you assume the IOMs and AJs of the collecting world are somehow less pure/noble/serious in their collecting simply because they prefer (and can afford) the best of the best.

I don't know Ides except for this public board, but I can attest that AJ is an extremely knowledgeable, thoughtful, and diligent collector who spends considerable time contemplating which coins and types fit the narrative he aspires to tell. It's not that he doesn't appreciate lower quality coins, it's that they don't fit his collection. He's been very helpful and enthusiastic about my (much lower end) choices over the years.

Maybe you weren't implying anything negative about any CT members and maybe we've misconstrued what you said, but it must be difficult the for high end collectors of CT not to feel attacked by that post.

Let's save our disdain for buyers who treat ancients as commodities, buying solely because of certain letters on plastic.