Be Honest.......Is it really beautiful or.......

Sometimes I wonder if we like certain coins more than others in our collection simply because they are rare, difficult to find and fairly expensive (relatively) or do we really find them beautiful.

Would other collectors also find the coin beautiful or desire to add it to their collection? If I were to be totally honest, I am attracted to coins that mark a major life-changing event in history or portray/are struck in the name of a memorable historical figure.

These would hold a special place in my collection and I could start to find them attractive even if they were disliked when originally struck.

Case in point is this MS62 1654 Commonwealth Unite which is the highest graded of 2 know specimens for the year. It was issued for a short period before the series carrying the bust of Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector and ruler of England appeared.

These were fairly crudely struck coins and were not liked by people at that time. They earned the nickname Breeches money because the two shields gave the appearance of breeches.

I like the coin because of it's uniqueness and the troubled times it represents in the history of England. I had a tough time tracking it down and ad to wait for several years before finding it. So, for me, apart from the monetary expense, the thrill of the hunt makes it special.

Please feel free to share details and photos of coins in your collection which you would rate highly even if you don't think they are particularly attractive or beautiful:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think you always need to separate the beauty of the coin from its historical or personal significance. The coin in question is not, to my mind, beautiful. It is a simple and fairly inelegant design, sadly similar to many modern British coins. (More concerned with making a political point than any aesthetic appeal.)

But it is historically very significant. Would I want to own one? Damn sure I would! Can I afford one? Heck no!

 

How do I top PaddyB?

 

Beauty is so subjective. And it doesn't have to apply only to pure aesthetics. Personally, I find that many of the cruder hammered designs have more "beauty" from a human perspective. One can't escape the purely human element, not to mention the limitations that went along with it, that went into such pieces. The fact that human hands that disappeared so long ago, we will likely never know exactly whose, forged these so-called "crude" items within the context of their times gives them a deep beauty. One has to have the ability to put such pieces into the context of their own era and technology, which can require some imagination and scrutiny beyond mere surface design appeal. Add to it the historical perspective of the fall of Rome and the loss of their meticulous coinage techniques, the relative "crudity" of the coin above, along with nearly all medieval hammered coins, signifies the non-linearity of progress that we all take for granted today (whether wisely or not is another question) and it teaches us something about ourselves and our world. Plus, gold is almost always pretty to look at. If all of that isn't beautiful, then I don't know what is.

 

Beauty is subjective. I find beauty in toned coins. Many people hate toning.

 

Thank you for your comments but I'd like to see some of the coins in your collections which may not look "beautiful' to the common eye but has a significant meaning and value in your collection.

 

It all depends on the type of toning. These are all beautiful and they are enhanced by the lovely toning

 

Cuba in lower grade, but if any of you collect Cuban coins know that the 40 centavos coin in any grade has value...




This type coin in high grade brings a lot of money. This also has sentimental value because most of the time you cannot buy Cuban coins on Ebay. Sometimes sellers sell them labeled Caribbean, or Peso, or centavos to get around posting the Cuba name.

 

France 1815 20 Francs. Rather uninspiring, I feel even the portrait is very ordinary. However this was struck during the famous 100 days war after Napoleon's escape from Elba and his final defeat at Waterloo:

 

I agree that the aesthetics of a coin need to be taken in the context of what was achievable at the time. The Commonwealth Unite was made at a time when they were capable of much more beautiful designs, both in Britain and across Europe. However the Puritans deliberately spurned elaborate beauty as "Popish frippery". This is one of the reasons the coin is historically so significant.

To answer the request for non-beautiful coins that are nevertheless significant, here is my Athelstan Penny. The design is prosaic at a time when far more attractive and realistic portraits were possible, but as a coin from the grandson of Alfred the Great and a man who achieved more in the unification of England even than his grandsire, it holds a special place in my collection.

 

I would say this coin is far from beautiful but it hold a special place in my collection because it is very historically significant, an artifact of a time and place of great change in Europe.

Denier - OTTO V (Brandenburg-Salzwedel)
Mint - Spandau

Born: 1246 (est)
Margrave: A.D. 1267-1298

Obverse: Seated Figure - OTTO V

Reverse: Plumed Helmet - OTTO

 

... and on the other had, here is a coin/token, which I think is inordinately beautiful and has very little historical significance:

 

Agreed

 

Although I don't think this is a beautiful coin, it is very attractive to me. It is a big copper coin, (roughly half dollar size) and pretty crude. That said these coins really speak to me. This was the first coin I ever purchased from Stacks & Bowers and started me collecting coins from Portuguese colonies.

I now have quite a few and have read a lot on the subject.

 

Absolutely stunning imo.

 

Although I would have cheered for the Royalists, your Cromwell AV Unite is a beautifull piece. But it is also historically important for being issued during the so called Commonwealth era, in between the reigns of Charles I and Charles II.
John

 

I find this quite an attractive piece. Thanks for sharing

 

I would have guessed you'd cheer for Charles I. TBH Cromwell ended up doing exactly what he initially opposed....a dynastic pseudo monarchy under a different banner. Otherwise why pass the reign onto an incompetent and foolish son who couldn't last one year? Was no one else in all of England competent enough to run the country through parliament?!!

On a totally different and unconnected subject, there was a Grade II listed cottage in the village of Pinner, Middlesex, UK where Charles I is supposed to have taken refuge from the Roundheads. It was on my route and I was always fascinated by it's historical significance. This was long before I started collecting coins.

 

I have a number of world proof sets from my birth year at home. While I'd like to keep my age private, I will say that my Soviet set is pretty darn ugly, and the coin designs uninspired. Here are some images of a similar set:





I regard my couple of North Korean coins in much the same way. They were inexpensive, and I don't think they're very pretty, but I think it's cool to have them because few people have ever seen a coin from North Korea.

 

Another from your "knackered die" collection?