In my collecting life, whether coins or other things, I have always prefered items that had a purpose when created other than being collected. For example, when collecting bells, I prefer things made to be rung rather than being a limited edition collectable that happens to include a bell in its fabric. Today, this is definitely a minority viewpoint among coin collectors with much interest devoted to commemoratives, special proofs unlike anything that was actually spent and dates that should not exist. If the king of coins is a 1933 $20 we can ask if the king is even a coin. I was happy to see the state quarters and Jefferson nickel variations since these were made to be spent and sold by the mint for face value. Can someone give a brief history of the idea of coins made to be collected? If there is a good URL or book, I would also appreciate that reference. The earliest, I believe, might fall in this category is the Restoration series under the Roman Emperor Trajan but these are so rare today that there really is not much known about them let alone the 'why' they were issued. There are several other restoration and commemoratives from Roman times but these seemed to be full service coins circulating at face value. Are there other very old examples of 'made to be collected' coins? The Columbian half dollars were made to be sold at $1 at the Exposition making them 'made to be collected' but a good number of them were dumped into circulation at face by creditors that got stuck with them as collateral against bad loans. When I was a kid, I found Washington/Carver halves in circulation on ocassion but I think most of these were the result of people who bought them for over face tiring of them and cashing them in for the 50 cents. Are any US commemoratives also full service circulating issues or were all sold as fund raisers?
I'm with you there. People always spout "buy the best you can afford", but most of the time that refers to a piece with no character, history, or real interest. I've always prefered a coin that could tell a story. That had been used by people for everyday things. I collect history, not shiny pretty things. Guy~
im rite with u guys here. I dont think i have a coin that is over XF that i bought. My coloumbian half is well circulated and all my buffs have partial dates. I like to sit their with my coins and think who held this and what could they have gotten? Did this get used in the depression where someone used it to feed their starving family? Where might this coin have started and how was i lucky enough to have it end up with me? Sure the aspect of a MS key date is amazing, one that is in G-4 always will take the cake for me. History is the reason i collect.
Same here. Some people love the commemoratives, but that's not for me. Glad to find a few people who agree.
I certainly understand your point of view, and even agree with it to an extent. Absolutely. While I cannot speak of the ancients you mention, most European nations have produced special coins (coins not intended for use in circulation) for centuries. Most of these pieces were given to the nobility, or even the King. Amd some were given to foreign dignitaries. For it was the nobles and the Kings & Queens who were the first collectors. Today most of these coins are known as presentation pieces and they had no other purpose but to be collected. Such presentation pieces are known (at least by me) back to the 1300's and probably even before. But I am not aware of them as that time was about the limit of my interest. And they continue to be made today by virtually every country that issues coins. Now Proofs are a bit different. But that was largely a technological issue rather a desirability issue. Even so, the first Proof coin was minted in Great Britain in 1653 - IIRC, might be off 1 year. And they have been struck largely continuously since then. So to answer your question, a most definite yes. Coins that were struck with the sole purpose of being collected, or saved and put away, have been being minted for at least 700 years and probably a lot longer. The idea of selling coins as collectibles for a profit is a lot newer than the minting of them. It is largely a modern issue, in terms of time anyway. The first US Proofs were minted shortly after 1800 and they were sold for a profit. And their sole purpose was as collectibles. But yes, there have also been a few other coins that were circulating commemoratives. The Washington quarter for instance - it was entirely minted to be a commemorative. In fact it was not even supposed to be minted at all after the first year. But it became so popular that the series was continued. There have been a few others but I can't think of them off the top of my head. But today they are more common. The recent Lincoln series in 2009 comes to mind. As do the 2004 nickels, the '76 quarters, halves and dollars. All of these were commemoratives.
This made me remember a letter in this weeks NN that made me wince. The author was commented on the new proof sets, and stated, "they are nice, very shiny!" Personally, give me a jade green patina anyday. Regarding ancients, hasn't there always been presentation pieces struck even in Greek times, and certainly during Augustus' reign he struck presentation examples. Usually today when sold they might be listed as medal or something. Augustus was a coin collector, (in his way), and was interested in numismatic curiosities. I know of the restoration issues Doug, but I think Roman would be earlier. I would go so far as to list some of the posthumous Caesar issues as a commemorative type. You are more of the expert on Romans though, (by far lol). I thought I read even the "king" of Greek coins, the Athenian Octodrachms, were not really made for circulation.
I prefer coins made to be used but to each his own. The 1804 dollar was an early NCLT piece yet fetches millions of dollars. Collector coins have their place and I do like and collect some of them. Most of my favorites are coins that were intended to be used.
That's why I like satins and silver proofs - for the most part, high quality, low mintage, collector examples of circulating coins.
Thanks to all but there is a major difference between commemoratives and thngs made to be collected. Special money to be spent has been issued for centuries. Roman Emperors often released New Years asses which may be more like Maundy money than anything else. I really do not know if people who got them could sell them for more than the face value or if they were just cash worth the same as any other as. Roman medallions always struck me as something the emperor gave to certain people more or less like the US President awards a Presidential Medal of Freedom to heros. Whether they had a face value or not, I do not know but I doubt I would spend one if the Emperor gave it to me. Coin collecting has been around for a lot longer than there has been a market in coins available to just anyone. Many early collections changed hands as a full group rather than separately one at a time (Duke A bought the collection of the late Count B). Not long ago many of us collected things rather than buying collectables. I collected US coins for years before I ever understood the concept of paying more than one cent for a penny. There was a time that people collected matchbook (given free at places you visited) but now they buy limited edition collectables. If there was one thing I would change about modern US coins it would be to stop producing things to be collected that are not also made for circulation. The mint started this when they put S on proofs so there was a difference people 'needed' even if they didn't want the super high grade model. Some credit Louis Eliasberg with putting together a complete set of US coins but others are quick to point out that he did not distinguish between proofs and regular mintmarkless coins. There are coins out there that started life in a $2.10 (91 cent face) proof set but later got spent because they were removed from their package and considered defective when another coin is that set was determined to be better than (proofer?) they were and the set was broken up to allow a super set. I remember being told in the 50's that if you removed a proof from its package, you might as well spend it and considering there was a time that it was hard to get $2.10 for some of those sets, that may have been true. NCLT, Presentation pieces and face value Commemoratives like the 1932 Washingtons and 2009 Lincolns are a different matter than things made to sell rather than to spend. Was the Columbian half the first coin type made to be sold over face by the government? How much did the US mint charge the Exposition for the halves they sold for $1? Did the mint profit (above seigniorage) from other old commemoratives or was that difference always profit to the organization sponsoring the event being commemorated?
I found a 1917 Half Dollar roll searching last week. It was pretty beat up but may have been circulating for years. Might have been a slot machine half.
Officially, I believe the Columbian half was the first. I thought the mint just supplied them to the expo at face value. The mint did intentionally make 1804 dollars at least in about 1858 expressly for collectors. The mint also made available for a premium, (at least unofficially), pattern coins to collectors. These were made "extra" just for the mint, (or an employee) to sell as a premium. Would Paduans count Doug? They weren't really forgeries.
Paduans are just another gray area in the hobby. Theye were not meant to be coins since they were made a thousand years after the issuing authority ceased to exist but they were not forgeries by the standards of the day any more than we today forge coins by photographing them. They were made to fill a demand for things from olden days and the artists made them as good as they could rather than trying to make them look old. I'm surprised they were not signed. They would be worth more today if they were! That brings up the question of some modern replicas like the original Slavei's and the Antiquanova series. The producer did not make them to fool people but many of them have been passed as ancient when they are circa 1990-present manufacture. In neither case was the government involved so it is not applicable for this discussion.
I am constantly reevaluating my purpose of collecting coins and one of the points that comes to mind is do I only wish to collect coins meant to be spent as currency or do I wish to include commemoratives and do I wish to have coins that were made as bullion and given a value or other coins made purely to be collected. In the end I believe I will weed out any coins that were created solely to be collected, and my commem's will have to be decided on a case by case bases.. but I am happy to see that others have met with my same mental dilemma.
As a new collector, in the beginning it was hard for me to distinguish between collecting and investing. Then I received a 1858 Large lettering flying eagle cent and then this romanticism came to me about how this coin from such a long time ago made it's way through history to my possession. I am also amazed about the evolution of coins sometimes it seems to much to take in, but that's whats also fun about the hobby. I do not collect comms, I do have some ASE but mostly Lincoln cents, some Peace and Morgan's. Why I collect those in particular over others I do not know.
i agree. i prefer a circulated coin to a proof or commen. i want something in my collection that is from history and that has been around the block, not something that was bought and stored away by a few people.
