Do you care about completing a series?

Bing bing bing!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I like collecting and completing sets. The big issue is to be patient. It took me 15 years to complete an early commem set. Regarding walker halves, I am 8 away and they are very difficult to find for the grade I am looking for.

 

I do type sets more than a Series

 

I'm a scatter-brain collector. I seem to be all over the place. I completed a Franklin set in MS. I have almost a complete large cent collection, and I'm close (11 left) to an MS/hi-AU set (1932 - 2008) of Washingtons with proofs. I just started an Old Silver Commemoratives set (21 so far), which should prove to be interesting. (make that 22, just bought a Norfolk in MS66)

But at the same time, I grab anything that is undervalued, I think is cool, or is something I don't have an example of.

So while I'm sort of a series collector, I'm also a type collector.

 

I don't either. I am curious as to why you don't. Care to share?

 

There is only one "series" that I'm actively collecting -- all others have been dismantled either fully or partially out of boredom. When the only difference from one coin to another is the date or some trivial mint mark (...or VAM or RPM or ... other inconsequential variety), it tends to bore me to tears.

In general, I have gravitated away from "plugging holes" in predefined sets. I tend to collect whatever I find interesting these days.

To each his/her own.

 

I collect coins. To me an important part of the definition of what a coin is, is the fact that they are issued with the INTENT that they circulate as money. Proofs and or NCLT items are NOT issued with the intent that they circulate as money so as far as I am concerned they are not coins (although they look like them) and so I don't need them as part of my coin collection.

 

I collect series by type, by date/mint, and by variety, depending on the set. But I don't see how a type set isn't just a macro level series itself. For example a first-year set of seated coinage is a type set, but it's also a series. It depends on how you look at it. Then on the micro level, you have variety collectors too. For Morgans and capped bust halves for example, you have significant series that can consist of the varieties for just one date.

 

A series is defined by a coin design and denomination but with different dates or mint marks. A type collection contains one representative coin of each series (regardless of the date or mint-mark of that coin). They are quite different things.

 

That is one general use of series in numismatics sure, but not the only one. That's my point.

By your definition, the state quarters series isn't a series because there are multiple types in the same year, and multiple types by state. Is each state's quarter for PDS an entire series, or is the entire set a thematic series at a higher level? There are numerous other exceptions to the general usage of series.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

I'll never be able to finish my key collecting set, Australian Pre-Decimal Pennies. the key 1930 sells for $30,000+ so I doubt I'll ever be able to own one. But I have almost all the rest. Missing two varieties, once I have those then I'll consider my set complete.

 

This is where I'm at as well.

I haven't collected date/mint mark series since I was a kid plugging coins into Whitman folders.

I do pursue certain themes (for example, British Empire), so in one sense those constitute sets, but not in the way the OP defined it.

 

I like to collect a series, but not exclusively or by one set at a time. I want to finish a walker collection but the early dates are not easy to find in the grade I am looking for. So in the meantime I am starting a collection of standing liberty quarters. I also like type coins and looking for a Fugio and maybe a seated dollar.

 

I finally completed the 3 CN set yesterday when I found a nice raw AU 1885. I had lacked the date for over a decade now, but finally will put it to bed. I'm assuming that you're missing the 85 as well.

 

Well, I consider myself a budget-constrained collector. Granted, if I shop prudently I should be able to get back what I put in, but then I'd have to give up something!

This leads me to avoid big-ticket key dates, so I don't try at all to complete a series. I do like to see what the designer intended, and like to see how the coins ripen with age. I have all Lincoln cents except the two key dates. I have about 20 Buffaloes.

But in general I will acquire an example of a series that looks cool, or a coin with nuanced colors, or a coin that sets off the others like it.

I come down on the side of buying what I like, and avoiding key dates if I can get more coins in its place.

 

No I have a nice AU 1885 as well. I've had it since 1987. I'm missing the 1884.

 

That entire date range is VERY tough. Only a few thousand minted in each date.

 

I do both. I am almost done with my first Ike Set. I will probably continue to build more sets of Ikes. I also collect Morgans but by no means would I ever go for all of them or even one of every year. I am still new to collecting, Ikes and Morgans are most of what I what to pick up right now. That will change in time I am sure.

 

Good luck, I got the 79, 80, 84 and 89 when I bought a partial set in the early nineties and it's taken me this long to finally wrap up the set.

 

I've completed a couple of date/mint sets. Both times I felt I had accomplished something, then shortly thereafter wondered why I even bothered? Since the end result for me became a let down, I don't do sets anymore. I now try to find nice examples of coins with eye appeal, regardless of denomination, mint, date or from which nation. That suits me better, but everyone needs to find their niche and not be surprised when your desire changes mid-course.