Lately I've heard the term historical value thrown around. It wasn't used in speaking of items like The Declaration of Independence or The Gettysburg Address. It was used when speaking of 20 year old, modern-era, circulated, small sized currency. HUH ?? Did someone famous own it at one time, was it used in some historic act of commerce ? How would anyone know or document the event ? I own currency autographed by the Treasurer of the United States, and the Secretary of the Treasury , and do not even consider these notes as historical. I can see sentimental value added to notes handed down by parents or grandparents, and I can see short snorters, autographed by members of our military as somewhat historical. Common, everyday currency found in circulation should not be considered historical, or have any added value. Collectors add value to the opposite of circulated, which is uncirculated. Just about every sale or auction I've seen during my collecting hobby has shown me that the uncirculated, pristine, and problem free notes have more value than notes that have been folded, stained, and generally used for what they were intended for. Usually the better the condition, the higher the price. Look through any Coin or Currency price guide and you will see the prices get higher as the condition improves. I don't see adding historical value to well worn currency. This is my favorite quote from a current Coin Thread thread; "used, worn, battered, and beaten means more historic value over unsed, crisp, uncirculated ones. the worn ones have "been there, done that." the unused ones "sat in a corner, with no action." no one puts baby in a corner!!" Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it. The advise I was given when I first started collecting was to try and obtain the nicest example I could afford. There's nothing wrong with owning or collecting circulated currency.....I just don't see any added historic value.
