how many people collect Kennedy halves?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by fusiafinch, Aug 19, 2009.

  1. 19Lyds

    19Lyds Member of the United States of Confusion

    I collect them. I used to have a roll set in the early 80's but sold them for race tires. I've since gotten back into "accumulating" a couple here and there.

    Some are really, really tough so I appreciated having found this one so easily:



    It actually got me going on all those varieties.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. Dollar1948

    Dollar1948 New Member

    Funny you should mention this.I am a Canadian and i was in Las Vegas Feb 20-27th, and the small variety store in the lobby of The Mirage gave me a 2007D kennedy in my change.
    Was this standard?
  4. Pilkenton

    Pilkenton almost uncirculated

    I love Kennedy silver. The 40% ones are cheap. Sometimes you can get them on ebay for dirt cheap.
  5. mpcusa

    mpcusa "Official C.T. TROLL SWEEPER"

    I have a couple lying around some where :)
  6. financeman

    financeman Lincoln Cent Connoisseur

    Yeah, I ma sure it is just a "couple" you have laying around there :goofer:
    You probably have a room dedicated just to those that you cant fit one more into. :bow:
    Of course, this is just my assumption.


    I like them and have them all but a few proof clads and the silver proofs which I am working on right now.
  8. bobbeth87

    bobbeth87 Coin Collector

    I have a dansco filled (without proofs), I collect the silver ones, and I'm trying to put together a set of circulated proof coins. I only need about 9 more to complete it (anyone with extra impaired proofs and want to trade for my doubles, PM me).
  9. bhp3rd

    bhp3rd Die varieties, Gems

    George, great going good for you!!!
    Now that is a rare coin.
  10. giorgio11

    giorgio11 Senior Numismatist

    Thanks Ben. You're a sharp cookie, but I knew that! I'm glad somebody else in this forum picked up on what I was saying! Guys, it's a 1964 SMS, not a 1965-67 SMS.

    PS 19Lyds, nice 1972 No FG! Your Registry Set is really coming along!

    Best Regards Guys,


    Here are a few pics of my collection.[​IMG]



    sorry still learning on photobucket lol.:whistle:
  13. Caleb

    Caleb Active Member

    Have fun collecting ....... don't worry about being number 1 in any of the online Registries, it doesn't mean that much.

  14. LindeDad

    LindeDad His Walker.

    Anybody happen to have a 1980-D in PCGS MS65 or MS66 I am a buyer for this one only.

    Added reason this one only is I have all the other circulation coins except a couple of the varities and a few of the proofs as well.
  15. giorgio11

    giorgio11 Senior Numismatist

    Well I certainly do have fun collecting, and that is always the foremost reason to begin any collection. But the urge for completion that I think every collector has also breeds competition, and I must admit that now that I am in my 60s I am more competitive than when I was a long-haired, laid-back, "don't trust anyone over 30" pseudohippie. Perhaps it is the increasing intimations of my own mortality. I must say too that while there is little difference in number 1 and number 4 -- an extra variety here, an extra point there ("old Macdonald had a farm") -- certain people are at the top of the heap looking down (but those same people sure offer me some nice coins from time to time). :hug:

    Lindedad, I'll keep an eye out for a 1980-D for you.
  16. rev1774

    rev1774 Well-Known Member

    I would always find nice 65-69's in rolls from the bank, especially around the holidays... never found a 70 though.. I have some nice modern silver proofs as well. Always kind of liked the look of them...
  17. redwin117

    redwin117 Junior Member

    Some of My kennedys Collection start ACCENTED HAIR Cameo 1964

  18. Caleb

    Caleb Active Member


    I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful with my comment, just stating that the online Registry at PCGS and NGC are not all that they are cracked up to be.

    PCGS treats the 1964 Accented Hair Proof as a variety. How can the first design be a variety of the second design? Shouldn’t the first design be the standard and any modifications or differences are the varieties? NGC requires both the Accented Hair and the “non” Accented Hair 1964 Proofs in its Registry basic set. I couldn’t imagine collecting a complete basic set of Stand Liberty Quarters without wanting an example of both Type1 and Type2 1917 quarters.

    PCGS treats the 1998-S Mattie as a variety and not a basic coin. What is it a variety of? Is there another 1998-S Silver circulation strike coin out there in the Kennedy series? I don’t understand how PCGS can designate a coin a variety when there is no basic coin.

    In the basic Jefferson nickel collection in the PCGS Registry, they require both the 1994 SMS and the 1997 SMS along with the regular business strike coins for those years. Why is the 1998-S SMS treated differently in the Registry, where is the consistency? All three coins came from the US Mint in “special” offerings of commemorative coins.

    Don’t even think about getting me going on PCGS in their Registry concerning the variety sets. PCGS has what they call the “Major Varieties” and requires the 1964-D DDO-005 but not the 1964-D DDO-003 when they are both classic varieties for the series and both as strong on the spread as each other.

    How about the 1964-D RPM-001 or RPM-002. In the PCGS Registry the set owner decides which one to put into the “Major Variety” set. Neither one is a “major” variety.

    PCGS stated that they will use the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Edition, Volume II of the Cherrypickers’ Guide to determine which varieties they will attribute and require in the modern coin series. Talk about a cop out, some of the varieties listed in this book for the Kennedy series wouldn’t even make the top 150 list, let alone the top 50. After studying the Cherrypickers’ Guide for the past couple of years, the only conclusion that I can come up with is that when they were completing Volume II of the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Edition they must have been using what ever varieties they had laying around just to fill the pages, at least for the Kennedy series. Just to give a few examples:
    1. The 1972-D “no FG” gets listed but not the 1982-P or the 1983-P “no FG”.
    2. The 1967 DDO-007 but not the 1967 DDO-001.
    3. The 1964-D DDO-004 but not the 1964-D DDO-009 or DDO-010.
    4. The 1972 DDO-001 but not the 1971 (P) DDO-001.
    5. How about the 1968-D DDO-002 or the 1965 DDR-001 both got listed in the Guide and they are so minor that I hope the collector looking for these has a good loupe to spot them.

    The only bright side to the Cherrypickers’ Guide is I believe Ken Potter is putting in more thought on what should “make the cut” for inclusion in the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Edition.

    So don’t worry about what place you are in at the online Registries, build your sets they way you want them, what makes sense to you, and above all else …. Have fun! And no, I don’t consider myself as being on the “top of the heap look down”, like most collectors I’m always looking for upgrades or that coin I just don’t have yet.

  19. rev1774

    rev1774 Well-Known Member

    Very interesting read ~~
  20. giorgio11

    giorgio11 Senior Numismatist

    I certainly didn't take it as disrespect, and I totally agree that the Cherrypickers' Guides are a pretty much random selection. You guys have done a wonderful job of going Far Above and Beyond those coins. Of course the Accented Hair is not a variety, it is the first proof subtype, and the non-AH is the second. This is a good reminder for all collectors that there are many varieties that are unlisted in the CPG, others are listed only in fine print in the Appendices at the back of various editions, and of course many other undiscovered varieties await a fresh pair of numismatic eyes.
  21. kidkayt

    kidkayt Senior Member

    I have just started a collection of the proofs and the SMS pieces. I have the two 1964 types, the 1965-71 and a 1976 and 1982P no FG. I like the Kennedy Half and I'm hoping to have a full set eventually.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page