How strict are you with coin quality?

Kudos to the OP. This is an excellent question for a coin forum, and I think you'll get some interesting answers . . . including a lot of the "it depends" variety.

In my case, the answer is "very strict."

I don't traffic in high end rarities. Too much stress and anxiety, and there are other things I prefer to do with lump sums that end in 3 or 4 zeroes.

Instead, I focus on more common coins, and I want them in the best condition possible, which usually means uncirculated. For older and harder to find coins, I'll go down to XF if it has nice eye appeal.

Back when I was more of a set collector I filled a lot of holes with inferior coins, and I came to regret it. I've dumped some of those coins and upgraded others. I would've been dollars ahead to just buy better coins to begin with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Very strict. I do not want a coin that either myself and/or a grading company would consider damaged with a details attribution.

Error coins are tough to sell. Damaged ones even more so.

 

Depends on if a coin captures my interest. There’s an 1873-S half eagle in NGC AG-3 on Ebay for $455 - after using a 15% coupon it’s $80 above melt. 1873-S is a very scarce date, it’s gold that did its time in circulation, and thus it interests me.

I do try to avoid problem coins when possible - but I do buy them, on some occasions, if the price is right and it captures my interest.

 

Agreed. Eye appeal is number one to me, I'd much rather have an attractive luster bomb that has some hits than a dead looking coin with no hits.

 

Sometimes coins are so rare and valuable that I jump on the opportunity and take what I can get.



Sometimes I buy broken coins because they are dirt cheap and I can repair them nicely.



Sometimes coins are so rare that they are only known in crap condition. There is only 6 of this type known, 2 of which are in museums. This would have probably been the only example on the market for many years, so I wasn’t going to wait for a nicer specimen.



Sometimes I try to get coins with a good strike and great eye appeal.



Sometimes I wait until a well-struck example shows up on the market before I pull the trigger because I want to have a specific quailty for a type.



Sometimes I concern myself more with the backstory than the quality of the coin itself.



Sometimes I spend a long time looking through many examples finding a coin of particular quality while still staying within my budget.



Sometimes I try to get one of the finest known examples when the opportunity presents itself.



And sometimes I buy something because I just plain like it.



In other words, my budget and I set the rules for my collection, and I don’t let anyone tell me otherwise. I also am not a slave to a TPG to define the quality of my collection. However, eye appeal is one of the determining factors of whether or not I buy a coin.

 

Here is a coin which @zumbly owns. Most collectors of modern coins who are deathly afraid of “problem” coins would write this off as a lowly junk coin. However, this coin was struck by Brutus, the infamous assassin of Julius Ceasar. The surfaces are great, and much of the original detail is visible. The holes also do not interfere with the main devices at all. IMO, these factors vastly outweigh the presence of the holes in terms of eye appeal, and they would allow me to get a very historic coin for a very low price. I would not mind adding a coin like this to my collection at all. Does that mean that I don’t have a strict standard for quality? I would argue otherwise.

 

Seems like you're putting words into non-existent people's mouths. Who are these modern collectors that would call this lowly junk? And if they do happen to exist who cares?

I like you and think highly of your knowledge but honestly feel like you have a "you against the forum" attitude around here sometimes. Just relax, posts like this seem unnecessarily combative to me.

 

My answer is based on my knowledge set and budget. I think AU58 is the perfect corculation coin. Circulated some but still has all beauty. High XF takes second place. Then comes MS in third.

 

When I first started collecting, I made a lot of mistakes and it took me many years to realize that they were mistakes. My pride got in the way of understanding the truth.
At some point I started reading a lot of Q. David Bowers's work. This put me on a much better path. He said something along these lines, about 40 years ago.
Ugly coins won't change and problem coins will always be problems. If you buy quality coins with eye appeal, others will see that when the day comes to sell.

This is the way I see quality in order of importance for me. I guess I'm more picky on 1-3 and not so much with 4-5.
#1 Eye appeal and first impression of the coin.
#2 Nice surfaces with proper luster for the grade.
#3 Color.
#4 Grade.
#5 Strike.

 

Take a gander:

How many of you would be willing to buy an AU seated dollar with two holes for your collection?

 

I wouldn't call it "lowly junk," but I also would not buy it because of the holes. Some people will, and that's cool for them. Some people won't - I'd rather not have one of those, or spend a whole lot more for an unholy piece. And, I think that's exactly the heart of the question the OP is asking.

There is no right or wrong answer here, just a difference in collecting style and preference.

 

It would have to be an R6+ or R7 variety, at the very least (capped bust halves are more my style, but same point). That is, I would have to be nearly positive that I would never in my life ever have another chance to buy one. Even then, I'd probably hesitate.

 

Since I collect Early Dated coins the date must be readable. The rest of the coin,
while important, is secondary. The TPG's main value is authentication, especially with all of the fakes coming from the Far East. If after a couple of years you are still relying on them for grading a series that you are collecting, it might be time for a different hobby.

 

I am primarily collecting newer coins mainly MS-68/69. They aren't worth that much now, nor are they expensive. Building up a collection for grandchildren so they will have quite an investment collection in the later years.

 

GDJMSP tells us about some of his coins, which he "liked". One, the "golden" one, bought, probably, for an astronomical sum, shows the horse galloping away quite normally, although, to me, it appears that the rider is sitting back to front. Apologies if that is too simplistic.

 

I learned the hard way that quality wins over quantity. Eye appeal is number one for me over grade. For example, I'm assembling a year set for my late father's birth year. This is the latest acquisition.

 

I have different quality rules for each set I collect.

For example I have a medieval denar set where the only criteria are eye appeal, must be toned, and must not have significant pieces missing from the flan. My classic Hungarian sets are all uncirculated, but I have minimum grades based on the composition and finish. My target grades for those sets are generally MS65 for copper and silver and MS64 for gold. For my modern sets and restrikes my target grade is generally MS67. Higher for ultra-moderns.

I make exceptions when warranted. For example my type for 1848KB 10 Kr (an extremely rare issue) is an AU details coin that has nice eye appeal. I definitely have a few coins I prefer to keep in my sets for their surfaces and eye appeal over technically superior examples I also own or could easily own. On the flip side, I have some technically superior examples grade-wise in my sets that don't have the best eye appeal, where the grade is exceptional.

I enjoy most picking up an example that I know I will be pleased with forever and will have virtually no ability to upgrade. For example my profile pic coin. Waiting for the right coin is generally cheaper than going for endless upgrades.