Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Dafydd, post: 26126989, member: 86815&quot;]My heading is about coins not me, although I&#039;m pretty ancient.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1667150[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1667151[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1667152[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1667153[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1667154[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1667155[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1667156[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1667157[/ATTACH] </p><p>Forty years ago, I had my fingers massively burned while collecting British shillings, including some rare patterns. My problem was trying to upgrade some of them, as the very same dealers who sold coins to me in uncirculated condition would downgrade them when I tried to trade them in part exchange. When I complained, I was told I must have handled, dropped, rubbed, or otherwise damaged the coins. They gave me a plethora of excuses. I gave up in disgust and traded the lot for a medal collection because the condition of medals didn’t really matter—the recipient was what counted.</p><p><br /></p><p>I learnt that a medal awarded to a foot soldier who served in the Crimea might be worth $100, but a medal awarded to someone who took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade could be worth 30 times that, regardless of condition. I joined the Orders and Medals Research Society 50 years ago and spent decades concentrating on medals with a speciality in Polar and Naval awards until I had to let them go which is another story.&nbsp; In hindsight, considering my renewed interest of 30 years in coin collecting and some recent interest,&nbsp;&nbsp; letting go of my Dorrien and Magen’s shilling was not the brightest move, but at least I owned it for several years.</p><p><br /></p><p>I drifted back into coins, but with more interest in history than perfection. Condition no longer became an issue for me; I just needed to be attracted to the coin. I guess I matured.</p><p><br /></p><p>Over the years, I began to see the logic behind slabs, but I also noticed that the number on the slab often seemed more relevant to some people than what was inside it. I’ve seen people at US coin conventions arguing over ugly coins just because of the number on the slab, while I preferred something that, to me, looked better. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.</p><p><br /></p><p>Slab collecting is an area I largely ignored. This fascination with numbers on slabs has allowed me to acquire some really nice early coins with &quot;details cleaned&quot; grading, which often puts people off. Guess what? When you dig up a 600-year-old hammered coin, it’s going to be cleaned if you want to see it. This is the same for most ancient coins. I’ve bought detailed coins that I probably could not have afforded had they been sold as raw. My gain.</p><p><br /></p><p>In Peter James&#039; excellent book <i>Treasure</i>, he quotes David Bowers as saying, “A coin is a coin, but if it can be attributed to a treasure, then it becomes very special.”</p><p><br /></p><p>Over the past couple of years, one of my “rabbit holes” has become Shipwreck Coins. I bought the item below last week on eBay. It is an 1859 New Orleans seated dollar, and I was lucky because my winning bid was much less than I could have paid for a coin without the accompanying paraphernalia.</p><p><br /></p><p>The whole set is in a slipcover and contained in a decent wooden box, along with a COA, pamphlet, and a DVD produced by the National Geographic Society about the salvage operations. I find it attractive, and the coin itself is not shabby, with some great detail. I can’t agree with the marketers who tout the “shipwreck” effect as wonderful, but it is an attractive coin. It is also guaranteed by NGC as genuine, which will offer comfort to many.</p><p><br /></p><p>My point is that the slab digresses from the Sheldon system because what you’re proving with the slab is provenance. I keep everything I can relating to the provenance of my purchases, such as collector labels, envelopes, COAs, invoices, and references. But what struck me about this package is that it’s probably too attractive as a whole for the coin to be separated, and with the label, its provenance is likely to remain intact for a long time.</p><p><br /></p><p>I would not consider mass-produced items like those produced by the Franklin Mint in limited editions (of 250,000!), but this set serves an educational purpose.</p><p><br /></p><p>It’s worthwhile looking for these types of sets because, as long as you’re not the first buyer, you may acquire some interesting pieces that were originally bought as curios but contain real numismatic value.</p><p><br /></p><p>The same seller I bought this set from sold a set of American coins marked up as the “Great American Hoard,” and quite frankly, I bid on the box because the box itself had more value to me than the coins it contained. I believe the grading cost more than the coins in the set. For example, a worn 1921 Peace dollar, which was worth less than the grading fee.</p><p><br /></p><p>So finally, I’ve discovered a real upside to owning slabs.</p><p><br /></p><p>The British Royal Mint churns out millions of year sets, and as long as you collect them for interest, that’s great. But don’t expect to ever get your money back. A relative of mine “invested” in Royal Mint year sets in the 1970s and &#039;80s, and when he passed, the family approached me as “the coin collector” to dispose of them. Sadly, they were worth around 25% of what was paid for them, and I believe he was misled by marketing hype. I only had to make a list and show the family the value on eBay to confirm the situation.</p><p><br /></p><p>If you have any similar boxed sets, let’s see what you have.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in