I have a question about U.S.Coin(s),HELP!??!

Hello everyone,
I really like the Wilson dollar's of 1920,The MANILA MINT,My concern is should i look at graded(very expensive)coin's or the retrieved one's? I know collecting in general is buy what you like but this is for my grandson,An investment if you will.What i said about liking what you collect i prefer the one's that were dumped when japan was invading&retrieved later.So which one should i look at from the Coin Talk community?
Any input will be greatly appreciated...HAPPY HUNTING!!!
P.S. I stole this picture,I hope i don't get in trouble(public domain)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What really is your goal?

You know the definition of somebody who invests without knowing anything about the investment? "The mark" or "The sucker". But at least you are here asking questions, so that's a point in your favor!

i don't think either version is especially rare, so they won't spectacularly increase in value.

As history, the recovered pieces are cooler, but as coins the MS versions are more $

They have gone up & down over the years, seach PCGS for hk-449 here: http://pcgs.com/auctionprices/category.aspx?c=1008

 

As an investment coin my greatest concern would be the opinions future collectors have about Woodrow Wilson.

There are less complicated coins that can be considered for investments that don't feature someone who was mocked *until his last breath* by Henry Mencken.

 

Frankly I think it is a mistake for you to buy these -- or any other collectible coin -- as an investment for your grandson.

If you want to buy them so he will have a neat memory of you, that's an entirely different matter. If they go up in value, that will be an unexpected bonus.

If you are willing to fork over a good -- or even a modest amount -- as an investment for him, allow me to be bold enough to suggest a fund of tax-free municipal bonds or a mutual fund of solid dividend paying stocks. Roll the dividends back into more shares of the funds. He has a lifetime to endure the ups and downs of the market. He stands, during his lifetime, to amass a tidy sum.

 

Also, just because a picture is published on the internet does not make it "public domain". "Public domain" has a very specific legal meaning and would require the website or copyright owner to either be dead 75 years or explicitly release the image.

What you've done is violate copyright laws and put this site at risk to a DMCA takedown notice (Google image search makes it VERY easy to find the original you stole from icollector dot com).

 

Wow and you are? Thank's for the input but i was not asking for history lesson's or being some kind of sucker.My"goal" is strictly my business and to assume i have no knowledge of these coin's is insulting.And good for icollector.Again thank you and HAPPY HUNTING!!!

 

Thank you for your input,That is exactly what i was looking for.Thank you and HAPPY HUNTING!!!

 

A little hard on the guy, weren't ya? I mean like, he wasn't trying to profit off the picture.
"...........explicitly release the image." I'm no lawyer but the fact that the picture appears on a google search tells me it has been released into the wild. Heck, I know folks have used some of my photos (which I've posted on this forum) for illustrative purposes. If I didn't want people sharing my photos I wouldn't post them on the internet.

 

This is known as a so called dollar. A silver one in MS condition goes for about $1,000. Bronze in MS addition is about $400 or more. The ones retrieved from the bay go from $100 to $300. I need to say though that buying coins or medals for investment is a mistake. If you want to collect them because you like them great welcome to the club.

 

Do you think anyone really cares or will notice? The guy just needed an image to show us what he was talking about.

 

My lord! Let's tear the guy down a little more, shall we?

Perhaps by "investment" he means nothing more than an investment in his grandchild, in possibly fostering an interest in history or an appreciation for something that survives from that time period. Returns do not always have to come in the form of more money, and this is especially true with children.

With the sheer amount of crap spewed on this board, I would think there better targets for vitrol.

 

The law is the law, whether you like it or not. Profit is not required, infringement is the issue.

DMCA give the host (this board) a safe harbor, but requires takedown unless a valid counter-notice is filed. It's not the burden on the poster, his/her post just gets smoked. It's the burden on our host(s) ...

Google, as an example receives over 1,000 notices per second, mostly from automated bots. And so if Google gets the notice about this post, it gets removed from the index, making knowledge harder to find for all!

Wrong. Comes directly from the Berne convention, which has been made law of the land in most of the signatories. The TPP continues to extend the reach into additional countries.

That's not what the law says. But you can -easily- achieve the result you want by granting explicit rights when you post them. "Permission granted for non-commercial reuse" or look into one of the CC (Creative Commons) licenses.

 

Sounds like splitting hairs and getting knickers all bunched up in this case..........

 

That seems to be a common talent around here.

 

I thought it sounded more like someone wants to be known as a "Know-it-all" hiding behind his keyboard ....

OP - Take your pictures from this page which is in the "Fair Use" (the pictures you used probably falls under the "Fair Use" clause as well). Just remember some people try to sound more important then they actually are ....

 

It would fall under "Fair use" IF he gave credit for the source of the images. (mentioned where the images came from)

Burton Strauss is quite correct that just copying images off the net and using them without crediting the source is a copyright violation.

 

Kill me..........

 

Give credit where due, seems simple enough.

 

Really? I see nothing in 17USC standing that the source must be sited.

17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

 

And I always do, but in a case like this OP was just grabbing at something for illustrative purposes. No need to string him up by his toes.