Series Collectors Poll: Completeness or Quality First?

Over the last few days of cataloging my collection, I have started to question my approach. Up until now, I have been going for a quality-first approach with the series that I collect. For example, any Capped Bust series, I have been setting a VF minimum for anything that I acquire and for any Liberty Seated series, I have been setting a XF minimum. While I was cataloging, I did see that I have nice specimens of what I collect, but it will take a long time to hit any sort of completeness - and that is without even delving into varieties.

What I was wondering is, for those of you who collect by series, what is your approach? Do you look for specimens only of a specific quality, or do you try and "fill the holes", so to speak? The biggest advantages that I see for a completeness-first approach would be that it is more bang for the buck, quicker to grow the collection, and initially more cost-effective. On the other hand, a quality-first approach means that it is going to be slower to grow, more limited choices, and the inevitable concern of having to deal with moving specimens that have been upgraded.

Figured the best way to get an idea of what people do would be to throw up a bit of a poll. Did not see a similar question asked, so apologies if I missed it. Three basic choices, being "Completeness-First", "Quality-First", and "Other. Please explain." Would love to get some ideas of what others are doing, as I am very much thinking about moving towards the world of "Completeness-First", while also upgrading along the way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A general rule that many quote but few follow is:
"Buy the keys/semi-keys first."

 

Completeness first may be cheaper at first, but the constant upgrading will cost you more in the long run especially on common dates where you will have a plethora of other examples to compete again and basically just have to set the lowest price to sell it quickly.

With that said if something comes along you really like that may not have the look that fits your set there is nothing wrong with getting that or ending up with multiples of the same coin if you really like all the ones you own. I do think its is a mistake though to make purchases with the notion of "I will just upgrade this later" with the exception of truly rare pieces that very rarely come to market. I can see the value of having one of those for the time being if that makes you happier than waiting forever to finally get one.

 

My dilemma is my age. If I start a series on my budget, can I conceivably complete it in enough time to enjoy it before I pass. Some series are easily had in low grades, some aren't. Same in high grades. I don't like mixed grades within a completed set, it looks like you gave up at some point, I don't give up.

 

That is exactly the reason that I had avoided a completeness approach at the beginning. I think that part of my problem is, to kanga's point, when I am looking at keys and semi-keys in my series at my "minimal acceptable grade", that I am getting a bit discouraged. Cost is definitely part of it, but lack of selection (hence them being keys) is part of it, as well. I have been focusing on semi-keys in my grade range, but it would probably be wiser to go back to how I was starting to, which is keys and semi-keys that I can find, even when it means that my collection grows more slowly.

 

I've always found it to be more enjoyable to concentrate on a few collections at a time and just pick up pieces that are of a good enough quality that I won't be disappointed in them and want to upgrade them as they come along. Of course I have also been known to take a gamble or two on coins with bad images and end up with a few dogs that I'll want to upgrade.

 

That is exactly my approach right now. My primary focus is on LSHDs and LSDs, with only some ancillary attention to the few other series that I have. So, if something catches my eye outside of those, I will go after it, but not actively pursuing the series.

I enjoy the gambling aspect of it, as well. Very recently picked up an 1887-S LSD that was advertised as being XF with poor pictures, for well under value. Looked like the seller had under-graded it, to me, and in hand, I am sure he did. Fun part of that one is doing the variety attribution for it. It will be worthy of its own thread at some point, because I keep coming back to the possibility of it being an impaired proof, based on the complete and total lack of doubling/filled/filed mintmark. Either way, it was $40 well-spent.

 

I believe that I have some OCD tendencies, and this is exactly why I set a threshold for grades on what I collect. Good example is that I bent my own rules on a couple of the CC years that were die varieties other than the ones that I had in my grade range, and now I am practically obsessing over that simple fact.

 

It has been mentioned, but as an early copper variety collector, I put a premium on quality for the less rare coins. So I'll hold out for the right coin and price a all R.1, R.2, or R.3s. But when you get into higher rarity ratings, it becomes tough. If a problem free key coin that I like comes up just once a year, and I'm battling other collectors that need it, it's all about budget. I've seen nice low/mid grade coins blow through my well researched price point, simply because everybody needs it.
Inevitably, what ends up happening is that I find and ugly version of the same rare variety and settle for it, hoping to upgrade later, but feeling good about having an example.
Deep down I know I should be patient on every purchase, even if it takes decades to acquire a particular variety, but that's easier said than done. So far, research and connections have allowed me find buyers when I do upgrade the rare problem coins, and I generally get my money back or make a few dollars, so I haven't been burned yet. *Knock on wood*

 

"Quality" doesn't necessarily mean "high grade." I would write a little more, but I have to get going.

 

While I have a min (and a max, for that matter) grade that I shoot for I also realize that some coins are simply not available in my chosen grade--price point. For example, there is absolutely no way I will EVER pay more for a coin than I did for my house. Therefore, I will never own a 1796--1797 bust half in XF or above. To ever complete my half dollar year set I will have to settle for a AG to G example .

 

Completely understand what you are saying Paul. Quality is definitely a misnomer because it includes things such as eye-appeal, scarcity, how good an example of something that a specimen is, etc.

At least for what I am collecting now, I have not had to specify a direct maximum. Uncirculated and even proof specimens are available at a price that will not make me too squeamish, and about a third of what I have in these series are AU or better. But, I agree. At least for some of the keys, I know that I am going to have to settle. There is just no way around it, realistically, unless I somehow manage to fall into a large sum of money.

 

What he said!

Chris

 

It's great you are being this analytic about collecting, although I assume you really can't help that! With that analytic approach you will settle into a system that works for you, don't be afraid to find your own path and try new things. I will suggest one conceptual idea that brings both quality and quantity together, have a clear, and realistic, picture of what you want the final collection to look like. One of the best pieces of advice I received was to sell coins every once in a while. You don't really know how well you bought the coin until you sell it, and if you never sell coins you never really learn what the market looks like.

For me, I have collected a couple different series pretty seriously, and bounced around regarding how I do it. When I collected large cents I scoured ebay looking to cherry pick rare varieties and buying poorly photographed coins looking for quick flips. I did this to finance that collection. I was looking for a late date by variety collection which consisted of around 300 coins. My end goal was to have mint state for all common varieties, but my approach was to purchase at full price from dealers/auction only coins that I would keep forever because the upgrade costs are just too high. Then I would pick up cheaper coins as hole fillers if I could get them at a price that I knew I could resell for a profit. Still focused on quality of coins, just lower grade pieces.

For the series I am collecting now, I think there are around 700 coins with that number doubling if I go after more than just the basic coins. For this series my focus is much more on quality surfaces and strike, but grade wise I don't care if it's xf or fine as long as the detail needed to identify the coin is present. I have a general idea of the price per coin I need to stay around if I ever want to finish the collection, but I also realize finishing will probably be a 35 year project. With that time frame and a full conceptual picture of the collection, I find that my purchases slow down considerable. When I first started collecting I was addicted to it, looking at coins every day, thinking about coins every day... Not a bad thing, but I find now I look through the upcoming auctions about once a week and go to three shows a year. Probably purchase 10-20 coins a year, considerably less than when i started.

 

Completeness and Quality.

My nearly-complete circulated Walker set is mostly nice VG-to-VF coins.

Always looking to upgrade a few disappointing coins with better-quality replacements (not necessarily higher-grade). It's an on-going effort. Fun too.

And I'm also nearly finished with my MS65 short set (1941 - 1947). It's a long-term investment, so high quality is the #1 priority.

 

Some of my first sets were done by just filling holes with whatever acceptable coins I could find.
I never bought the keys first.
My third Franklin set has mostly full bell lines. The 1953-S still needs an upgrade.
For my complete Barber dime and Barber half dollar sets I picked coins with full reverse rims. So many Barbers are graded G-4 and even G-6 but don't have good reverse rims.

 

As I've aged, I've switched to going after quality and only having to buy a coin one time. I do make concessions. My Mercury dimes are VF on the front page and BU on the second. My Indian cents are all xf but the 1877 may have to be a bit lower. I usually just look at the most expensive coin in a series and pick a grade that I can afford that coin in and go from there.

 

As the years go by I often wonder why I was so obsessed with building sets of raw coins.
If I could do it over again I'd buy higher grade slabbed singles.

 

I chose "Other..."

I don't fill holes, as I prefer collecting different designs to change things up a bit. However, I follow this method with my collection, which IMHO would also apply to your situation:

Buy raw and always look for "high" grade (quality). If there's a key / semi-key date that is in a lower grade, but you recognize that it's under-priced (significantly enough...), then buy that. All "low" grade coins in my collection have a "temporary" status - you define low grade based on what you're comfortable with. Flip for a net gain and upgrade that coin to subsidize a higher quality coin. This "flip and upgrade" can be applied to the higher quality coins that were purchased. If there's no net gain in the flip, at least break even. Then you will temporarily have that year filled.

In the end, there really aren't regrets that I'd have. There's a greater sense of accomplishment, and you'll have something better to look at than the counterfactual lower grade collection. If you tire of that collection and no longer find it interesting, you can sell it for higher than the lower grade, and use those funds to start a new set. Sure, you'd fill holes quicker with lower grade coins, but then you'd simply be filling holes with the objective of filling holes, which IMHO seems once removed from the love of coins themselves compared to higher quality coins.