Just a quickie poll. Which appeals to you more in general: rarity, or aesthetics and eye appeal? Sure, it's a sliding scale, with varying degrees along the lines, but I'm just speaking generally here. As a generalist and Type collector, I come down on the side of aesthetics a bit more, but both attributes are important, and if I can collect a coin that is at least scarce in addition to being attractive, then so much the better (best of both worlds). But my pockets aren't deep enough to do that very often. I'd have a hard time accepting a coin with negative eye appeal in my primary collection, simply because it's rare. US Chain cents come to mind as an example. But don't hold me to that- one day I might go for a worn-out 1796 quarter or a slick Chain cent. You never know.
For me it's aesthetics hands down. I have bought a very small number of ugly coins to fill a hole. I have nothing against attractive circulated coins. It's the ugly ones I avoid. Here is the ugliest coin I ever paid big bucks for. I wanted to finish the cent date set from 1793 to date, and this coin filled the hole. This coin was not quite what I wanted, but what I wanted was never available when I had the money for it. It's not really ugly, but I really wanted a VF. For those who don't collect the coins which go into these sets, both of these less than perfect coins, can't be had for less than 5 figures.
As a general rule of thumb, if I cannot afford an example in problem-free Fine (F12) grade, then I'm not going to include that type or date in my collection. But like I said, one day I could make an exception (say G4 or better- but problem-free) for something like a Chain cent.
Yes, that was my attitude. When I was lacking the 1796-7 half dollar, a dealer had one in Poor condition that had been holed and polished. He wanted $9,000 for it. If I had mortaged my underwear, I could have raised that, but I wanted no part of that coin. It's better to have a hole in your collection than something like that.
Same here, I will add though, the mojority of the coins I buy are a variety/error of some sort. Eye appeal and MS are my go to style.
For the area I collect, picker tokens & tickets, I don't shy away from an ugly rare piece. Often that's just the nature of my collecting area I guess. Sometimes the only piece(s) known, only survived because it was buried, thrown down a well or the like. For coins though, definitely eye appeal.
I have to say both. I persue rare varieties but my one caveat is that the coin must be attractive. As a matter of fact, the last thing I always do; I take a long look at any coin I am about to bid on or buy, if it doesn't give me a visceral thrill to look at, I let it go because there will always be another coin and I am one of those people who actually look at their coins almost daily. James
It was the Strawberry Leaf cent in this recent post by @Evan Saltis that made me think about this. Most of them are pretty rough, but when there's only four of them... well... I guess you could say I'd throw aside my ideas about aesthetics and accept a Strawberry Leaf cent in any condition. Not that I could afford one in even the worst of conditions. Bermuda Hogge Money is another type of coin that is seldom found very nice. Most on the market are ground finds, I believe.
For me, emphatically both. For ancient coins, which make up the bulk of my collection, there are plenty of rarities to be had. I have a few that are unique, and many that are known from less then half-a-dozen specimens. And there are also some stunning examples of artistry to be had as well. For modern coins, which I've been getting into more lately, I'll often combine both: having discovered a visually attractive type, I'll check mintage numbers and then keep my eye open for a rarer year before buying one.
Never heard of that one before! My first thought was, new entry on my wish list! Um, then I checked ACSearch...
