What area(s) of numismatics bore you the most?

Not saying. If the past is any guide, as soon as I name anything that I find boring or unattractive, something will happen to get me fixated on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If coins were people BU's (to me) would be Hollywood celebrities-overpaid, underwork, living in a fake world but oh "ain't I pretty?" While toned circulated coins would be the the Mark Twains, Ernest Hemmingways and Jack Londons who actually went out into the real world and did something. I'll take a EF-45 with dark "ugly" toning any day of the week.

 

Could. Not. Agree. More. Some of the "monster toners" I find pretty, but the majority of them I find downright ugly. When I do find toning attractive, it tends to be lighter pastel colors (with one exception, the 50c Morgan Pattern I use in my banners). And when it's not evenly toned across the whole obverse or reverse, with a big crescent chunk missing, I totally lose interest.

 

Errors, varieties and grades. I can't imagine something that would interest me less in numismatics than going through hundreds of coins with a loupe looking for minor differences.

 

Pretty much all United States moderns

 

MORGAN DOLLARS, Lincoln cents, Jefferson nickels, Roosevelt dimes, Washington quarters, Kennedy halves and the rest of the modern U.S. Coinage - Sac, Prez, SBA (I like Ike). Now, to be fair, I have some of all of these and there are always exceptions but in general, I have no interest in the above list.
I tried to work the cherrypicker's guide to make money to buy things I like but I was going blind looking at so many coins with a loupe for minor varieties so I decided I don't care about them.

 

The difference between a 69 and a 70 modern

 

Not sure "bored" is the right word. How about simply "not interested?"

• Post '64 US coins
• All US small cents
• Modern (post 1900) world base metal coins
• Ancients
• Toners
• Manufactured collectibles (proofs, mint sets, commemoratives, etc.)
• Paper currency

 

Error's, post '64, silly paper money that's really only worth face.

 

Patterns, they're hidden in the back of the Red Book.

 

errors. really, especially the minutia. And I hate albums that make holes they want you to fill with error coins. I mean 1955 dd cent may be cool I suppose, but how many kids trying to fill a penny book are going to find one?
Only reason I care at all is to sell the ones I find to someone who does care.

 

I don't like proofs, errors, die cracks, and variety coins.

 

The area that bores me the most about numismatics is listening to collectors who have no interest in the history or design of coins talk endlessly about prices, sure price is good information to have but it is not even the main thing I find interesting about coins.

 

Pretty much agree with most of what has been shared. I go in for world coinage, almost exclusively pre-1970, and mostly 1939 and earlier. I too have dabbled in paper money, I have a collection worth a few hundred dollars, the exotic French colonial African material is nice and I will probably pick-up a few more of those as time goes on. If I had to pick my very least desirable area, it would be impaired or PVC damaged coinage, I could care less how rare it is. Same applies to sea salvage coins, they can melt all that stuff down by me and it wouldn't be a huge loss to humanity, especially the silver issues. The gold, --the coins that are well preserved are a different story, wouldn't mind having some of those in the collection. I like reading about ancients, my aversion has always been the result of lacking confidence in authenticating most of them.

 

Coins that are otherwise extremely common (Silver Eagles, modern proofs, and most modern circulating coins) that are hyped by being slabbed in high grade holders with special labels just don't do anything for me. I like to dabble in a lot of different areas, including paper money, but there needs to be an element of scarcity for me to be interested.

Even with my low budget there are items I can afford, such as classic U.S. type coins and circulated large size type notes, that offer a lot of "bang for the buck" in terms of scarcity. The current fad for MS70 slabs will pass because those coins were made with modern minting techniques and thus are pristine to begin with. Can anyone really tell the difference between a 69 and a 70, or a "first strike" from a regular strike? There are a few moderns that are truly scarce or rare (e.g. 1982-83 quarters, high grade Ike's) that did not survive in large numbers, but for the most part there are just too many of them.

As for VAM's and other varieties, these haven't caught my interest yet either, but that's because I'm too ADHD to focus on a particular series. I have a lot of respect for people who can master that level of detail.

Lastly, I have to agree with Doug's earlier post about ugly designs, because that just can't be fixed regardless of the coin's grade.

 

As a collector since I was 10 years old, I kind of smile at some of the things that bore us numismatists. First, I never call myself one as it seems kind of snooty and also a little difficult to pronounce. Second, who started this hobby by buying a book? My guess, no one. Who started by collecting foreign coins. Only collectors from abroad? Who started by collecting ancient coins? Were they on a dig in Greece or something? Who started by collecting early American coins? Did they have rich grandparents or something. I started by collecting modern coins from my change and still like circulation coins today. Eventually, I did branch out into other areas and also like much of the other stuff mentioned above but forget my start, NEVER!

 

I like where you're coming from there @Phil Ham! I started with Franklins and they were not circulating.