As I venture more into the realm of modern world and US coins, the question of "details" coins comes up. Coins that are deemed to be defective in one way or another by the standards of modern coin grading. Improper cleaning, various forms of damage - both intentional and incidental - are just a couple of the host of potential problems a coin may possess. NGC lists 72 separate notations they use to describe these defects. Most modern collectors shun coins that have any problem that may potentially result in a "details" grade. The general feeling is that a low-grade coin, or even no coin at all, is better than buying one that might have one of the 72 issues listed above. No doubt this is, in general, excellent advice; though I will say that as someone expanding from ancient coins into moderns it can seem a bit unreasonable at times. But of course, modern coins have much more to lose than ancients, which have already "seen it all", so to speak. My real question is: in cases where a straight-graded coin is out of reach, would you settle for a "details" example? In other words, are there any circumstances in which a "details" coin would be acceptable and welcome into your collection? Or is it really better, in your opinion, to have no coin at all than a "details" one? For me, there are tons of coins I'd love to have that are totally out of my reach. There are also plenty that I technically could afford, but don't want to spend the money. For example, say a certain US coin I'd like to have costs $600 at bottom grade, but I'd never be willing to spend more than a few hundred on that type. However, I can get a decent "details" example - cleaned, damaged, whatever, as long as it's not totally destroyed - for $250. To me, that seems like an acceptable compromise - I think having a coin is better than not having a coin. But I am curious where the rest of the Coin Talk community falls on this question. Please feel free to vote and then explain your vote, possible exceptions, or whatever! A few "details" coins from my collection (both were removed from their slabs.) Whizzed. Worse than generic "cleaned" in my opinion, but this one isn't too bad. It's in good condition otherwise and a scarcer date. BRITISH JAMAICA Time of Victoria, 1837-1901 CU Penny (30.1mm, 9.40g, 12h) Dated 1895. Royal mint, London, UK Obverse: Crowned bust of Queen Victoria left within beaded circle, L C WYON (engraver) below bust; VICTORIA QUEEN above, * 1895 * below Reverse: Coat of arms of Jamaica within beaded circle, JAMAICA above, * ONE PENNY * below References: Numista 14273 Mintage: 36,000 Formerly in NGC encapsulation, graded AU details. From the Globus Collection. Tooled. For me, this is normally a deal-breaker, for both modern coins and ancients. But the designation on this coin seems a bit over-zealous. I'm actually not totally sure where PCGS thought it was tooled - I think in some of the letters where someone obviously was intending to clean out some crud and ended up going a little too far? Anyway, I didn't care because the main reason I bought this coin was for the provenance - from the Farouk Collection. It was basically the only affordable Farouk coin in that auction! FIRST FRENCH EMPIRE Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor (1804-1814, 1815) CU 5 Centimes (29.1mm, 6.74g, 12h) Dated 1808. Strasbourg mint, France Obverse: Large N within wreath struck incuse on raised rims Reverse: 5 CENT. in two lines, mintmarks and engraver’s signature below; NAPOLEON EMPEREUR and date struck incuse on raised rims References: Numista 8023 Mintage: 108,000 Formerly in PCGS encapsulation, graded UNC Details. From the Richard Margolis Collection. Ex Sotheby’s March 1954, lot 2181 (part.) From the Palace Collection of King Farouk of Egypt (1936-1952).
Yes, I have a few of them. For me, it is because they have been verified as "authentic." For example: 1916-D Mercury Dime.
There's certain coins where I wouldn't be able to practically or realistically afford them otherwise. Of course I'd prefer them to be problem free when possible, but sometimes it's just not. And honestly sometimes "problems" aren't really that severe that it detracts significantly from the appearance of the coin. One of my favorite coins in my collection is a bust half that yes, is significantly dented, but the detail on it is otherwise excellent, and had it been problem free I probably wouldn't realistically been able to afford it. I still enjoy looking at it despite its problems.
