I actually don't think this one is ugly but a lot of people may think differently.

The ugliest coin is yet to come, actually there are three that would win a prize straight off before any damage occurred to them. And they'd all win that award straight out of the mint.

Two are US coins and the other, the worst coin in the entire world bar none is British.

Now, I wonder what you're referring to there!

Hmm indeed, but no coin on this planet however, dipped, battered and abused can look as bad as that monstrosity that passed for a coin. Whoever designed that piece of junk should have been shot.

What is that exactly?

1787 Connecticut Colonial Copper See it's so bad you can't even tell what it is.

And it's an 1875.

I see a pattern here.

Of course my UCC winner:

[attachmentid=85]

Here's the back of another V Nickel:

[attachmentid=86]

Received in circulation - This is the before pic (oh, what a story it might tell)
[center][/center]



And this is after some mad electrolysis + dipping sessions...still ugly, and released back into the wild.
[center][/center]

Ugly coins are everywhere!!!

Ack! My eyes!

Morgan dollar ... basal state, shot P-01

Here's my ugly!

obverse


reverse:


enjoy!

Alright so it ain't dated 1965 but i figure this one must be in the running.


I've been wondering whether to use it as a pocket piece or something. Makes a good paper weight though.


(Sorry about the size).

If you don't like it, I can take it

Wow, what a great piece. Excellent teaching tool. Has just enough detail remaining that you can ID it, but that is it. Great piece to have to teach young numismatists coin grading.
"Now this example here is the baseline, you can only go up from here..."

I've got a British coin that looks much like that near blank Morgan.

These things made good pocket pieces.

I've got several british coins that look like that morgan, not really strange as those large bronze pennies circualated soooo long....

I got a Charles II 1670s gold half guinea Trantor that looks like that! A dealer even refused to buy it off of me for £20 (say $40) because he thought it was just unsellable. He said even £20 would be a push.

So it's been jingling around in my pocket for about a year since, it's probably not even gonna be worth that now.

Hard to tell from what is probably a scan? but that one might be similar to me using an early hammered coin as a washer because I don't care for their typical look. Is the Morgan 'flat' in person? or is there life to the surfaces?

Oy what you on about Stu? I really like Morgan Dollars! The Morgan dollar must be one of my favourite US silver coins.


It's just this one has been artificially toned, and we're talking rather nastily too.

I've been wondering whether or not to dip it, but for what it's worth the dip would be juat as bad since it'd be just as damaging to the collectorbility as the fake tone is. Albeit the coin might already have been cleaned before it was ATed. The grade on the pice ain't bad though.

The reverse is quite nasty, a furry brown look it it. Not nice.

I was referring more to the areas of colorful toning which I know you don't usually care much for, IIRC, and not the design. I can't tell AT or NT from the scan but you have it in hand so I will defer on that. If it was NT and not flat looking in person, it would be a shame to treat it as a junk pocket piece as it appears to have some interesting colors in between the darkness. If you are thinking of selling it for junk Morgan value, let me know...

I asked members on a few boards and the general consensus toward me was;

"That is so obviously AT, even a monkey could spot that one seven miles off, you stupid, stupid man" well they didn't say i was stupid but the way they put it when they replied (especially on RCC) kinda put the point across in terms that it could not be refuted. So who am i to argue? (I can't tell the difference between AT and NT, that's why i avoid them).

So there you go, i mean if you want it then you can have it Stujoe.

Minus the tone which looks yes flat and slapped on top, there looks to be alot of natural lustre shining away underneath, so whoever did this to this coin ruined a good one.

I have a hard time with AT and NT too. Some people look at a scan, though, and think that is exactly what the coin looks like, and render thier opinions as such, when scans do not often flatter a coin in many areas, especially color and luser. I have seen many a person call a coin a piece of junk (worn, AT, no luster, etc) based upon a scan in an auction when the coin in hand ended up being something quite different.

Anyway, how's this for a Beauty:

Now there is a monstrous coin. Some of the ugliest coins are Mint State.

Yes, indeed, the much reviled Churchill had to make an appearance eventually. If I only had a Shriver to represent the US side.

Nothing can match the Churchill Crown for hideousness.

I can think of a few US coins that i'd throw up against it as nearly as bad but very few US members agree with me. Since the two are perhaps the most popular 20th century US coin designs going. Hint one is gold and one is nickel. And no it's not Jefferson.

Yes, indeed, the Buffalo/IHC was almost certainly not intended to be a 'pretty' design by the sculpter. The obverse is much more realistic than most of the 'prettified' US Indian coinage designs. And the Bison, while I think it is an impressive creature to say the least, has never been referred to as 'pretty' by me. The design is also rather uniquely USian from a historical standpoint.

You know i wouldn't mind the Indian Head gold if it wasn't incuse! I've seen one in person and i've got to say i just don't like it. The design ain't the problem the fact it's not in relief is! I mean you know i like the $10 indian gold coins, the designs are not dissimilar (reverse wise anyhow) and i find that fine.

The Buffalo nickel, the major disagreement i have with that coin is the proportions, the reason i dislike it is the reason why i thought you would have disliked it. I remember you saying long ago Stu that the thing you liked most on coins was the contrast between the flat fields and the boldness of the design played off against one another, and this is why you didn't like hammered coins.

Well the buffalo nickel doesn't do the contrast between design and field either, why? Because the design is out of proportion to the size of the coin, so the fields are few and far between. If the coin was bigger but the design was the same size then perhaps i'd not give it as much rap. I agree whole heartedly with Charles Barber on the oversized design features.

I think I also referred to the intricacy of the design elements (swirls, twists, turns, etc) in that context as well as the overall crudeness of the engravings from that period (technology was just not up to snuff, I think).

The buffalo nickel is actually a very simple design with only two, well defined elements (one on each side) which stand out against the fileds of the coin even if they do mostly fill them up. On a lot of that older stuff, there are no real fields at all...just the insides of the interwoven design elements. I can absolutely appreciate the history of that kind of coin but do not see 'pretty' wen I look at it. But, I don't think I would ever refer to the Buffalo nickel as a 'pretty' design either. Maybe ruggedly handsome.

I'd say the Buff was imposing.

As coins go it most certainly stands out in my mind, which perhaps is more important that merely looking pretty? Say like a SLQ for instance.

Another example on the US side, for me, is the Fugio cent. I think the design is too crude and poor for me to ever see it as 'pretty' but it is still the top coin on my dream sheet. And, I see it as a very historical design (and historical coin too, of course).

Coins like the SLQ or Walker are just drop dead Pretty to me.

I don't mind Fugio's, but i'm quite tolerant to early copper coins, believe it or not.

Walkers i wasn't too bothered about until i actually got one, they look far better in person than they do in pictures.

Peace Dollars... surprisingly my attitude to those has softened a bit. Even if the poor dear on the obverse looks a bit gormless, she has a certain charm. Can't put my finger on it.

I still think Saints are way overrated though. Nice coins they sure are but 'the best' US coins ever? Nahhh, ain't no Liberty Nickel.

Here is one I think is pretty (although I no longer own this example)


The Mercury dime is one that I can say that I have warmed up to a lot over the last few years, although I never considered them 'ugly', after I got ahold of a nice one or two.

(Pardon the not so good pic...it was on my old camera and through a slab...)

A beautiful Merc Stu.

Ah the Mercury Dime!

I usually leave that one out for a very good reason. When i first saw that design i just took to it, like a duck takes to water. They have a real charm about them and i certainly do not know what it is.

It's not like the obverse is all that pretty, i mean look at the stuck out chin! But regardless of the fact that i don't think they are beautiful, i still love 'em and i'd still happily collect them.

I've got about a few dozen of them somewhere and i won't part with them.

It would probably have been here much sooner (and in more threads) if bakeded had made the crossover.

Brought it home especially for you guys.