I've been thinking about this for a while: That I catch myself collecting & enjoying the more worn coins ( AG's, G's, VG's ), and actually tend to gravitate toward this end of the grade spectrum. On one hand, it is much more affordable to collect these, and they are easier to find, but that didn't seem to capture the real reason I seem to do this.

What I have enjoyed about the hobby is the HISTORY that my coins represent. To just imagine what was going on in 1794 as I look at an old large cent of mine. I can just picture where this coin went, and what people (famous people??) may have contributed to the history in each coin, who's hand it might have been in. So I actually seem to enjoy gazing upon a coin that has "been around the block a few times" more than a mint state coin. It is like a Mint State coin was only 1- stamped, then 2- then went straight into one person's collection or a slab, that's it. Doesn't feel like a mint state coin had much to do with our country's life, culture, commerce, etc. ( although I have my share of MS coins too!) Is it weird to to say I see the BEAUTY in a nice old worn coin?

Not to say there aren't multple aspects of collecting to enjoy, I just wanted to share one of mine, and to see if there are others who do the same!

I too like to think about that exact thing. Where has this coin been, who had it... But, I prefer to buy/keep things in better condition for my sets. It's all good though.

I've never really understood why someone would pay big money for a coin grade poor or about good except when a coin is like $5000 in G condition. Someone was selling a Columbian Expo coin graded poor for a crazy amount of money.

I like to imagine that certain coins were used to buy bread for Lincoln, maybe help pay for the ink used on the Bill of Rights, etc.

This is sort of a "given" among coin collectors. The very thing that seperates us from "investors".

We love coins, and the hobby of coin collecting...end of story.
You are among kindred spirits, and you can rest assured that your reasoning is well understood.

Same reason why people pay big money for MS69s - There are people who try to collect the lowest graded.

I'm a little in between.

for older coins, I really appreciate the signs that many hands have touched the coins an used it for what they have been made for. The wear should be naturally, not things like major edge knocks or holes etc.
I have e.g. an almost worn flat George III Halfpenny from 1799 that is almost worn flat. All there is left is an outline of the protrait and an silhouette of Britania at the reverse. No inscriptions or whatsoever. I like it


Older means for me before 1900

Then there's a period of time that's approximately 1900 - 1950, of which I will try to get as nice pieces as possible.


Anything newer, modern coinage, that doesn't have a real history yet, I'm trying to get an AU or UNC piece of everything. Not MS69 / 69 or something like that, just (A)UNC

Wear and a bit of toning can do very nice things with cions. I just auctioned some Mercs that have some black toning in the fields that really bring out the portrait.

Why not, not all worn coins are worned exactly the same way. On the other hand, extreme nice graded coins, like MS60+++ will look almost the same and all you get is different scratches, tonings etc that will differ.

Coin collecting is such a great hobby because there are so many ways to enjoy it. Personalization thrives in every collection. No two collections are probably ever the same because the individuals creating the collection come at it from different tastes, beliefs, ideas, etc. Individualism runs rampant in this hobby.

For me, I approach the hobby from several different enjoyment levels.

I can certainly enjoy coins as Artwork. To me, that means a beautiful design in an attractive, preferably lightly circulated at most, level of preservation. Many designs are indeed little works of art and that aspect does hold appeal for me. I can enjoy the beauty and details of a nice specimen.

Another way I approach coins is as History. To me, this means the time and/or theme of the coin or its design. Grade is less of a factor here as is the attractiveness of the design. What counts is the theme or the culture or the time period that the coin represents. Coins represent the ideals, beliefs, and culture of the civilization that created them.

The third way I approach coins, and probably the one that appeals to me the most is coins as objects. To me, this means what they are and what they are meant to be used for. Coins are objects that, in their strictest sense and in their original sense, are meant to circulate in commerce. Individuals use them to buy things. They are given out as change to these same individuals. They are a basic foundation of a civilization, a country, and its people. In this sense, grade can be important too but in an odd way. The lower the grade, the more the coin did the job it was intended to do, the more hands it passed through, and the more effect the coin had on both the individual and the civilization.

Circulated coins have other benefits too in storage, ability to handle them, and, of course, in price.

I like well circulated coins too, but like Trantor said above, they should be "older". While I can appreciate a well worn coin from say 1850, I do not want a 1990 coin that is worn practically flat.

Another sticking point for me is the coin design itself. Some coins wear down well and still look appealing. Some coin designs do not wear down well and thus lose a lot of appeal for me.

I usually try to find at least one decent example of a series (F or better) and the rest can basically be any grade. Again, I am referring to "older" series.

A picture is worth a thousand words...



(not my coin, btw)

Ouch, that hurts for a rather modern coin... :|

You know, when I thought over this question again, it seems that I have one good example, and that is to compare with a decent grade coin. Fortunately, I wasn't silly enough to sell the lower grade coin, because it is almost unobtainable!

A battered version against a PROOF version of Russia Alexander Column ruble.



Against:



I think you get the picture

Knowing nothing of the value, rarity, etc, I am automatically drawn to the circ coin over the better condition proof.

No that is not weird.

Take for instance a rather well worn specimen of a Bust Half Dollar. This coin could have likely traversed the country in a covered wagon with a pioneer family, or been carried during the Civil War, by soldiers of either side. Some pristine specimen in a slab has never seen that.

Ahem......I think you meant a Bust half dollar. ;-)

Here's something I've noticed about worn Mercury dimes: The Lady on one VG will look like a sister to the Lady Liberty on another VG, but not like a twin. That doesn't seem to be the case with other coins depicting lady Liberty, only mercs.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that?

Thanks, I stand corrected:)

[quote=Stujoe,Sep 10 2005, 12:09 PM]
A picture is worth a thousand words...



Stu, that is a neat SBA. One thing tho, do you think that wear is natural or artifical? I just cant see that coin getting around enough to get like that. I've never seen a modern Jeff nickel get like that and I'm sure they see more action than dollar coins.

I don't know but I would suspect one of two things...artificial wear (could you tumble one into that shape?) or a serious pocket piece. I can't see any SBA ever reaching that level from circulation.

I think worn Bust halves are especially attractive as the design retains so much detail even when well worn. Buffalo nickels have to be the worst though as the date is obliterated long before the coin reaches the AG level.

That's a very interesting observation. I'd never thought about it like that, but you seem to be right.
The differences in toning, in the protected areas, also seems to highlight the features of one coin more so than another.

I'm going to fence sit.


I totally understand your argument about worn coins being full of history more than a higher grade coin. There's no dispute about that from me. I primarily collect coins for historical reasons.

However i tend to go for the highest grade circ coins i can find. Usually GEFs or AUs. I want them with a very slight little wear basically because of an observation GD made that is remarkably accurate. Circulated coins whatever the grade generally develop grey scale toning as opposed to any other shade. UNCs can turn all hideous shades of the rainbow, this i definately don't want. So that one reason i go for circulated.

The second reason i go for higher grade coins is also for the history. If i buy a medieval coin then i want to see it as the contemporaries saw it when it was jingling around in their purses. It might have been in the possession of a merchant, or maybe on it's way to the Holy Land with a Crusader, or maybe in some squire's pocket as he went to the local brothel, or maybe it got thrown into a Leper's begging bowl.

The fact is i want to be able to see the coin as it would have looked in it's historical context. If i go to a historic city and look at the gothic architecture that's been stood there since the 13th century, i want to be able to see what the 13th century man or woman would have seen. I want to see the awe of a giant stone building rising high into the sky, just as pilgrims would have seen a stone building of such importance standing proud whilst all the surrounding houses constructed of timber were dwarfed. Well even in this century the awe can still be the same, massive historic building still dwarfing all the modern houses around it. It's something stuck in a time warp. That's what i want of my coins, something that's been there but looks as if it could still be there.

I generally don't want a coin from the 13th century that looks like it's been through 7 centuries of abuse since. Any coin being sold as "good for it's age" generally gets ignored by me. To me it should be near perfect regardless of it's age, like it came straight from a time machine.

Generally i can't live with coins below GVF. Anything grading lower is either disposed of or finds it's way into my pocket as a pocket pice. I've got a Poor gold coin from the 1670s that's jingling around in my pocket with a counterstamped 1690s halfcrown in G. That's about all they're good for.

...and I would add Standing Liberty Quarters to the list of "do not wear well" US coins...

Here is a coin I picked up out of a junk bin just because it was worn:



I don't think anyone would call it 'pretty' but I like it.

I think I would have to be with the group that collects the highest grade available / affordable, but don't have a problem with a Good if it fits my limited collecting theme.

That theme of course is 1789-1815 (in general) and many coins of that period weren't that well struck to begin with. And some that were, such as the cartwheels of 1797, are ridiculously overpriced because the edges aren't dinged. To me that means that a coin struck for circulation never made it to fulfill its function. They're pretty but not all that interesting...