If this coin had not been tampered with, it would have had a catalogue value in excess of $100.

As it is, I guess it no longer comes close. At least that's my findings. Still, it didn't prevent me from buying it a few months back

I don't usually collect `love tokens', but I do have one or two on what would otherwise be quite rare coins, sold to me relatively cheaply because they were considered to be `damaged'. I bought them more for the rarity of the host coin than the `art' however, but as with most things `collectable' I can understand how some people would collect these items specifically.

Any views? Are such pieces `art' (as in enhancing) or butchery (as in detraction)? Perhaps like me, you think it's a bit of both (?)





Ian

depending on what you collect...I bet a love token guy would really like that coin since it is kinda hard to find.

I could see it as both. It would depend on how the initials were done and on the coin itself.

I think of it as art. Someone used one thing - the coin, and their imagination and labor to produce something which expresses their emotions. I like it.

Very nice Love token.

This makes me think about the Coin Jewlery thread going on in the World coin forum.

Would anyones thoughts differ between making jewlery out of a coin then making a love token?

-Bobby

A very good question and one that is difficult to answer without reference to the `society' and `culture' around the time they were created.

For example we have a time not long gone by when cleaning coins was acceptable and the norm. The ones that survived that period without being `cleaned' are the valuable ones in todays numismatic society.

On another level, silver coins which were the `common coins' of the age (that is, only worth face value) saw themselves being transformed into `objets d'art' such as brooches, enamelled coins, pins, love tokens, carved coins. They were used as a medium for the amateur (and professional) artist. The coins weren't seen as being anything other than what we see our own currently circulating coinage as being. That is, next to nothing value wise.

These `altered coins' now have mixed values associated with them. A typical love token, like the one in this thread has a value greater than face, but probably less than the value of the coin if it had not been tampered with. High value placed upon the host coin . Relative low value placed on the artistry?

On the other hand a more common coin such as the Buffalo 5 cents, turned into a genuine `hobo nickel' is attributed much more value as an item than if the coin had not been tampered with. Relative low value placed upon the host coin. High value placed upon the artistry?

Then we have holed coins and mounted coins. These items were used as adornments and obviously valued as such beyond face value or the activity creating them would never have occurred. Perhaps a cheap form of jewellery. In some cases quite an expensive form of jewellery in terms of time spent on the item but still cheap in terms of raw material. Today, we generally perceive that there are better forms of adornment generally available than carving up an old silver coin. After all, making a pendant for a loved one out of a modern CuNi coin doesn't quite do it in this materialistic era does it?

We now tend to shun `damaged' coins in our hunt to find specimens which match our collecting standards. We also tend to quickly condemn artists and jewellers for `damaging' coins, without giving thought to them generally being just `everyday money' of the times.

Now.....all of that said, it's still a million miles away from using ancient coins in modern jewellery. That practise (IMHO) simply sucks....... .

I would also say the same for anyone currently carving love tokens out of old collectable coins. I can forgive those of the past (for the foregoing reasons) but not those of the present.