A day early last week, a day late this week with the journal... I guess it balances itself out?

While still eagerly awaiting my new copy of QDB's Encyclopedia of Colonial & Early American Coins which should ship from Amazon in early March (won't you be glad to stop hearing about how I'm waiting for this), I've decided to go back and refocus my attentions in my numismatic interests.

The Capped Bust Half Dimes (in the grade and quality I want) are few and far between at a price I am willing to pay --- so I am sitting them aside unless I happen to come across one by chance. Therefore, I have removed my empty "set" from the CBHD Date Set Registry here. Is there any reason to be in fifth place when you had nothing to show for it? I don't quite think it was very fair and civic-minded of me.

The Mercury dimes are doing what they're doing. Eventually one or two pop up at what I consider a fair price for the grade and quality.

The large cents... well, that's interesting. A collector can be overwhelmed by the Sheldon numbers - 295 of them! Date set seems almost underwhelming when you realize how many varieties (is that the right word?) there are in early large cents. I have no realistic hope of ever completing one of these sets - not even if I win a lottery. So an auction catalog or two will have to suffice for that. Randomly collecting early large cents was interesting but lacked focus.

I remember reading somewhere that a good way to collect early date large cents was to pick a year and collect the Sheldon numbers in that year. Before you know it, you would be an expert, of sorts, of that year's large coppers. Sounds like a good idea, so I grabbed my CQR (Copper Quotes by Robinson) and my copy of Penny Whimsey and went to work figuring what year I might collect that I could have a chance at completing and still afford.

Sarcasm says to pick 1805 or 1806 (3 Sheldon numbers in 1805, 1 in 1806) - but where's the challenge? 1794 would be good - why not be a Boy of '94? I don't have the money for that, although I have always loved this passage in Penny Whimsey in the section on 1794s --

"Chapman was not either a particular fancier or a great master of 1794 cents. He never knew or especially loved the thick lettered edge cents of this date as Hays did, and never made a collection of them. To Hays they were magic talismans to the nostalgic past and to a wistful future. By owning one you established a fraternal bond with both past and future owners. To Chapman they were merchandise and profit."

I think we should all look at our collections and decide where we are Chapman and where we are Hays - think about it! (I steal that last part from CQR - it does make you think about it)

I thought about 1802 but Sheldon described them as very common for early large cents. 1803? What does the good doctor prescribe there? ---

"The cents of 1803 have always been more popular with collectors than those of 1802. They present wide variations, and if a collector will once larn to look at reverses systematically he will find that the 1803's practically classify themselves... It is an excellent date with which to start a collection; and a good date for building up experience as to condition and value at a relatively low initiation expense."

Ok, the 1803 sounds good, there are 24 Sheldon numbers (plus a "non-collectible") and in VG-8 AVE to AVE+ EAC grading (get CQR - you'll understand eventually - still not quite sure how many points you deduct from the grade for defects/problems) most are "reasonable" for now anyway. I love the 1817 large cents too, but in VG grade they don't look very nice (to me at least).

I find I need focus in my collecting - this is a major benefit of registry sets. At the same time, my large cents will never be in a registry set for various reasons.

On a personal note - a new job starting in August with a 5% pay raise with the same employer but a different location. I think it's a promotion of sorts.