LINCOLNMAN

A nice change, but, sadly, could be very inconvenient. 

Ordered, thanks for the heads-up. 

There is a R in the White House. 

2 hours ago, Mokiechan said:

So you've never upgraded a coin in your collection?  If you did, then that preceding coin was a Hole filler even if you did not intend it to be at the time of your initial purchase. 

I agree with p-f's rather blunt, but IMO accurate, definition. I also agree with your statement. I just upgraded a DB 10c from 8 to 15. Transaction cost will be at least 10-20% no doubt (GC has it). The 8 was an unintended hole filler, and was the result of impatience. Not the first time nor probably the last time that I'll make that mistake. I do admire collectors who bide their time to find just the right coin. Not my nature, I look for a satisfactory coin depending of course on scarcity,  and I'm too damned old now to take the most rational path to completing my objectives. 

Eliasberg 

10 hours ago, Walkerfan said:

IMHO, it has nothing to do with low price.  Rather, it has everything to do with accepting a coin in a lower grade or quality than one wants to.

For example: if you have a set of Mercury dimes, in mint state 65, but cannot afford a 16 D in 65, so you buy a 16 D in AU 58, instead.... Well, that is a hole filler.  It's an $11,000 hole filler  but it's still a hole filler.   

I dunno. I think of a hole filler in a more negative sense, as a pejorative. In your example, I would be content with a 58. If I filled the hole with less than an AU I would not be content (nor would I do it). 

2 hours ago, Zebo said:

Wouldn't that be a Key Hole Filler 

Ouch. 

Beautiful commems posted above. Love many of them but not all types. 

On 9/11/2019 at 8:39 AM, thebeav said:

I've submitted tokens, especially very cool California gold ones.

I've submitted a medal though. They're generally big, and it just feels too good to be able to hold them raw.......

Just got one of the Wiener medals from Hedley Betts. I love the heft of these, just like to pick them up. And of course authentication and grading are really unnecessary. 

These coins are awfully small and must have been frequently lost. $1.00 was a lot of money back then. Was that a factor?  

Everyone does not like a Picasso, Chagall, Monet, Renoir.... need I go on? I really like the more subtle toning of your coin and it's just plain pretty to me. I also like white coins if they are of an age and type that makes it reasonable for them to have remained untoned. To each his own. Pretty dull hobby otherwise. 

Lovely medal. It seems like I've seen several CCC medals, when I collected Lincolniana. 

On another forum a beautiful large old medal was posted. One of the responses was something like "when will you submit it?"

WHAT????

I myself do not submit medals for grading. When I find one slabbed (which is unusual in my field)  I free it and put it in a tray. I continue to collect US coins and of necessity will only buy graded coins, at least more expensive ones. But I wish it weren't so, I would much prefer to touch and view coins without a plastic screen and view them raw as a group. The idea of slabbing a medal, particularly a large one, would never occur to me. Just curious what your thoughts are, do you send virtually everything of any value in to be authenticated and graded, including exonumia? Colonials, foreign, ancients, EAC? 

Your example fits my definition perfectly. 

ATS I'm oldabeintexas, same icon. Welcome, very nice folks here, less drama. 

5 hours ago, Mk123 said:

@LINCOLNMAN For certain series I just go for 1 example and thats enough for now. For example, my collection interest is thai coins and world crowns......world crowns is extremely broad and vast, I set my criteria as 36mm and up and at least pre 1970 (older the better). How many countries are there............A LOT and each country may have multiple types of crowns depending on the year. What I do is browse and find a certain design I like and buy it and that completes that country. I will however buy a filler, usually a lower grade coin for the moment to fill in a empty spot for that country until I figure out what is a acceptable grade I'm willing to compromise on and then later come back to it. I jump from country to country all the time so it will take a very very long time but as for completing sets of world crowns from each country, oh heck no unless I'm a billionaire.

Awesome collecting goal. A lifetime of research and pursuit. 

10 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Impressive looking coins 

Merci. 

4 hours ago, Mk123 said:

I buy what I can afford at the time and then slowly upgrade.

I do much the same in the sense that almost everything is subject to upgrading, finances permitting, but only if I like the coins and they fit decently appearance-wise in whatever set I'm working on. It's often years before I get back to a set and then I often decide to sell rather than upgrade if the next level isn't reasonable ($) for me. Type I hang onto tho. My DB large eagle "set" is in line to be upgraded, slowly, but it is a decent-looking set as is. Just want to see more design details. BTW, I never start a set or series if there are too many stoppers at the ultimate condition level that I have in mind, which is MS63 or 64 for 20th century coins. For example, as much as I love walkers, I likely will never try to complete the series. 

PPS, forgot that the 1c has a TV as well. Also PF64, from the Rich Uhrich collection of toned IHC's. The TV for this one is flattering.  

P.S. the 10c was graded PF64cam, the $1.00PF64. 

3 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Lincolnman, if you ever image those coins individually, please post them. I would love to see close-ups of those 1859 proof coins. (and the others, as well)

 

Here are two that have True Views: 1859 10c and 1859 $1.00. Interestingly, IMO both look better in hand, but proofs are tough to capture. 

29 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Very nice looking sets, this is my mom's birth year set from 1940, very much along the same concept as you are doing.

 

Very nice. I like the idea of doing MMs as well as dates. Oh shoot, now you've got me thinking of doing that for my wife and me - 1945 and 1947, so not tough. I did all S mints since we were both born there. Love the boxes. 

52 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Those look like some really nice sets.

Thank you, lots of fun putting together. Labels are a hopeful addition - hope the kids or grandkids at least take a look. Maybe I'll do a display one day. Have a bunch of type sets assembled, but these are the only year sets other than the younger folks' birth years. Wish I had thought of the year /type concept sooner, but $$. 

On 8/22/2019 at 7:26 PM, LINCOLNMAN said:

Not my long suit but I'll give it a shot. Out of town until next week. These sets present very well, not like the old days but better than sticking them in a box in one's SDB.

 

Sorry about the quality and any other lameness. 1859 proof set, 1912 and 1918 birth sets (parents)
. 

14 hours ago, Revenant said:

I guess it depends on your definition of "hole-filler." If you mean a coin that is of lower grade or not visually appealing to me just to have something in the slot? No Generally I won't do that. I generally will not buy any coin if I'm already thinking about upgrading to another one or replacing it down the line before I even buy it. That means I'll never truly be satisfied with the coin or enjoy it. There are a couple of exceptions to this though and they both relate to my 10G set.

The 1887 in that set is an MS64 when I always told myself I wanted that set to be MS65 or higher. Why did I get it? It is literally the only one I've ever seen up for sale that was for sale when I saw it, and, at MS64, it's only one point off from my goal grade for the set. So it wasn't like I settled all that hard.

The other example is the 1875 I just ordered yesterday and should get in the mail next week. It's an MS66. A damn fine coin. The thing that makes it a "hole-filler?" I already have an MS67 - but it's graded by PCGS, so it can't be part of my NGC registry set. This new NGC graded MS66 was bought 100% to have a coin to put in a slot / hole. By definition it is a "hole-filler." I'm not getting rid of the PCGS coin though. Nuts to that. It's the first coin I ever bought for the set and I like it too much to ditch it over the company on the label.

Hard for me to conceive of a 64 or 66 coin as a hole filler. Your first paragraph is what I had in mind. I started this thread after reading about the Hansen set adding a details 33 10G for $300k or so. Around the same time they bought an apparently unattractive 94S dime. Since Hansen has demonstrated that he can afford whatever he wants and is willing to pay up, these two coins appear to meet your definition and mine. If he stays with his project, I would be surprised if they aren't replaced. No satisfaction and a good chance of wasted money. Spending money and wasting money are two different things to me, regardless how many digits.