What EXCITES you about our shared hobby?

[jtryka]

After seeing the what bores you about coins thread, I thought we needed a positive version, so what do you find exciting about coins in general or the coins you collect?

 

For me, I love most US gold. It reminds me of the history, from the first goldrush in the southeast to the "forty-niners" to the Klondike. Granted there were positives and negatives about all of these gold rushes, but I prefer to romanticize them anyway! Then there is the old west aspect, picturing some cowboys and outlaws playing cards over some Morgans and Liberty gold!

 

I also really enjoy the Bust halves I've started to collect, as they are a real close connection to the early days of the Republic. To think that one of the founding fathers might have spent on of my coins, or maybe someone now pictured on our currency might have received it in change. All that for not a lot of money.

 

Then I look at high grade low denomination coins and think who saved this coin? Why was it so special to them that they saved it for so long and kept it in such good condition? (this certainly applied less to Morgans and Gold as it generally went from mint to bank vault and stayed there).

 

So what EXCITES you?

[EVillageProwler]

What excites me about our shared hobby is the incredible diversity of interest and our ability to communicate our interest with passion. We are all not like Michael, but our passion is not muted because we write in prose.

 

EVP

 

[BillJones]

The pieces that have held my interest though the years have been early half dimes (1792 - 1805) and gold.

 

The half dimes excite me for several reasons. First the 1792 was made from silver that George Washington donated; Jefferson supervised their production; and Washington and Jefferson personally handed them out to various people as the first U.S. coinage that was made of a precious metal.

 

Second I have been fascinated fact the the early mint would attempt to put so much detail on such a tiny coin. They usually failed, of course, because most of these coins are very poorly struck. Still the amount of die work that was required is truly remarkable.

 

Third is the fact that these coins are very scarce. The fact that 1795 is the most common date in the series tells you something. I saw my first early half dime when I was a junior in college. I had been collecting for almost 10 years, and yet I had never seen one these coins. The coin I saw was an 1800 in VF, and the asking price was $300. At that time it may as well have been 3 million because I did not have the money, but it grabbed my interest.

 

My gold sweet tooth runs toward either pretty high grade (MS-64) scarce coins in at least AU. I formed an 8 piece type set when I was in high school in the 1960s, and since then I have been refing and expanding my gold type coins.

 

Beyond those to areas, I've always enjoyed any early coin from the 1793 to 1807 area. I collect a lot of other pieces, but those are the coins that grabbed most of my collector dollars.

[true_grade]

Most anything pre-1878.

[RotatedRainbows]

Finding a new major rotated die error (90°-180°) that is not listed in any of the previous books wrote on the subject, the first printed in 1967 the second in 1979 and the last authored by Leroy Van Allen in 1991. I was thrilled to pick up the UNC 1920 Maine commem half rotated 95°ccw a few weeks ago, the first early commem ever found with major die rotation.

[Wihlborg]

I have always been a history buff, and to me history and coins go hand in hand. History is as much a part of every coin that has ever been minted as the metal it is made of. Pick any issue and there is a story for it to tell. Why was it issued? Who may have owned it? What was it like to live in the year it was minted? These are all questions that come to mind every time I look at a coin.

 

Like my sig line says, when you collect coins you are holding history in your hand!

 

John

 

[BankNote1]

I know this is a coin forum but I would have to say Mississippi Red Seal Nationals. There aren't but 27 known, and I have 5!

[MikeKing]

My coin collecting 'rebirth' started evolved into CC Gold coinage, but then started to look at coins based on the birth years of people that were close to me and a whole new world opened up. I used to poo poo Proof Franklins or Washington Quarters and wouldn't even look at a Lincoln cent. Now, I'm totally in love with those coins, either in high mint grade or DCAM. Each one is a jewel. I even bought a lower grade Lincoln not just because of the year it was minted, but because it was one of the reddist Lincolns I had ever seen.

 

Yep! A whole new world.

[DonHeath]

Great thread. There are hundreds of ways to collect, and probably as many reasons. For me, it is the constant surprise and discovery. Whether it's a new coin fact, an undiscovered source of information, a new perspective, a new web site, a doubled die, a cud, a variety, die-clashes, a superbly toned coin, a fully brilliant star, or a world coin I've never seen. It's always exciting to see the mailman, or to get to a show early. What a truly diverse hobby. It is seldom boring.

[TomB]

I really enjoy the history associated with all aspects of numismatics, the ability to communicate with others who think in a similar manner, the hunt for the right coins, sharing coins with others who might not be aware of them and last, but certainly not least, I really enjoy looking at really nice coins.

[EVillageProwler]

I really enjoy the history associated with all aspects of numismatics

 

Tom,

 

You really enjoy history? Shall we discuss history again?!? Like, say, how Roman coins got to Kentucky?

 

 

EVP

 

[TomB]

How about some history like when the Mets were good? Ouch! Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[EVillageProwler]

What seems like ancient history now, back in 1999 and 2000, the Mets had very good defense, good pitching and (in 1999, at least), good hitting.

 

Piazza in his prime, Olerud at 1B, Robin at 3B, Fonzie at 2B -- these were all great signs. Even Rickey in LF was a great sign, as he's still the OB king and a great influence on the younger players. For those who don't know, even Benny Agbayani had a high OBP to go along with some power.

 

Of course, Phillips wanted Payton instead of Benny (luckily, Jay kept on getting hurt). El Rey was slick with his D, but never amounted much in assists. (Do I need to mention his hitting? Mora isn't so slick as Rey, but had greater range than Rey and could hit MUCH better.)

 

Phillips also panicked and replaced Olerud with Zeile, who is a marked decline defensively and offensively. The team didn't keep Bubba Trammell, who can hit with power. Phillips "added" when he got rid of Rickey, which is perplexing since Rickey still has an impressive OBP. (I mean last two seasons, not for the NWK Bears.)

 

The pitching? It was good then. The Gambler pitched the 2nd half of 1999 like he was the 2nd coming of Cy. Leiter's cut fastball was wicked. Bobby J. Jones pitched a 1-hitter against the Giants in the 2000 NLDS (the same night The Rockets pitched his 1-hitter against the A's?). Glendon Rusch was the perfect lefty long relief specialist. Even the venerable John Franco got Bonds in critical AB's.

 

Shawon Dunston, Darryl Hamilton and Timo Perez had brilliance with the Mets during that time. Mora scored the winning run during the tie-breaker game at the end of 1999, and he also threw out a runner coming home leading up to that critical game.

 

Since 2000, we must switch from History to Dark Comedy for me to continue... The new millenium has been bery bery bad to me.

 

 

EVP

 

[jtryka]

Ok, as a Cub fan, talking about history when the Mets were good (aka 1969) is a really touchy subject for me. SO STOP IT!

[TomB]

Sorry jtryka and EVP!

 

If only Timo had run in game one of the World Series!!! They might have been able to win the series. Yes I realize that that is a stretch, however, not an implausible one.

 

You don't have to go to 1969 for Mets-Cubs. Do you remember that in 1973 the Mets eliminated the Cubs on the next-to-last day of the season when they had back-to-back doubleheaders at Wrigley with each other? In 1984 the Cubs caught lightning in a bottle with Rick Sutcliffe (was he 16-1 with them?) and beat the Mets for the division. Similarly, in 1989 the Mets faded to second place to the Cubs again when Jerome Walton (?) won Rookie of the Year for Chicago. Did that guy ever have another halfway decent season? In 1998 the Braves swept the Mets at the end of the season to allow Chicago to tie SF for the wild card and have a one-game playoff, which Chicago won, for the post-season entry. So, both teams have done it to each other.

 

It's just that 1969 was the year!

[EVillageProwler]

I was too young in 1969, and not even in this country yet. I do, however, remember the 70's and early 80's -- especially when Koos lost his 20th of the season and the back-n-forth with the Mets, Cubbies and the Cards in the early and mid 80's.

 

Those 3 teams fairly pummeled each other during that period.

 

Of course, I was in college in '86 when the entire campus, in unison, went silent during each agonizing moment and screamed like little girls at a concert whenever something good happened. The campus, during that Buckner play in Gm 6, was deathly silent at first before erupting in rapturous delight as if each of us just had a culminating physical reaction! No one cared that we had yet to win that game, and that we still had Gm 7 to win.

 

I remember a week earlier how stressed I was having to choose between studying for an EE exam and watching every minute of that monstrously lengthy deciding Gm 6 against the Astros. We were all terrified of facing Mike Scott one more time...

 

Oh, the memories!

 

EVP

 

[jtryka]

Well, as a Cub fan, I am quite used to not making the playoffs, or at least not making it to the series. My Mom was 6 the last time the Cubs made the series and lost to Detroit, and my Dad was 4. I was not alive for 1969 (born a few months later) but I recall 84 vividly (and I am still convinced they would have made the series had the league not descriminated against Wrigley for not having lights). 89 was another agony, and 98, well they were only the wild card. Still, I am convinced that the Cubbies will win back to back World Series in 2007 and 2008 to commemorate the 100th anniversary since the last time they did it!

 

And just so this doesn't get too off-topic, the last Cubs World series appearance:

 

1945: Wheat cents, Jefferson War Nickels, Mercury Dimes, Washington Quarters and Walking Liberty halves were produced for circulation.

 

Last Cubs World Series victory:

 

1908: Indian Head Cents, Liberty Nickels, Barber Dimes, Quarters and Halves, Indian Quarter and Half Eagles, Indian Eagles (with and without mottos) and Saint-Gaudens Double eagles (with and without mottos) were produced by the mint for circulation.

 

 

[mdwoods]

One of the main things that excites me about coins is the direct link to a bygone age. They connect us to past generations of humanity. mdwoods

 

[davefperry]

Past, present and future. We collect coins now from the past for future generations. It's spiritual in nature except for the money aspect.