What is a widget?

[Zoins]

I hear this term every now and again but I'm not sure what the definition is.

[BillJones]

It's a less than complimentary term that some people apply to very common coins that can be easily obtained. For example the “grand widget of Morgan Dollars” is the 1881-S in grades from MS-63 to 66. The coin is really easy to find, and it’s almost always Proof-like to varying degrees.

 

A similar term is “generic.”

[MunkyMan95]

What is a widget?

Moderns are an example of widgets. They make 'em by the billions, and no premium is usually associated with them. Except for rare issued (IE: 2006 plats uncirculated)

[MarkFeld]

What is a widget?

Moderns are an example of widgets. They make 'em by the billions, and no premium is usually associated with them. Except for rare issued (IE: 2006 plats uncirculated)

There are many older/classic coins which can fairly be called widgets too. Many generic gold coins, even in higher MS grades, as well as color-free silver coins also fit the bill in my opinion. Keep in mind, though, that one man's widget might be an other's dream coin.

[James_OldeTowne]

Yep, generic coins, almost exclusively in slabs, thus resulting in a commodity for which a too-high percentage of the value of the items is for the grade (and not the coin). Classic examples are as mentioned, the 1881-S Morgan, or any common Morgan for that matter, in better UNC grades - but NOT in the very upper echelon. Other classic examples would include late common-date Walkers in MS-65+, 1950s Washington quarters in MS-66+, late 1930s Buffalos (especially 1938-D) in MS-65+, and Saints in MS-61/62.

 

To give an example of why these are widgets, consider a 1945 Walker that you and I both know grades MS-66 and is normal blast-white. The fact of the matter is, if you try to sell that coin uncertified, you're going to get $30, $40, MAYBE $50 if your lucky, but stick it in a slab and what's it worth? Well, supposedly it's worth $250, but the reality still is that no dealer will give you more than say $100.

 

Basically, any coin that commonly trades for "ten back" - which is dealer-speak for "10% below greysheet" - is going to be a widget. Nobody really wants them, but too many people think that since it carries a high certified grade, it's worth a lot.

 

My pet-peeve in widgets is 1909-VDB Lincolns in, say, MS-65 RED. You might have to pay about $150 for a certified coin, but you can STILL find coins just as nice un-certified for about 10% of that price.

[MunkyMan95]

What is a widget?

Moderns are an example of widgets. They make 'em by the billions, and no premium is usually associated with them. Except for rare issued (IE: 2006 plats uncirculated)

There are many older/classic coins which can fairly be called widgets too. Many generic gold coins, even in higher MS grades, as well as color-free silver coins also fit the bill in my opinion. Keep in mind, though, that one man's widget might be an other's dream coin.

 

I didn't mention classics since the morgan dollars had already been mentioned. I agree. Another example of a widget would be 1922 peace dollars in MS63. They're everywhere.

[Amanda]

I don't get why a numismatist would refer to any coins in his/her collection as a widget.

 

-Amanda

[MarkFeld]

I don't get why a numismatist would refer to any coins in his/her collection as a widget.

 

-Amanda

Amanda, calling a coin a "widget" is faster, easier and often just as accurate as referring to it as a generic looking, color-free coin.

[Amanda]

I don't get why a numismatist would refer to any coins in his/her collection as a widget.

 

-Amanda

Amanda, calling a coin a "widget" is faster, easier and often just as accurate as referring to it as a generic looking, color-free coin.

 

But each coin is different from any other coin.

 

So a particular kind of coin might be available perhaps, but each is certainly unique in it's own way, like its personal history, as told by surface preservation, past owners et cetera.

 

Or maybe I am by myself in thinking this way. I don't mind, though.

 

-Amanda

[physics-fan3.14]

Amanda, I certainly agree with you from a collector's standpoint. For the present time, all I can afford are widgets. However, I enjoy them, and I collect them and study them and do everything more advanced and more monied numismatists do. The term widgets seems to be something that investors think about, implying that a coin is beneath them or worthless. I realize that the coins I own are for the most part common, smaller value widgets, but I don't care. They are mine, and that's enough for me.

[MarkFeld]

I don't get why a numismatist would refer to any coins in his/her collection as a widget.

 

-Amanda

Amanda, calling a coin a "widget" is faster, easier and often just as accurate as referring to it as a generic looking, color-free coin.

 

But each coin is different from any other coin.

 

So a particular kind of coin might be available perhaps, but each is certainly unique in it's own way, like its personal history, as told by surface preservation, past owners et cetera.

 

Or maybe I am by myself in thinking this way. I don't mind, though.

 

-Amanda

Amanda, you certainly raised fair points. To a truly devoted collector, no two coins are exactly alike, and the term "widget" probably wouldn't apply.

[BillJones]

The trouble with widgets is that they are so common that they can't get a collector's pulse going. They just become dull because we see so many of them.

[comicAL]

I don't get why a numismatist would refer to any coins in his/her collection as a widget.

 

-Amanda

Amanda, calling a coin a "widget" is faster, easier and often just as accurate as referring to it as a generic looking, color-free coin.

 

But each coin is different from any other coin.

 

So a particular kind of coin might be available perhaps, but each is certainly unique in it's own way, like its personal history, as told by surface preservation, past owners et cetera.

 

Or maybe I am by myself in thinking this way. I don't mind, though.

 

-Amanda

 

Hi, Amanda

 

I agree completely with you!

 

This term "widget"seems elitist to me! I sell mostly entry level coins and moderns and I respect all my collectors. I just do not like this term, IMHO!

 

AAJ

[MikeKing]

 

I agree with Amanda. These so called widgets are the mainstay of the hobby. And I agree with ComicAl that it is an elitist term.

 

this is the edited version of what I just said but deleted.

 

Maybe I'll edit this further.

 

It can be used in an elitist way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lkenefic]

I hear this term every now and again but I'm not sure what the definition is.

 

...come look at my collection...

[Houston Investor]

I thought the definition of widget was any coin under $1000 as this was the impression I got across the street based on the posts of a well known NJ dealer. Sorry, I guess I am just a wannabe by this persons standards, but most of my clients have trouble affording anything over $300 let alone $1000.

 

I don't particularly care for toned coins and certainly would never refer to a brilliant untoned Morgan Dollar with super luster and equisite PL contrast as a widget even if it is an 1880-S common date (I have a few of these and wow they are nice). I recently dipped some light orange toning off a MS 64 Commem half I recently acquired, cracking it out of its holder (could not stand the orange toning spot near the rim). The coin appears as brilliant and lustrous as the day it left the mint, at least a 100% improvement in eye appeal. It was submitted for slabbing with 9 other coins to one of the major 4 TPG's. I find it insulting others would call this a widget. I am proud of my coins!

 

Based on the first definition, there are few collectors who can afford coins that are not widgets. For that matter I do not carry any non widgets I know of. If the coin is more expensive than a 1 Oz American Gold Eagle, I probably have no use for it. I am proud of my inventory / porfolio, especially my stacks of gold bullion coins and rolls of 90% silver I have been loading up on recently. The garbage can in my garage (hiding place) full of junk silver and silver coin rolls has become full. Think I will go shopping tomorrow looking for another garbage can - a guy on Kitco was projecting $200 / oz silver in the near future.

[Architecht]

http://boards.collectors-society.com/sho...e=0#Post1401593

[Beijim]

For an amusing definition of the term "widget" watch the Rodney Dangerfield film Back to School and pay attention during the scene in Dr. Barbay's economics class in which the good professor attempts to explain basic corporate finance.

 

Beijim

[raycyca-migration]

Hello Mark! Glad to see you back in the thick of things! We miss you on the "other side"! I agree widgets are based on whom you are talking to. I don't call ANY coin a widget. Even a brand newly minted coin has a history. Granted it's very short and dull, but it's there. When I held my 1795 half years ago raw, before slabbing companies came along, it was a wonder to behold. I had visions of whom might have held it. Possibly George Washington, or at least his banker? Back then, they could have satyed in a hotel with food for a week for about $1. The state of preservation varies tremenously in older coins. Even if cleaned, the old coins have a remarkable history.

 

Look at the shipwreck coins. I'll never buy one though. I think the shipwreck effect on the silver coins is a farce and pitty those fools buying the coins. Before I actually saw the coins I told myself I would buy one to have a piece of history so I could hold it in my hand. Just think, you're holding a piece of history from a ship that was under water for over 100 years. How many people were looking for it, or, others like it. You are now holding an object of MANY people's passions for over 100 years. Doesn't that get your heart pumping? If not, you're not a true coin COLLECTOR. BUT, that's part of the story. My heart would be racing to hold one of the coins, BUT, the prices are riduculous!!!! I guess I'm a collector, but, I have my price. And that's TOO high! This is NOT a widget. Neither is the Jamestown commemorative coin which probably hasn't bene minted yet. If it was, it wsa only for presentation pieces.

 

Just think of people whom call coins widgets, as people whom probably frown on people "wasting" their money on modern coins because those dealers aren't getting the buisness. Call it sour grapes. BUT, that doesn't mean those dealers don't have nice coins. Legend DOES have a lot of nice coins that I would LOVE to add to my collection, they just don't fit into what I desire to [urcahse right now. Perhaps when I get over my mind set right now they will get my buisness.. Just my fifty cents. Can you guess what I collect? Have a great day! Ray

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't get why a numismatist would refer to any coins in his/her collection as a widget.

A numismatist - that is to say, a REAL numismatist - probably wouldn't, because he probably wouldn't spend a lot of time discussing coins that are common as rice at a wedding! This is why I do not consider it an elitist term. It has an appropriate usage, and that is for commodities.

 

To put it a different way, what "real numismatist" runs around the bourse floor looking for common-date generic blast-white large silver coins in MS-64 slabs? I don't know of any! Therefore, there's no particular reason that a "real numismatist" would need to use the term, because it likely falls outside the scope of his numismatic interest.

 

The people that usually use the term are dealers, especially commodity-type dealers, those whose cases are filled to overflowing with common-date Morgans, Walkers and gold coins.

[IGWT]

A "widget" is a hypothetical manufactured object or a gadget. The definition doesn’t seem to fit the context in which we use it; and maybe "fungible" is a better choice of words, meaning coins that are relatively common with one not differing from many others in an appreciable way.

 

Words like "widget" and "fungible" should not be understood to disparage coins that are collectible and an important segment of the coin market. The concern is that some collectors misjudge the availability of the coins and overpay by chasing them at auction.

[Amanda]

I don't get why a numismatist would refer to any coins in his/her collection as a widget.

A numismatist - that is to say, a REAL numismatist - probably wouldn't, because he probably wouldn't spend a lot of time discussing coins that are common as rice at a wedding! This is why I do not consider it an elitist term. It has an appropriate usage, and that is for commodities.

 

To put it a different way, what "real numismatist" runs around the bourse floor looking for common-date generic blast-white large silver coins in MS-64 slabs? I don't know of any! Therefore, there's no particular reason that a "real numismatist" would need to use the term, because it likely falls outside the scope of his numismatic interest.

 

The people that usually use the term are dealers, especially commodity-type dealers, those whose cases are filled to overflowing with common-date Morgans, Walkers and gold coins.

 

James, I am sorry to disagree with you, but I would think that a REAL numismatist would appreciate all coins, great and small.

 

At least, to some extent.

 

-Amanda

[James_OldeTowne]

James, I am sorry to disagree with you, but I would think that a REAL numismatist would appreciate all coins, great and small.

 

At least, to some extent.

 

-Amanda

Hi Amanda.

 

I think a real numismatist would TRY to appreciate all coins, but when you can't separate a coin from its slab because it is all wrapped up in a "financial value" continuum, then it may not be possible. In other words, I happen to like 1881-S Morgan dollars in MS-64 at $25, because they are always pleasing to look at. But I don't like an NGC MS-64 1881-S Morgan dollar, because then the "widget" is going to cost me twice as much - yet it is still the same darned coin. It's just been "widgetized" by the plastic. Yet I don't have a choice. I HAVE to pay the excessive overhead, because the attached plastic encasement is a cost incurred by the dealer who (foolishly) submitted the coin.

 

A dealer is not going to pay $20 for a coin, pay $25 to get it certified, then sell it for just $25 - which is still the coin's real value. He's going to want $50 (including a small profit).

 

The point I'm trying to make is that term "widget" is applicable due 95% to the slab, and not the coin. That is why it is a disparaging term (to most folks).

[cpm9ball]

I think I recall from my Econ 101 class 40 years ago that a widget was a hypothetical product of manufacturing used to determine the COGS. Why don't we use the term "slaboses" for generic, blast white coins that have been encapsulated and "slabatitis" for the malady that afflicts such a person?

 

Chris

[MikeKing]

I think I recall from my Econ 101 class 40 years ago that a widget was a hypothetical product of manufacturing used to determine the COGS. Why don't we use the term "slaboses" for generic, blast white coins that have been encapsulated and "slabatitis" for the malady that afflicts such a person?

 

Chris

 

slabatitis...what a great word.

I've had slabatitis, still have a touch of it. James has antibodies for it though!

[BillJones]

In the $10 Indian series, the 1932 is considered to be “a widget” because that date, along with the 1926, is the most common. I bought a really nice one in an MS-63 holder and will continue to treasure it in my collection for the following reasons.

 

First, the grading services treat the 1932 and 1926 eagles as widgets and do a darn poor job of grading them IMO. Many pieces have big marks on them, lack eye appeal and would be graded a point or two lower if they were any other date.

 

Second, the 1932 eagle was minted at a time when our nation was suffering through The Great Depression. $10 in those days would have seemed like a fortune to many people who had lost their jobs and everything else.

 

Third, the 1932 is the only gold coin in the 1930’s that the average collector of reasonable means can afford. All of the other U.S. gold coins dated in the ‘30s are beyond our reach.

 

Not all “widgets” are bad or undesirable coins. And sometimes the “widget” label lowers the prices and makes it easier for us plebeians to afford to own them.

[Beijim]

I think I recall from my Econ 101 class 40 years ago that a widget was a hypothetical product of manufacturing used to determine the COGS.

Precisely what Dr. Barbay says, albeit accompanied by a large dose of British condescension.

 

Beijim