What makes a Great Collection?
0

13 posts in this topic

4,843 posts

I agree with most of it.  Depth and expansiveness are almost the same thing.  I think quality and completeness are the most important of the five mentioned, as that is what I look for the most.  It's in my nature to be the best that I can be and to always finish what I start.  I think that's what drives me.  Being pioneering would be very good but also very challenging, today.  

If it were my article; I would discuss rarity, quality, eye appeal, passion, patience, knowledge and friendships/relationships/networking.  To me those are most important.  JMHO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,920 posts

I don't know. I think if you mean "great" in the context of the "famous" ones that we all hear about, I don't know if you're ever going to get to that level without serious money going into it - especially when even the author lists "expansiveness" as a criterion. If you mean "great" in the sense of it being awesome or inspiring, I think they have a point.

Maybe this is a failure of imagination on my part, but I don't know if the modern coinage getting churned out now is ever going to feed into making a great collection in the same way that the classic series did. So much of it is just too common and too uninspired. I love some of what's been done across the globe with the Modern Silver Bullion coinage and one of these days I'm hoping I'll get to go back and fill-in the gaps that have opened up for me there but most of those are so common that I don't know if a set / collection of them is ever really going to raise eyebrows in the same way as the collections referenced in those articles. Is that going to stop me? No. I like what I like and I'm going to build those sets as I like, but I don't think it's going to end up with others calling it "great."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
614 posts
13 hours ago, Walkerfan said:

I agree with most of it.  Depth and expansiveness are almost the same thing.  I think quality and completeness are the most important of the five mentioned, as that is what I look for the most.  It's in my nature to be the best that I can be and to always finish what I start.  I think that's what drives me.  Being pioneering would be very good but also very challenging, today.  

If it were my article; I would discuss rarity, quality, eye appeal, passion, patience, knowledge and friendships/relationships/networking.  To me those are most important.  JMHO.  

I think depth and expansiveness are slightly different. Expansiveness in my mind is a very thin layer of many different coin types. Depth is the many different variations of a single coin. A good example is the Bentley sovereign collection where he was very deep - many examples of different dies for a given date and mint.

As for quality and completeness - I agree. Unfortunately, my collections have mixed quality and are not yet complete. It is an endeavor that I strive for and I may complete some of my sub sets, but I will never be able to complete my comprehensive set because of the cost and the scarcity of some of the issues. I started my sets small and of mediocre quality and have been expanding and improving them as I go, but in the long run - even though I might have the number one set in the registry - I will fall short compared to the sets that I admire.

As for pioneering - I cannot see how, given my focus, I could achieve this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
614 posts
39 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

This is a subject that comes up every so often. There were a couple of fun quotes in this one that I really liked: 

"the easiest way to build a great collection: buy someone else’s great collection."

"Anyone can build a great collection, though it is admittedly easier to do when wealthy."

I like those statements as well. I would be nice to have deep pockets and buy a solid foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 4:44 PM, Zebo said:

 I have the same sentiments previously expressed on similar subjects, one of which was the definition of a "world class" collection.

The three colonial collections used as the primary example, at least these coins are distinctive, as in looking different versus other coins, being somewhat or actually scarce and being more interesting to those who don't collect it from a historical aspect.

This doesn't apply to the majority of collections and cannot, regardless of what the coin looks like or how scarce it is under one of the currently in vogue US specializations.  It's subjective but US collectors collectively have the lowest standard of significance of any country on the planet.  Except in South Africa where similar inflated perceptions exist due to the TPG grade and the desire to inflate the price level as much and as soon as possible, I have never read any sentiments elsewhere which correspond to the opinions expressed by US collectors.

There is a difference between "great" and "world class" versus nice and worth collecting.  The collections for which many (maybe most) US collectors have such high opinions better fall into the last two descriptions.  The way we can know this is that US collectors didn't have these sentiments in the past when the price level was much lower, TPG didn't exist and they could afford a much wider range of (primarily US) coinage.

Lastly, as for an example like Pittman, his collection actually was "great" and "world class" for the reasons provided by the article.  Many (maybe most )knowledgeable US collectors might consider it inferior to the best US centric collections since the start of TPG grading but this contradicts common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636 posts
On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:46 PM, Coinbuf said:

A great collection cannot be defined by others because any collection is a result of the owner and his/her ideas, tastes, and collecting direction.  I have no doubt that my meager collection will never be considered great by anyone but myself and that's perfectly fine, I'm the only one I have to satisfy.  I read that article, now I've been collecting on and off since the 1980's and I've never heard of any of the three collectors that he mentions so were those collections really great or only great to the author.  Maybe if I know the individuals involved or had seen the collections first hand I would also think of them as great.  This subject makes me think about the Hanson collection that is being amassed ats, I'm sure it will be considered great by many, but just because he has the disposable income to have such a massive collection built for him is it truly great?  Certainly his collection has many condition rarities and beautiful coins, but is writing big checks all it takes to have a great collection.  Perhaps it doesn't matter if a collection is built by an individual who spends time searching for coins that fit vs a collection that a dealer amasses for someone; perhaps it does.  At the end of the day we all need to be happy with our collections and the direction we are traveling.  Great can be just good enough.

You raise many good points.  There is no real accomplishment in having a much bigger budget versus practically everyone else.  That's why I personally rate Pittman first, even though he wasn't collecting on a budget which is representative of most participants either here or on the PCGS forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0