• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Do you buy "Hole Fillers"?
0

21 posts in this topic

A couple of very high-profile purchases recently strike me as "hole fillers", albeit very expensive ones. I've developed a strong opinion about filler coins over the years: I just never do it. In my early years in my zeal to complete a set I bought a few, but always came to regret it. First, there is no real sense of completion. Second, there is a real sense of wasting money. I don't mind spending money on coins for which I have little hope of gain or probably breaking even, in any near term or at all. But just wasting money is another matter. I have to admit to settling for a coin or other collectible of lesser quality than I would like, but such cases are based on affordability (or perceived value for price) and must fit well in my set/display. For example, I would buy a nice slider AU 16D to complete an otherwise unc Merc set.   

Thoughts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With me, it depends on the series. As I have already stated several times, I often have to settle for what is available, when it comes to tokens. If I want an example from a particular town or company, I may have to take what I can get.

On the other hand, I started a certified Roosevelt set many years ago. I am not a registry participant, so I don't look for points, especially with the FT designation. But if it isn't  MS67 or higher, I don't buy it. I will not settle for anything less, just to fill a spot. I haven't added to it in a while, and still have a ways to go. The same goes for my circulated type set that I try to add a few coins to each year. I have passed on some nice looking VG and F coins, because they would not fit with the VF-AU  coins in the set.

Good topic, by the way.

Edited by Just Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are hard to find or the price is right - I will. An example is something that will be upgraded later, but purchased at its melt price or close to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just Bob said:

With me, it depends on the series. As I have already stated several times, I often have to settle for what is available, when it comes to tokens. If I want an example from a particular town or company, I may have to take what I can get.

On the other hand, I started a certified Roosevelt set many years ago. I am not a registry participant, so I don't look for points, especially with the FT designation. But if it isn't  MS67 or higher, I don't buy it. I will not settle for anything less, just to fill a spot. I haven't added to it in a while, and still have a ways to go. The same goes for my circulated type set that I try to add a few coins to each year. I have passed on some nice looking VG and F coins, because they would not fit with the VF-AU  coins in the set.

Good topic, by the way.

The token comment brings up something of an exception to me as well. I collect certain medals which are not expensive but rare. I bought some cleaned bronze ones just because I probably will not see them again in this life. I'm darkening them so they at least show reasonably well. I assume the EAC guys and colonial guys (and other collectors of rare or hard to locate items) often have to settle for what's available. My original post has more to do with coins that are available, at least from time to time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AcesKings said:

You mean like this? 

1893CC-VAM2.jpg

1893CC-R-VAM2.jpg

Depends on the rest of the set, per my point. That's a very nice coin BTW. If I were doing Morgans I would have to try to go with nice circulated examples, too many stoppers for my budget to handle MS. (Not sure what is to be done with '95.) I would have the same issue with many other series that I admire. Also applies to early type in my case. My silver draped bust coins range from 8 to 30, but they look nice together.  

Edited by LINCOLNMAN
clarify
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zebo said:

If they are hard to find or the price is right - I will. An example is something that will be upgraded later, but purchased at its melt price or close to it. 

No fair, buying at melt or near it there is no significant waste. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a general rule, I try to avoid buying a coin simply to have an example of it in my collection. This was not always the case and there are a few coins I plan to upgrade at some point. Like most others, this comes down to obtaining the best example I can within my budget. With that said there are some coins which I just have to accept what I can get. For example, the coin pictured below is a pattern halfpenny issued under William and Mary. NGC has only one graded (an MS-65!!) and my coin is the only example at PCGS. Two of the three auction results I was able to locate for examples of Peck-594 are for the coin that is now in my collection. The other auction record was for a better-preserved example that sold on Heritage 5 years ago. I was able to add this example for cheap and even though it is a very low grade it is essentially the best example I can hope to pick up for the foreseeable future. So I suppose the answer to your question is that it depends.

smaller.thumb.JPG.896c60b25f5e6a145799ec6a7305ea9d.JPG

 

Edited by coinsandmedals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Depends on the rest of the set, per my point. 

I guess the average of the rest of my Morgans would be around MS64, so I guess that one would be a filler till I can find/afford better.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my primary series (pillar minors from Bolivia and Peru), I will buy coins that otherwise do not match with those I own since that's all that is available.  This can be a low quality coin without problems or a higher grade one (based upon wear) with minor problems.  I don't buy noticeably damaged coins no matter how rare, such as holed.

I'd never buy fillers for a coin or series which I consider to be common, including those which US collectors consider to be scarce, due to price.  I'd just do without.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never do this, I did buy a few early on but found those to be very bad buying choices when trying to sell.  I can understand for some types and dates where availability or price point dictates what a collector can find or afford that hole fillers may be the only option, but even in those situations I would just leave the spot empty rather than buy an ugly or badly damaged piece. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

Hard for me to conceive of a 64 or 66 coin as a hole filler. Your first paragraph is what I had in mind. 

Yeah... It might be more fair and accurate to call that MS66 a "registry-driven purchase."

 if a great, higher grade 1887 popped up I could see replacing that coin just tho have the entire set be technically "gem BU," but I think I'll still be quite happy with the set of that coin is never replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the set and the price differential.  I am certain I have some hole fillers in my mercury and buffalo sets, but I don't really care about them.  I filled up the books years ago and I doubt I've looked at them more than a handful of time since.  For my Saint set I bought a cleaned 24-D. but it was nice.  Bought a 1794 half and that was a definite hole filler, but I don't feel bad about it.

Link to comment
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