If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RCC Tokens
Its been 2354 days since my last post here. I do not see many of the
old names, but I guess things change. Anyway I found a bunch of RCC tokens in my desk draw the other day. From 2002 through 2004 I can find very little info on the net about their popularity. Are these still collected by RCC members? if so what are the going rates for them. Thank you for your time. nohope587 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RCC Tokens
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RCC Tokens
Your reply would indicate otherwise.
I am patient they have been sitting in a draw for a fair few years another decade will not harm them. Though if this group will even be around then who knows. Richard Eric Babula wrote: nohope587 wrote in news:af76c995-d7d1-485d-a800- : Its been 2354 days since my last post here. I do not see many of the old names, but I guess things change. Anyway I found a bunch of RCC tokens in my desk draw the other day. From 2002 through 2004 I can find very little info on the net about their popularity. Are these still collected by RCC members? if so what are the going rates for them. Thank you for your time. nohope587 They are not popular and are not worth anything. Send them all to me, and I'll "dispose" of them for you. Eric Babula |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RCC Tokens
On 5/21/2010 7:37 PM, Eric Babula wrote:
Anyway I found a bunch of RCC tokens in my desk draw the other day. From 2002 through 2004 I can find very little info on the net about their popularity. Are I don't think these have much market value, and you don't see them for sale at all on eBay, or hardly at all. I followed only the first such token. The process of choosing it was fairly schizoid. I have one of these as a curiosity, and here's what I have at my site about it (long): RCC 2002 bronze token (32.1g, 40mm). This odd-looking token, consisting of bronze with an antique brass finish, was made for rec.collecting.coins (RCC), a Usenet discussion group about coins, with this being the group's first such token. It was made by Quality Challenge Coins, which produced 121 pieces of this type, and the project was spearheaded by George V. Huse Jr., a participant in the discussion group. The circumstances behind the minting of this token, which I witnessed firsthand, present an interesting example of the issue of Internet misinformation. Unlike the vast majority of other medals and tokens inspired by ancient Athenian Owl coins, this piece isn't based on the famous Classical Owls of the fifth century BC but the less important New Style Owls of the second and first centuries BC. However, as opposed to the actual ancient coins, Athena is facing left on this token rather than right because Huse was led to believe that if this copy had been made with a right-facing Athena it might be regarded as a forgery or might be modified and sold as an authentic ancient coin. This is despite the fact that this token is considerably larger and heavier than ancient coins of this type, that it's made of a copper alloy whereas the ancient tetradrachms were made of silver (ancient bronzes of this type exist but they're even smaller and are seen far less), that it was manufactured with a modern press and has a perfectly round shape, flat fields, and uniform rims and other design elements as opposed to the irregularity of ancient hand-struck coins, and that it features modern Latin lettering and Arabic numbering, which no ancient Greek coins had because such lettering and numbering hadn't yet come into existence. What's more, the model used for this token wasn't a genuine New Style Owl because some RCC participants convinced Huse that using a photo from a coin book for design guidance could result in a copyright violation. For some reason no genuine specimens of this common coin type were available for a scan or photo and no attempt was made to ask for the use of anyone's existing photo. So instead a Slavey replica of a New Style Owl tetradrachm was purchased and a scan of it was made and sent to the minter even though Slavey replicas have a reputation at least among those who know ancient coins for their flamboyant exaggeration. Unlike with genuine New Style Owls, which feature Athena with a pleasant smile or neutral expression, Athena on this piece has an unpleasant scowl. Another anomaly is the obverse legend "Pallas Athene," which never appeared on ancient coins of this type and which misdescribes the Athena that's illustrated. Pallas is one of the many epithets sometimes used as part of Athena's name, in this case signifying an opponent she killed in battle whose name she took. But the epithet used with Athena on New Style Owls in coin books and coin catalogs is Parthenos, not Pallas, as in Athena Parthenos, since the image used on these coins is thought to have been based on the sculpture of Athena by Phidias that stood in the Parthenon. What's more, Athena is much more commonly spelled with an "a" at the end, "Athena" instead of "Athene," in books on numismatics as well as mythology, not to mention being better known this way in the popular culture. Two further anomalies are an owl that's smaller than on authentic New Style Owls and a wreath around the coin's edge that's larger, with the wreath taking up far more space even though the owl by far is the more important design element. -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RCC Tokens
? "Reid Goldsborough" ?????? ??? ??????
... On 5/21/2010 7:37 PM, Eric Babula wrote: Anyway I found a bunch of RCC tokens in my desk draw the other day. From 2002 through 2004 I can find very little info on the net about their popularity. Are I don't think these have much market value, and you don't see them for sale at all on eBay, or hardly at all. I followed only the first such token. I'd buy one if offerd at a decent price (that's no more than $25.00)... -- E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi puttane! F.d.A Coins, travels and mo http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/ http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html The process of choosing it was fairly schizoid. I have one of these as a curiosity, and here's what I have at my site about it (long): RCC 2002 bronze token (32.1g, 40mm). This odd-looking token, consisting of bronze with an antique brass finish, was made for rec.collecting.coins (RCC), a Usenet discussion group about coins, with this being the group's first such token. It was made by Quality Challenge Coins, which produced 121 pieces of this type, and the project was spearheaded by George V. Huse Jr., a participant in the discussion group. The circumstances behind the minting of this token, which I witnessed firsthand, present an interesting example of the issue of Internet misinformation. Unlike the vast majority of other medals and tokens inspired by ancient Athenian Owl coins, this piece isn't based on the famous Classical Owls of the fifth century BC but the less important New Style Owls of the second and first centuries BC. However, as opposed to the actual ancient coins, Athena is facing left on this token rather than right because Huse was led to believe that if this copy had been made with a right-facing Athena it might be regarded as a forgery or might be modified and sold as an authentic ancient coin. This is despite the fact that this token is considerably larger and heavier than ancient coins of this type, that it's made of a copper alloy whereas the ancient tetradrachms were made of silver (ancient bronzes of this type exist but they're even smaller and are seen far less), that it was manufactured with a modern press and has a perfectly round shape, flat fields, and uniform rims and other design elements as opposed to the irregularity of ancient hand-struck coins, and that it features modern Latin lettering and Arabic numbering, which no ancient Greek coins had because such lettering and numbering hadn't yet come into existence. What's more, the model used for this token wasn't a genuine New Style Owl because some RCC participants convinced Huse that using a photo from a coin book for design guidance could result in a copyright violation. For some reason no genuine specimens of this common coin type were available for a scan or photo and no attempt was made to ask for the use of anyone's existing photo. So instead a Slavey replica of a New Style Owl tetradrachm was purchased and a scan of it was made and sent to the minter even though Slavey replicas have a reputation at least among those who know ancient coins for their flamboyant exaggeration. Unlike with genuine New Style Owls, which feature Athena with a pleasant smile or neutral expression, Athena on this piece has an unpleasant scowl. Another anomaly is the obverse legend "Pallas Athene," which never appeared on ancient coins of this type and which misdescribes the Athena that's illustrated. Pallas is one of the many epithets sometimes used as part of Athena's name, in this case signifying an opponent she killed in battle whose name she took. But the epithet used with Athena on New Style Owls in coin books and coin catalogs is Parthenos, not Pallas, as in Athena Parthenos, since the image used on these coins is thought to have been based on the sculpture of Athena by Phidias that stood in the Parthenon. What's more, Athena is much more commonly spelled with an "a" at the end, "Athena" instead of "Athene," in books on numismatics as well as mythology, not to mention being better known this way in the popular culture. Two further anomalies are an owl that's smaller than on authentic New Style Owls and a wreath around the coin's edge that's larger, with the wreath taking up far more space even though the owl by far is the more important design element. -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RCC Tokens
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 5/21/2010 7:37 PM, Eric Babula wrote: Anyway I found a bunch of RCC tokens in my desk draw the other day. From 2002 through 2004 I can find very little info on the net about their popularity. Are I don't think these have much market value, and you don't see them for sale at all on eBay, or hardly at all. I followed only the first such token. The process of choosing it was fairly schizoid. I have one of these as a curiosity, and here's what I have at my site about it (long): RCC 2002 bronze token (32.1g, 40mm). This odd-looking token, consisting of bronze with an antique brass finish, was made for rec.collecting.coins (RCC), a Usenet discussion group about coins, with this being the group's first such token. It was made by Quality Challenge Coins, which produced 121 pieces of this type, and the project was spearheaded by George V. Huse Jr., a participant in the discussion group. The circumstances behind the minting of this token, which I witnessed firsthand, present an interesting example of the issue of Internet misinformation. Unlike the vast majority of other medals and tokens inspired by ancient Athenian Owl coins, this piece isn't based on the famous Classical Owls of the fifth century BC but the less important New Style Owls of the second and first centuries BC. However, as opposed to the actual ancient coins, Athena is facing left on this token rather than right because Huse was led to believe that if this copy had been made with a right-facing Athena it might be regarded as a forgery or might be modified and sold as an authentic ancient coin. This is despite the fact that this token is considerably larger and heavier than ancient coins of this type, that it's made of a copper alloy whereas the ancient tetradrachms were made of silver (ancient bronzes of this type exist but they're even smaller and are seen far less), that it was manufactured with a modern press and has a perfectly round shape, flat fields, and uniform rims and other design elements as opposed to the irregularity of ancient hand-struck coins, and that it features modern Latin lettering and Arabic numbering, which no ancient Greek coins had because such lettering and numbering hadn't yet come into existence. What's more, the model used for this token wasn't a genuine New Style Owl because some RCC participants convinced Huse that using a photo from a coin book for design guidance could result in a copyright violation. For some reason no genuine specimens of this common coin type were available for a scan or photo and no attempt was made to ask for the use of anyone's existing photo. So instead a Slavey replica of a New Style Owl tetradrachm was purchased and a scan of it was made and sent to the minter even though Slavey replicas have a reputation at least among those who know ancient coins for their flamboyant exaggeration. Unlike with genuine New Style Owls, which feature Athena with a pleasant smile or neutral expression, Athena on this piece has an unpleasant scowl. Another anomaly is the obverse legend "Pallas Athene," which never appeared on ancient coins of this type and which misdescribes the Athena that's illustrated. Pallas is one of the many epithets sometimes used as part of Athena's name, in this case signifying an opponent she killed in battle whose name she took. But the epithet used with Athena on New Style Owls in coin books and coin catalogs is Parthenos, not Pallas, as in Athena Parthenos, since the image used on these coins is thought to have been based on the sculpture of Athena by Phidias that stood in the Parthenon. What's more, Athena is much more commonly spelled with an "a" at the end, "Athena" instead of "Athene," in books on numismatics as well as mythology, not to mention being better known this way in the popular culture. Two further anomalies are an owl that's smaller than on authentic New Style Owls and a wreath around the coin's edge that's larger, with the wreath taking up far more space even though the owl by far is the more important design element. Er....... he simply asked if these were still collected by rcc members and what their value might be. Gogu gave him a pretty good idea in a single sentence. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RCC Tokens
On 5/21/2010 10:47 PM, Bruce Remick wrote:
Er You should do something about this problem. he simply asked if these were still collected by rcc members and what their value might be. Gogu gave him a pretty good idea in a single sentence. And I gave background as I observed it on how the first token came into existence. And you feel you have to offer your sage commentary on my doing this. Got to stick your two cents in no matter what. Not even two cents, more like a farthing. No, not even a farthing, more like a chocolate coin that fell behind a sofa cushion a couple of years ago and is now chalky white and worthless. Gogu's offer is one indication of the value of the first of these, but only one person's, which is not a "pretty good idea" of its value, and this was just for the first token whereas the OP indicated he had a bunch of these, suggesting different ones. Along with asking here, Eric can get indications of what the entire group of these have sold for in the past by doing a Google search, or I can: http://www.collectingbanter.com/show...t=33830&page=3 and http://www.cointalk.com/t57/ -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
RCC Tokens
On 5/21/2010 11:30 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Eric can get indications of what the entire group of these have sold for in the past... Actually not Eric but Richard, the OP. -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RCC Tokens
Thank you all for your input.
I recognize that they do not have much if any intrinsic value. I have five each of 2002 5 Embers 2003 10 Embers 2004? Half Flame I have a couple of the original tokens and a spark. But unlike Mr. Goldsborough I like those and intend to keep them around a bit longer. I will construct a sale thread i guess and see if there are any takers $25 would also seem to me to be more than reasonable. Richard (nohope587) Reid Goldsborough wrote: On 5/21/2010 11:30 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote: Eric can get indications of what the entire group of these have sold for in the past... Actually not Eric but Richard, the OP. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
RCC Tokens
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 5/21/2010 10:47 PM, Bruce Remick wrote: Er You should do something about this problem. he simply asked if these were still collected by rcc members and what their value might be. Gogu gave him a pretty good idea in a single sentence. And I gave background as I observed it on how the first token came into existence. And you feel you have to offer your sage commentary on my doing this. Got to stick your two cents in no matter what. Not even two cents, more like a farthing. No, not even a farthing, more like a chocolate coin that fell behind a sofa cushion a couple of years ago and is now chalky white and worthless. You really do see yourself as the master of prose, don't you. The OP wasn't asking for "background" and you implied that you didn't know much about their popularity or value. I see it as YOU sticking your two cents in. You continue to post here on this open forum and you will continue to get comments that you may or may not agree with. If it bothers you, go find an owl site to play on where everyone thinks you're a hoot. Gogu's offer is one indication of the value of the first of these, but only one person's, which is not a "pretty good idea" of its value, and this was just for the first token whereas the OP indicated he had a bunch of these, suggesting different ones. Along with asking here, Eric can get indications of what the entire group of these have sold for in the past by doing a Google search, or I can: I would say that one person's direct offer to buy does indeed provide a "pretty good idea" of value. Bettter even than your own "I don't think these have much value" comment. You obviously had little to contribute to the OP's questions about popularity and value, but instead you chose to use the post as another opportunity to ramble on with unasked-for owl-related minutia where a simple link to your site would have sufficed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RCC tokens | John[_6_] | Coins | 18 | June 6th 08 06:06 PM |
Help me ID these tokens, please | Cliff | Coins | 1 | December 4th 06 06:37 PM |
tokens | thelivinglady | Coins | 4 | May 2nd 06 05:27 AM |
FA: Exonumia, Counterstamps, 'Good Fors', Billiards Tokens, Magic Tokens, Military Medals and more | Josh Moran | Coins | 0 | February 10th 06 04:59 PM |
FA: Communion Tokens, Hawaiian Tokens & Medals | SiCordova | Coins | 0 | September 14th 04 09:19 PM |