SET REGISTRY IDEA

homerunhall · September 21, 2004 12:55PM

In the really old days...i.e. the 18th century...people did not collect by mint mark. They collected by date. So a set of Morgan dollars would one coin from each date, regardless of mint mark.

In the 1960s, I think it was Whitman that revived the practice, by having an album that was a date set for Morgan dollars.

My question is...

Should we have date sets in the Set Registry. Should there be a set of Morgans...Peace dollars...Buffalo nickels, etc. where you just need one coin from each date. It might be fun...it would be less expensive.
And it would make some sets much more doable...for example, a set of Liberty Seated dimes by date, which would be much more realistic to accomplish than a complete date and mint mark set.

What does everyone think? If we put a few sets up, would you participate? What sets would you like to see?

Thanks for the input,

David

coinlieutenant · September 21, 2004 1:01PM

I think it is an excellent idea...

Cladiator · September 21, 2004 1:01PM

I think that would be a great idea! I'd love to see the Capped bust series Half Dimes, Dimes, Quarters and Halfs all get their own sets instead of having to share with the Drapped bust coinage.

dollardude · September 21, 2004 1:01PM

David,

Hello, it's great to see you here!

I think this would be a good idea for some collectors who would like to build a set, but who do not have the resources to do it by mintmark. The Morgan series, which you mentioned and is my personal favorite, would be a good starting point, as the complete mintmark set without varieties consists of nearly 100 coins. The Mercury dime series would be another good one, as the 16-D is out of reach for most collectors. This might, however, encourage collectors to go with the non-mintmarked dates, thus driving their rarity and prices artificially up.

Edited to add: The liberty seated dimes you mentioned is another good idea, as are most of the older series like these that are out of reach for most collectors.

Dan

DesertRat · September 21, 2004 1:03PM

It might be fun...it would be less expensive.

Fun and less expensive in the same sentence works for me

magikbilly · September 21, 2004 1:04PM

Hi Mr. Hall,
considering the staggering nature of my little "set" I am surely in agreement with you re smaller set composition

Best,
Billy

PS - you asked what we'd like to see - for me, I'd like to see type sets for denominations..like my dimes..by type only. thats my .02....or .10

Stuart · September 21, 2004 1:06PM

David: That's an excellent idea, which I would enjoy participating in with my PCGS Morgan Dollar and PL/DMPL Morgan Registry Sets, as well as the $20 Liberty set, especially because it is such a long duration set, even when divided up into Type 1, 2 & 3.

I am already participating in the NGC Morgan Dollar One-Per-Year Registry Set among others of theirs. I'd like to see PCGS introduce this concept in their Registry Sets also.

Thanks for the suggestion, and thanks also for asking for our feedback and opinions!

relayer · September 21, 2004 1:12PM

Sounds interesting - a combination for both type and series collectors

RKKay · September 21, 2004 1:12PM

David: I think that such date sets can make many pattern sets much more doable, as would somehow dividing pattern sets in such a way as to make many more affordable groups and fewer less affordable groups.

For example, 1858 cents, aluminum cents, FE cents, 1881-1882 Lib Nickels, 1883 Lib Nickels, 1877 (or Morgan) halves, The Big Four, etc.

dragon · September 21, 2004 1:15PM

Not a bad idea, especially for sets like Morgan dollars that contain a large number of coins with numerous stopper dates the average collector cannot obtain in high grades.

For example............. a lot of collectors would like to display a complete registry set of Morgans but have little chance in obtaining dates like the 93-S, 89-CC, 84-S, 95-O, 92-S, etc. in mint state, whereas a date only set would make it much easier.

foodude · September 21, 2004 1:15PM

Great idea. As you mentioned, that's the way it was done once or twice in the past. It may seem odd to many given that in the recent past most people collected series by date and mintmark (and in some cases major varieties).

Anyway collecting by date opens up the possibility of more people completing a set, and the satisfaction that goes with it.

kieferscoins · September 21, 2004 1:15PM

Can you ask Carol to move this to the set registry forum?

I think its a great idea and its great having you here at night on your own time answerin questions

Cameron Kiefer

FC57Coins · September 21, 2004 1:17PM

I like the idea David - it would promote collecting and everyone would have an opportunity to put together a really pretty set in at least one of many categories!

coinbuf · September 21, 2004 1:17PM

I love this idea; I'd like to see it on many series, but in reality I would suggest the super expensive or long and expensive series like the Mercury dimes and Morgan silver dollars. Thanks for asking

Chris

tradedollarnut · September 21, 2004 1:18PM

Will you allow either a proof or a business strike? Allow a coin from any mint?

Interesting idea!

mrearlygold · September 21, 2004 1:21PM

Yes!

Tom

Tassa · September 21, 2004 1:22PM

tcmitssr · September 21, 2004 1:41PM

David, we touched on another area just recently. I think their should be a second silver classic commemorative type set registry that is weighted towards rarities like the Grant with Star, 2x2, 2x4 etc. My sense is that there is a considerable subgroup of type set collectors who want a typeset but also want the condition rarities. This typeset should use the same scoring table as the full classic commem one. It may also open many newer registy opportunities for collectors in the future.

pursuitofliberty · September 21, 2004 1:44PM

David,

I really like the idea for promoting your registry participation. I am working on a couple such sets, which may become full sets later ... although my primary goal now is "one per year".

For example in the Barber Quarter series, someone could have an 01-p or an 01-o (bypassing the elusive 01-s), and then maybe an 02-s, and 03-o ... an 07-d ... and so on.

Barber Quarters are a good example as it would be a 25 coin year set instead of the more daunting 74 date/mint set with at least 10 very difficult coins.

It would be interesting to see if you then would consider assigning points to the individual pieces based on the current wieghting for each series. This might be the key to making it anything more than finding the easiest/cheapest for the year, and I would be an excellent idea, although I haven't thought it through completely to figure out how to rate the completeness of the sets. It certainly would be nice reward for selecting more difficult mint examples.

Using Barber Quarters again, in 1894 for example, a MS64 1894p would is a ".29" registry value coin in the date/mint set, whereas the 1894s of the same grade is a "1.17"

Anyway, I like the idea.

relayer · September 21, 2004 1:47PM

You should also add a Generic Year Set - where you could have any coin demonination for that year.

Start with the 1787 Fugio and every year after (2004 and beyond) that would take any coin minted for that year.

Since you could use and coin, mint mark and demonination for any give year, they set couldn't be weighted.

I think you would see a lot of participation in a Year Registry Set (1787-date)

MrEureka · September 21, 2004 1:52PM

Interesting. I hated the idea because I didn't think many people would want to collect that way. Then, everyone that responded said they loved the idea. Before I try to extract some sort of philosophical lesson from this, let me ask all of the respondents: Would you really collect a date set? Or do you just like the idea of OTHER people collecting date sets?

Edited to say that I do think it's an interesting idea.

mrearlygold · September 21, 2004 1:53PM

<< <i>Interesting. I hated the idea because I didn't think many people would want to collect that way. Then, everyone that responded said they loved the idea. Before I try to extract some sort of philosophical lesson from this, let me ask all of the respondents: Would you really collect a date set? Or do you just like the idea of OTHER people collecting date sets? >>

I'm building several with clients right now in a few different series.

Quite a task.

Rgrds
Tom

islemangu · September 21, 2004 1:53PM

I like the idea

Numismanic · September 21, 2004 1:54PM

MrEureka · September 21, 2004 1:55PM

I'm building several with clients right now in a few different series.

Tom - Are there any mintmarked coins in those series?

MrEureka · September 21, 2004 2:02PM

BTW, David, have you considered going in (sort of) the exact opposite direction? The focus would be on the mintmarks, not the dates. You could have Registry Sets for Mintmark Type Sets. For example, a set of one $20 Lib of each type from each mint.

Newmismatist · September 21, 2004 2:05PM

An excellent idea..., Particularly with a popular set like Morgan dollars, where several of the mint-marked coins are priced out of the average collectors price range, but a date set is "doable". Now if you could just add a little premium for wonderful original toning .... now that would be a "killer" idea

K6AZ · September 21, 2004 2:05PM

Excellent idea, especially for the Morgan set. As it stands now, completing the Morgan basic set requires 97 coins, quite a few of those coins are beyond the means of a lot of people. This would give collectors with a lower budget a chance to complete a set.

sliderider · September 21, 2004 2:06PM

Year only is a good idea. I can't say it's an idea that hasn't been floated around here before, but it's still a good idea.

foodude · September 21, 2004 2:07PM

Sets for Mintmark Type Sets

I like this idea too.

scher · September 21, 2004 2:08PM

I love the idea..much like the 50 piece commem set...I would sure participate..
Bruce Scher

Deb048gold · September 21, 2004 2:08PM

David,

I think it is a terrific idea! Since I'm building a Saint collection, it would cut my time down from 20 years to 10 years and 53 coins to 24. The big plus for our hobby is that it would open more collectors up to the idea of collecting Saints, whereas due to time and cost restraints have kept collectors away.

BAJJERFAN · September 21, 2004 2:12PM

Since in the case of Morgans at least you are reducing the required number of coins by a whole bunch would you limit it to a minimum grade say au58 or would it be anything goes? The year 1895 [there just aren't a lot of PCGS au58 95-s Morgans floating around] would still be a little more challenging.

haletj · September 21, 2004 2:14PM

The more (registry sets) the better. By the way, don't some people already collect this way? Does anyone collect what they want regardless of what the registry says? Am I (and Gerry) the only ones who collect all the 1982 Lincoln Cent varieties in high grade even though pcgs doesn't even denote them on the slab!?!

fountainheadgold · September 21, 2004 2:19PM

Great Idea

alergar · September 21, 2004 2:27PM

Great idea, you could start with Morgans and expand from there if it takes off !!!

Hoot · September 21, 2004 2:41PM

I suggested this two years ago, so the answer is yes!

Hoot

puff · September 21, 2004 2:46PM

clackamas · September 21, 2004 2:53PM

How about a Lincoln wheat Short set. We have been asking for well over a year, it is the most popular series collected. The Merc short set is up, how about finishing old business before we get crazy with a bunch of new set types.

lordmarcovan · September 21, 2004 3:43PM

I think it's a terrific idea.

Boom · September 21, 2004 5:39PM

I'm with everyone else. Good idea. I like it!

ksteelheader · September 21, 2004 6:18PM

David,

I feel that's it's a doable thing. Start slowly with only a few sets to see how it goes, and then expand if all goes well. You're never going to please everyone, even me!

One thing I would like to see, though, for these years sets, if you're doing it to make it affordable for us low budget guys, is exclusion from using any of the coins from these sets from any other sets. In other words, if coin X in serial #1 is used in this set, that's the only set you can use it in!

Ken

oreville · September 21, 2004 6:57PM

David:

I am in agreement. Keep it to a date/year set but restrict it to mint state coins only. If proofs are desired then it should be categorized as a proof set only. Otherwise too much confusion.

I do not agree with Ken. The dated coin should be allowed in a complete set since the date set is a modified form of a type set.

David, this is the next logical step towards what I would like to see; a denominational mint state (or even a proof) type set.

cosmicdebris · September 21, 2004 7:27PM

Great idea and fun sets to build. To really keep it doable and on an even playing field for the little guys no weighting on these sets. No extra 4 points for the key mint marks. Leave that for the full date and mint mark sets.

sliderider · September 21, 2004 7:30PM

Dave,

In honor of Eliasberg and the other all time greats, why not do an all encompassing registry of everything so we can see who out there is actually closest to completing a set on that scale??

wam98 · September 21, 2004 7:49PM

I think it's a good idea as well. It would encourage more submissions IMO. Like myself, collecting Morgans, there's no way in this life or this budget, that I'll ever complete a mint and date set of MS Morgan $. In my collecting of trying to buy the coin and not the holder, I have a mixture of holders, NGC, PCGS, and some ANACS.

Steve27 · September 21, 2004 8:49PM

I like that idea, why don't you set up a formal poll?

rlawsha · September 21, 2004 9:53PM

Good idea but don't award bonus points for hard to get mint marks like CC's. If that was done then the guys with the big bucks would make a CC year set because of the bounus points and blow the rest of us away.

BAJJERFAN · September 21, 2004 9:55PM

Hi David
Since there were so many replies mentioning Morgans maybe its time to also have a separate forum just for Morgan dollars. A date set of Morgans in MS minimum would eliminate a lot of participants so I would suggest au55 or 58 minimum depending on the series.

ccr · September 21, 2004 11:11PM

I think it`s a good idea for the more difficult/tedious/expensive series. As popular as Morgans are for example, not everyone can or willing to go to the trouble or expense of a complete mintmark set. But, it`s still popular.

Since the topic is brought up, a couple ideas I have are a complete 20th century set of silver dollars or a complete 20th century set ( cent through dolllar ).

Dennis88 · September 21, 2004 11:36PM

Good idea, but I think only for older coins, eg. pre 1950.

Dennis

SET REGISTRY IDEA

Comments

Leave a Comment