Options
Questions from David, Rick, and BJ
homerunhall
Posts: 2,498 ✭✭✭
Help....Tell us what you think...
We're doing the weighting/listings for the 20th Century type sets, and the new "Modern" (1950 to date) Type sets. Here's a few questions...
1. We have a proof/circulation strike combo set, a proof only set, and a circulation strike only set. For the proof/circulation strike combo, what do we do about Cameos. If we add bonus points, then it unfairly penalizes circulation strikes. Maybe we should just deduct for non-cameo????
2. The 20th Century set is 1900 to 1999. This eliminates the Sac dollars (but they are part of the 1950 to date Type set). A few Registry participants have asked us to include Sacs in the 20th Century set. We feel they are not part of the 20th Century (feeling old???), and they are included in the 1950 to date. Any comments.
Please let us know your feelings asap as we're trying to finish up these sets.
David, Rick, and BJ
We're doing the weighting/listings for the 20th Century type sets, and the new "Modern" (1950 to date) Type sets. Here's a few questions...
1. We have a proof/circulation strike combo set, a proof only set, and a circulation strike only set. For the proof/circulation strike combo, what do we do about Cameos. If we add bonus points, then it unfairly penalizes circulation strikes. Maybe we should just deduct for non-cameo????
2. The 20th Century set is 1900 to 1999. This eliminates the Sac dollars (but they are part of the 1950 to date Type set). A few Registry participants have asked us to include Sacs in the 20th Century set. We feel they are not part of the 20th Century (feeling old???), and they are included in the 1950 to date. Any comments.
Please let us know your feelings asap as we're trying to finish up these sets.
David, Rick, and BJ
0
Comments
2. Agreed. Sacs bring in the 21st century of coinage, although some may argue that the 20th century should cover the period 1901-2000.
However, a compromise might be to consider the sets as "1900 to present" and "195x to present" instead of cutting the "20th century set" off. Many current Set participants have geared their sets to include coins dated 2000 or 2001 in their current Modern sets. Disallowing those will cause a lot of participants to have to dump coins on the market and buy new "modern" material to complete their sets, which is going to cause a backlash. I personally would have to replace 4 pieces of the current 57 in the 1900-present.
And yes, the new millenium started Jan 1, 2001 - not Jan 1, 2000.
Ken
Great idea asking for comments on the public message board.
1. I agree that on post 1950 pieces, mint-state pieces are diasdvantaged. At a minimum I agree that CAMs should lose 1 point and regular proofs 2 points. That will still give proofs a big advantage. So, I would also support giving mint-state entries a one point bonus. On pre 1950 pieces I would continue to add 1 for CAMs and 2 for DCAMs. On pre-1950 pieces, I don't think proofs are unfairly aadvantaged. If anything they are more expensive for the same grade.
2. Don't personally care which way you do it. Purists argue that 2000 is part of the 20th century and so include 2000 SACs. But then shouldn't 1900s be excluded? Keith's idea seems fine.
Cheers:
Greg Samorajski
I think I 1900s set is just as good as a 20'th century set so I'm happy either way
Keith
Some will argue forever the cutoff dates for the 20th Century set. 1900 or 1901? 1999 or 2000? I have both coins from 1900 as well as 2000 in my set why not just cover both ends from 1900 to 2000 and leave it there.
I have one other question for you. You keep saying 1950 to present for the Modern sets. Currently they are at 1959 to present. Are you also changing the dates on these sets? If so will we now need a Franklin half, Wheat cent, Silver Dime and Silver quarter for these sets?
09/07/2006
It would seem, to me at least, that that it would be more beneficial to the program in the long run to keep this coin in as many sets as possible if not for any other reason than it would be an easy starting point for anyone just starting out on registry set or collection. I know that there is already a set for the proofs and the circulated Sac's but why pigeon hole the coin. Allowing the Sac into as many Type sets as possible would just seem to make more "cents" all around. IMHO.
We want Sacs, We want Sacs, All together now!
Larry
Dabigkahuna
peacockcoins
Camelot
We're doing the weighting/listings for the 20th Century type sets, and the new "Modern" (1950 to date) Type sets. Here's a few questions...
1. We have a proof/circulation strike combo set, a proof only set, and a circulation strike only set. For the proof/circulation strike combo, what do we do about Cameos. If we add bonus points, then it unfairly penalizes circulation strikes. Maybe we should just deduct for non-cameo????
I think consistancy is the key here. CAM and DCAM should be treated just as they are in any other set. Doesn't affect me much because I'll pull my coins out of any set that's loaded with common modern proofs.
2. The 20th Century set is 1900 to 1999. This eliminates the Sac dollars (but they are part of the 1950 to date Type set). A few Registry participants have asked us to include Sacs in the 20th Century set. We feel they are not part of the 20th Century (feeling old???), and they are included in the 1950 to date. Any comments.
I'm going to agree with solid (who posted above) and say that the 20th Century was 1901 to 2000. For information regarding this, I always direct people to the Royal Observatory at Greenwich which states:
A millennium is an interval of 1000 years and a century is an interval of 100 years. In the Gregorian Calendar, which we use, there is no year zero and the sequence of years near the start runs as follows;
..., 3BC, 2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD, ...
Because there is no year zero, the first year of the calendar ends at the end of the year named 1AD. By a similar argument 100 years will only have elapsed at the end of the year 100AD. Since 2000AD is the 2,000th year of the Christian calendar, it will be the last year of the Second Millennium. So the 3rd Millennium and the 21st Century will begin at the same moment, namely zero hours UTC (commonly known as GMT) on January 1st 2001.
Just my opinion,
madmike
True, a century has 100 years, but to simplify the world, I suggest that we count only the first 99 years in the first century and 100 years for each century after. So when someone says the 20th century, they really mean all years from 1900 to 1999 inclusive.
Tom
Thank you for asking for our opinion.
1.) To make this real simple, I would only have two set. One with proofs and the other business strikes. This would solve any weighting problems. I am surprised you are looking to do the type sets before all the other sets are done. I assumed you would use the same weights from the individual sets.
2.) Leave the Sac dollars out. Or only allow 2000 issues. 1900-2000.
Kenny
My Washington Type B/C Set
#2 1900-1999 No SAC
My Dimes
<< If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right the first time! >>
Modern proofs already have enough of an advantage over MS.
> I suggest that we count only the first 99 years in the first century
TJK, OK, we'll gather all 6 billion people together and explain that
the meaning of the word has been altered and that we want an exception.
(just what the world needs, more exceptions to be taught in class)
I wouldn't mind seeing the Sac included, just don't call it a
20th century type.
-Keith H
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Join the NRA and protect YOUR right to keep and bear arms
To protest against all hunting of game is a sign of softness of head, not soundness of heart. Theodore Roosevelt
[L]http://www.ourfallensoldier.com/ThompsonMichaelE_MemorialPage.html[L]
about cam-dcam...seems only right to continue the deductions as in other sets, however, earlier proofs with cam dcam should have no deduction, but be given a bonus.
For the combined PR/MS set, I agree with the deductions for non-DCAM/CAM coins.... Proofs have such an advantage over MS, at least for the 1950 on dates.
2. I'm tied for 1st in PR sacs and 2nd in MS sacs, and I agree with your logic wholeheartedly. They don't belong in the 20th century set. PS - Include the Goodacre in the registry.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I'd also like to see normal MS deductions applied for non FH, FB,FS, etc. Otherwise some really cheap coins can compete head on with very expensive coins.
Good luck on working out a good weighting matrix.
_____________________
My Other Hobby
Can one of you please answer 2 questions on the 1959 or is it 1950 to present set? IS the starting date being changed? If so what coins are you adding?
The reason I ask is that I feel the starting date of 1959 and the sets composition should be left alone.
09/07/2006
My question: Since the Franklin's, Silver Roosevelt's and Silver
Washington's were produced after 1959 and are currently not required in the two 1959 to present sets then why would they be required for the 1950 to present sets?
Last, but not least, there is a coin show this weekend and it would be nice if I knew your decision on the year situation (I have six 2000 coins) and if any new coins (see above, plus Proof Wheat Cents) were going to be included in these sets before then.
Thanks for letting us have input on these decisions:
Larry DeVinney
Edited for PS.
PS:
Please answer Keith's question from another thread.
(Since most of the series have not been weighted, this pretty much confirms my idea that the slot will be weighted for Type sets, and that the actual date you use will not matter. )
And will the current 1900 to present set, 1959 to present (MS) set and the 1959 to present (PR) set be removed when the new sets are added? if yes, then will we have to re-enter all coins?
20th C. Type Set
1976 Proof Set
peacockcoins
09/07/2006
1. I suggest deducting for modern non-DCAMs.
2. I think the dates should be 1901-2000.
Chris
I'll take a stab at Tonelover's question. A coin's luster can not often be seen through plastic the same way it looks when you can rotate the coin and examine it raw. Second, rim problems on a coin can not often be determined 100% by looking through a plastic stab. These, and other reasons, can be the cause of a coin "working" raw that might not work in a holder.
However, notwithstanding the above answer, I'd like to comment that I, personally, probably submit more coins a year to PCGS than both Tonelover and the company he works for combined and I have seen no evidence of coins deserving of a cross not working in a systematic way. Of course, there are isolated coins that in "Wondercoin's grading system" deserve to cross that didn't do so (and some that did cross that were unlikely candidates) and there are also coins in PCGS holders that likely would not cross over at NGC. But, imho, I see no evidence of wrongdoing by either of the 2 top grading services with respect to the 20th Century coins I am involved in. Now, if Tonelover is referring to Large Cents or 19th Century gold coins not "working right" I can not comment. Hope this helps.
And, by the way (to those of you who might simply think I am trying to help PCGS with my above analysis of the crossover question) , I believe you have seen my honest assessment of the PCGS Registry weighting system on more than one ocassion on this board. Anyone who would suggest my opinions on this board are ALWAYS "pro PCGS" simply hasn't read my posts very much.
It has been 2 days now since Dave posted his first message in this thread. Where are you guys with some answers?
09/07/2006
The other question has be answered quite well by others preceding me.
By the way, Dave, what did your son finally do with his worms? LOL.
09/07/2006
Keith