Type collectors - Is this fair?

Blade

Fellow type collectors,
I am a recent addition to the 1792-1964 type set. A life-long goal, but one I look forward to tackling.

One of the coins has me a bit mystified. It is the 1907 $10 Indian Rolled Edge version. Here is the description from a Jan, 2002 Heritage auction:

Unlike the 1907 Wire Rim, the similarly dated Rolled Edge delivery was intended for general circulation. To protect the surfaces and eliminate the problems associated with the high wire rim, the Mint modified the original Indian Eagle design to include a protective rim. A total of 31,550 pieces (some sources say 20,000 coins, others 34,100 pieces) were produced, but concern over possible public criticism caused all but 42 examples to be melted prior to release. The 42 coins that escaped destruction did so either through the Assay Commission, or through collectors with inside connections who obtained examples directly from the Mint.

How can this be a type coin? I don't think it is right to include coins that the mint "intends" for general circulation as there would be a lot that qualify under that criteria. These were never officially released to the public. I'm not whining about spending $20K for another type coin (ok, maybe just a bit) but I think this is a legitimate beef. Do you agree?

keithdagen

I don't have an issue with it really. Some aren't as happy with its inclusion, but if examples did escape the Mint, then it is a realistic Type.

Swan

Tom, I mentioned in a prior thread that I wasn't crazy about buying a rolled edge eagle either. According to Breen, it is actually a more legitimate type than the wire edge. The wire edge was a prototype ( about 450 produced)that was found to not stack well and was replaced by the "rolled" edge variety, of which about 31,000 were minted and all but 42 melted, ultimately in favor of Barber's design.
My question is: why isn't the 1859 half dime a distinct type? It is a one year, one denomination, design by Paquet and has as much claim as any no drapery coin!

HighDesert

And, isn't it curious that PCGS has graded 44 of them with only 42 extant and 3 at least out of the ball game. Yet another example of the inflated pops due to re-submissions.

Various people have referred to these as patterns, which in and of itself does not precude its inclusion in the set. There are other patterns presently included.

I think there is an unstated agreement amongst coin folks as to what a type set should entail. A sort of "traditional" view, if you will. I have suggested to PCGS in the past that they eschew tradition in the definition of the modern type sets, however, I feel tradition should carry the day with the complete set.

Just MHO,
High Desert

jcping

Collect coins not to collect the coins that PCGS tells you to collect.

I would also like to start my life time goal to complete the "traditional" US type set; nevertheless, I don't care whether my set will be 100% on PCGS list.

Swan

I think the fact that 31,000 rolled edge pieces were minted suggests that it was not a pattern in the traditional sense. With that quantity minted, it would appear to have been a business strike. Thus, a type coin.
What were the other so-called patterns? 1792 half disme? Could be, I don't think so. Others?

HighDesert

1792 half disme is Judd-7, a pattern. The Gobrecht dollars are patterns. And the hopefully to be included $4 Stellas are also patterns.

Swan

H.D., The latest research by Jim Gray and Michael Carboneau suggests that certain 1839 Gobrecht dollars were in fact, struck for business and some were restrikes. Experts are reasonably certain that the die alignment I 1836 Gobrecht dollars were struck for commerce and are not patterns. Thus, certain 1839 Gobrecht dollars may well be included in the future complete type set. See "The Gobrecht Journal" volume
28, issue #82 and volume 27, issue #79.

Typetone

Blade:

PCGS tells you to buy it and so you must!!

Greg

keithdagen

Quit adding more coins guys

It's tough enough to complete as is

CarlWohlforth

Well I know the traditional advice is to go for the key coins first. However I won't be following that advice. I'm not sure I want to buy both a wire and rolled edge Indian. Well, really, I'm pretty sure I don't want both. I think I'm going to try for the major types first. To me that is a huge accomplishment in itself.

I would agree the pop reports are probably not %100 accurate. I would also guess the estimate of the original population that escaped melting was also not %100 accurate. Perhaps 47 of them got out? Do we know for sure?

madmike

This of course assumes that you must have everything PCGS says in your collection or it isn't "complete".

Maybe 100% should be next to impossible to reach.

madmike

lordmarcovan

Blade- I have always had similar feelings about this particular issue. I don't consider that a "type". Subtype, maybe. There's one significant reason reason I play with the 20th Century "Major Design" gold set, rather than some of the others.

oreville

Lordmarcovan: I suspect that depending how much you get into wanting to upgrade or expanding your the gold type set now that you have completed it you may decide later on to add subtypes. No will know (even you) until that magical day when you impulsively decide to to include subtypes or branch out in some other way like 18th century gold.

Your universe of coins is expanding and will continue to do so in some way. How that will do so even you don't know.

That is the mystique and fun of coins as you make the rules as you carry on.

We all do.