What happens to registry sets if mint replaces series?

NIckelCollector

Recently there has been some speculation that the Jefferson nickel will be replaced in the next year or so. Currently there are four Jefferson registry sets – Circulation 1938 – 1964, circulation 1965 – current, proof 1938 – 1964, and proof 1965 – current.

If the Jefferson series is replaced, will 4 registry sets remain or will there be just two – one circulated and one proof?

keithdagen

I would guess that there would still remain 4 sets. Like they have now with the Washington quarters (although it will be interesting to see if the Mint resumes the eagle reverse after the State quarters are over).

RGL

I agree it makes sense to keep the four separate sets, at least if PCGS has any smarts. I believe the current arrangment encourages smaller collectors because they are in manageable chunks and they can start with the one that perhaps is most affordable. Requiring a full run of proofs or circulation strikes to participate in the registry would be intimidating to some. With a smaller set, at least completion is in sight, and having gained that satisfaction, can move on to another set in the series.

BNE

Actually, the number of sets may double shortly, if my understanding that a "no varieties"/"with varieties" division is going to take place concommitant with the weighting.

pontiacinf

simple:

it then becomes a closed set

CarlWohlforth

I'm getting the idea that two proof sets are enough and probably better than one complete set. With just 2 important varieties is seems overkill to make more. I'm not sure about Circulating Strike Jeffs though...

BNE

I agree with you, Carl. I have no problem with just having a "basic" early proof set and keeping the varieties as viewable, but optional. (For the later proof set, are they going to take the '71 "no-S" out of the basic set? Woo-hoo: I'd be done and my wallet would be considerably heavier.)

Now, if PCGS wanted to start new kinds of sets that included major Fivaz-Stanton errors, in addition to the ordinary issues, I think that would be fun and interesting -- as well as a big money-maker for PCGS.