Should a particular coin be in more than 1 registry??

Coinster

Since much debate is ongoing over the registry sets, I thought it would be interesting to see the consensus on another issue involving the registry set.

Should a coin (actually, the cert #) belong in more than one set? In other words, if someone has a PR70DCAM Kennedy (any date), should the bearer be able to register it in the Type Sets and the Kennedy Proof Set?

This should spark a good discussion as has the complete/incomplete debate.

My Take: Although, I am certainly guilty of using a coin in more than one set (only because it is allowed), I for one believe that a cert # should only be used once. The collector must decide which set he/she wants that coin registered to. If the collector wants to work on another set which requires a coin he/she already owns, he/she must obtain another coin to have it included in the other set. I think this only fair to allow a better spread within the registries.

John

keithdagen

John,

Why should I have to buy 2 1964 Kennedy's if I want a Complete Type Set and a Modern Type set? Doesn't make sense.

Do you really want the guys with the big bucks, like High Desert, owning 1/3 of the 1964 Kennedys in MS-67 just because they need them for their sets?

Allowing a coin to be used in multiple eligible sets allows for more people to own the high grade coins.

nwcs

Yes, I think you should be able to cross-list a coin in as many sets as it qualifies for.

DIMEMAN

What he said. A coin can go in as many different sets as it qualifies for. I don't see how this could be a problem for anyone. Seems to me that a lot of people are getting whinnie lately. Did everyone forget what coin collecting is all about!

Coinster

Excellent point Keith.
I'm kind of mixed on this though....let's see.....
Would a collector purchase more than one coin of the same type just to compete in the registries? Deep, deep pockets probably would I guess, but I think for the mass majority, would not. (This could very well be happening as we speak to keep anyone else from reaching top spots, but I doubt it).
I know that the majority will lean towards including a coin in every set possible. I am not against it, and do not wish for PCGS to change their policy on it. I'm simply asking how members feel about it.

John

braddick

I actually supported John's idea with a Thread like his when the Registry went online. I've since changed my mind- but there is some validity to his idea.

Coinster

Gees Jon,
Always someone has to come in and post a comment that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

My thread has nothing to do with what coin collecting is about. My thread has nothing to do with whinning about anything.
It is a simply a question on PCGS policy and is in line with the debate over complete/incomplete sets. Nothing more, nothing less.
Don't read into it.......

John

gary

USEING ONE COIN IN MORE THAN ONE SET IS SELFISH AND NOT RIGHT.....
I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH ALL WHO WANT TO USE A $2500 COIN IN MORE THAT ONE SET...IT JUST KEEPS NEWBE'S FROM COMPETEING........
BUT....
IT MAKES PCGS LOOK GOOD.....3400 SETS AND COUNTING....

If PCGS would limit the use of a coin one time in the registery it would shrink to half......But, new collectors wanting to start a set would have more to choose from....That would be healthy...

Food for thought!

keithdagen

Gary,

Seriously, would you prefer that if I had the resources, I buy 5 of those $2,500 coins and then corner the market, making it a $5,000 coin for you to buy?

nivek

Actually it would be nice if you could enter coins just once and then allocate them to different categories as you see fit. If you upgrade a coin now and it is in 3 sets or something, you have to go edit 3 sets (as far as I know). Why not just be able to go edit 1 coin and have the effect seen in the 3 sets? This approach would be more like entering (part of) your collection and then overlaying the categories.

DAM

I asked this question of PCGS, via email, a couple of times. I think it follows the thinking that whatever PCGS can do to make it available to collectors to be in as many sets as possible is ok.

Personally I don't agree with it. But it's allowed, and therefore I'm doing it too.

Here's my reasoning for not allowing it...

If a person has 3 (compete) sets. Two are Type sets, and one is a (this is for the Merc boys and girls) Mercury Dime Set. In the Merc set there is an MS69. This Merc is also being used for the two type sets. Now lets say this collector also has the top set in each of the three catagories. PCGS asks this collector to display the coins at a coin show. They can't, because two of the sets will be missing a coin.

In this example I'm using one coin. There are some sets containing many coins used in other sets belonging to the same collector. But, it does save money not having to buy multiple types too.

keithdagen

DAM,

At one point, we determined that the 1964 & 64-D Kennedy was required as a Type coin for more sets than any other piece. Not sure if that is still true, but there are about 25 MS-67's. Now, of I had a Complete Type set, Copper, Silver, Nickel Type set, 20th Century mixed set, 20th Century MS set, a 20th Century Varieties MS set, a 20th Century Varieties mixed set, and a Kennedy MS set, that would require me to have 8 of the 25 coins to get the max points for my set.

Now say there are 2 other dedicated Type collectors like me (there are), 3 guys could control the entire population of a high-grade coin because they had the resources and needed all those pieces.

Now I have never had a MS-67 Kennedy from 1964 (I do hold a pop 12 1976 hostage though ), but I have had all of the above-mentioned sets active at one time.

tradedollarnut

Why the heck display a complete type set, a copper nickel silver type set, a 20th century type set and a modern type set all at once - just display the complete type set and get it over with!!!

I might agree that a coin should not be in a complete set of a denomination and in a complete type set, but I don't agree that you can't use the same coin in different subsets - that is all those specialty type sets are.

psxchelly

Well, I see that some disagree with using a coin more then once, but I would have to say that I vote for using a coin more than once... 1964 Kennedys in DCAM and Accent Hair get expensive in eye appealing good grades, and so do early 50's lincoln cents.

If a person participates in 2 similar sets maybe he/she can mix up the non expensive coins for a nice variety.. Like the non expensive Kennedys and Washingtons.

I use my Accent Hair Kennedy in 2 sets... I am not rich.

Coinster

I think TDN punched it dead on.....

keithdagen

Only beef with TDN is why make the set collector buy another Merc (or whatever) so that they can get interested in Type coins?

howie08

For me and my family , this is a hobby that we all enjoy and participate in . By using a coin in more than one set , we can build several different sets without having to buy multiples of the same coin. Granted , we'll never complete all the sets we're building , but we enjoy watching our sets grow , albeit slowly. By using the same coin in several sets , it gives us much more flexibility in coins we can buy or make , to add to our sets. We aren't locked into just one set of coins. Personally , I see nothing wrong with it. It's not like we're competing for a gold medal ! ( sorry ; a plaque ! )
Howie

DeepCoin

There is another area that needs to be discussed. In the Mercury ( and other sets) there is a basic set and a varieties set. I have no interest in the varieties, but I believe if you have coins that qualify for both sets, then you should have the option of using them in both places.

I agree with all the type collectors. Collections are not mutually exclusive and the coins should be used wherever they qualify. If you have the coins that qualify, then IMHO you should be able to use them in whatever set they qualify for.

nwcs

As a computer programmer, I'm always thinking in terms of how data can be used. What I wish PCGS would do is have a registry set per person. That is, one set per person, and every coin entered for that person would automatically propogate to every possible set configuration. That way the registry can act as an efficient database/inventory, but also as a way of seeing how sets are being built. I think it would be fun.

Neil

JJacks

nwcs,

I am also a computer programmer/tester, and I would like to see where you could simply enter all of your Serial #s on your coins, and the system could automatically show you where the coins would be entered, and you could choose to put them all in where the system is showing them. It would be alot less work!

JJacks

DIMEMAN

John,

Sorry I took your thread the wrong way. I went back and read it again, and yes I did take it wrong. For this I apoligize.

As for your question. I don't see a problem with using the same coin in a series and a type set. I think it would be in PCGS's favor to not allow it, causing more coins to have to be bought. So I don't think PCGS is at fault here. I think being able to use coins in more than one set helps the little (me and all others) guy that don't have deep pockets, but want to particapate(sp) in multiple sets. I don't have a type set yet, but plan to later.

On the same note: How about using proof coins in a type set just to get a higher grade for less money?
Most if not all the series's have a MS set and a PR set. Why are type sets allowed to mix? Just a question. I know it's fair because everyone can do it. Just a question.

Again, sorry for the negitive post by me.

Jon