What defines a collection?

khayse

I was reading a couple of the threads complaining about this and that
and it reminded me of an issue I've been wrestling with for the past
few months.

Say a guy has a nice collection (top five, let's say number 3 all-time for
the sake of arguement). Now let's say he sells it (for whatever reason).
Later he starts up again and wants to collect the same series.
Assuming a mature series with stable populations, the prices probably
wouldn't change too much between him selling set 1 and buying set 2.
He can probably take the money he got from set 1 and build another
set that is in the top 5. How many times can he do this and should
every collection he builds be allowed in the registry?

I can't think of a good reason why not but it bugs me. Say four people are
able to spend more than me on a certain series but since one of them keeps
buying and selling collections I end up at 10th instead of 5th. I end up
competing against the money he spends on the collection (which is renewable)
instead of the collector.

The next question is "If it's OK to do the above, can he use a percentage of
set 1 in set 2 and if so what is the maximum allowable percentage?"
Say he takes set 1, retires it, sells one coin, replaces that coin and enters
a new set. Is that allowed? What if he keeps 70% and sells 30% and then
replaces the 30%? What if he sells 80% and keeps 20% and then rebuilds
the 80%?

Any thoughts on the matter?

-KHayse

WWBillman

I feel once a set is retired that same collector should not be allowed to start a new set in that series with any of the coins from the old set. That would be bringing his set out of retirement even if he had sold some of the coins. People do that all the time and it called an upgrade not a new set.
As for one person retiring sets and selling them to fund a new set of the same type over and over just to dominate the top 5 or whatever, I really cannot see anyone doing it. What would be the point unless it is someone assembling the same set over and over strictly to sell them and using the registry as a promotion tool. All the effort should be put into your one personal best set and then let it stand the test of time and competition on its merits.
I would look poorly upon a collector just out to flex his muscle and dominate a series like that. It would cheapen his sets and ruin his integrity.

keithdagen

I've seen some instances where a seller retires a set and starts a completely new one in the same category. Don't see anything wrong with that.

I've seen some instances where a seller retires a set and sells some pieces, then starts a new set using the first partial set as the basis. In that case, I believe that they should have just deleted the pieces being sold rather than deleting the set. Doesn't look right when you have 2 Top 10 sets and 90% of the coins are the same in both.

khayse

Most people that do this aren't trying to show off. They've just taken their set
about as far as they can so they sell it. Then they get the itch again and it's
not surprising that they want to collect something that they really like and
have a deep understanding of even if they have done it before.

It's just a pain because I'm effectively competing against his money which is
a reusable resource.

Any more comments?

-KHayse

khayse

No one has any comments?

ttt.

-KHayse

nwcs

I've not thought about this being a problem, but I suppose it could become one. One easy solution would be having separate categories. An honorary all time greatest (like a high scores list in a video game) and the active set greats. That way an all time great person could re-enter, but have to compete against all the active people.

Neil