Capped Bust 50c 79 coin registry set - should the 1817/4 and 1839 Small Letters be removed?
ElmerFusterpuck
Posts: 4,796 ✭✭✭✭✭
Reposted due to my coffee, yes it was confusing! And yes changing in midstream is a valid point.
Doing this poll just for fun, I've already sent an email about this with my two cents. Yes those two are major varieties for the Major Varieties 79 coin set, but for that set they are pretty much the equivalent of unobtanium. The basic set is available, but that seems less fulfilling to me. Of course, leave the 1817/4 and the 1839 small letters in for the other major sets, like the Classic, Overton and Die State.
10-4,
Erik
My registry sets
Capped Bust 50c 79 coin registry set - should the 1817/4 and 1839 Small Letters be removed?
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.
0
Comments
Those are the only two coins I don't have and probably never will. I don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on them.
But I do know collectors who have spent as much. Sometimes selling dozens of prized coins to manage the acquisitions. I imagine they would be very unhappy to see these removed from the "major varieties" and "classic" registry sets (though I am sure they had reasons for collecting these rarities beyond just registry set composition).
I don't like rules changed in the middle of a game. Seems very unfair. So I think they should remain.
Lance.
As normal I agree @lkeigwin. It isn’t the race’s fault if some runners can’t keep up. The joy of life comes from running. Few apart from Tom Brady always win
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Another option:
Do what they do ATS. Have them but for non-competitive, display purposes only.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Keep them. The 1817/4 is iconic. Variety sets should be tougher than date sets.
edit - the only half dollar that should be removed from the PCGS Registry is the mythical 1795 O.118, which has never been seen since it was listed in the Haseltine Type Table in 1881, probably in error. It was de-listed in the Tompkins book. The PCGS Registry assigns 10 points for a coin that doesn't exist.
Leave it and as is. It's part of of the bust family
For those addicts, the existing set with major varieties ought to stay the same IMHO.
There is always the basic date set for those that aren't quite so addicted - I fit in this category. Still looking for a nice 1815/12.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
If the set is 100% complete with the two coins removed or 97% as is, what difference does it make? Either way, two key varieties are missing. One the other hand, if the 79 piece set is 100% complete, then that is a greater achievement. I think all coins should be in all sets. I would not like to see PCGS make sets worst that they already are. When you start changing reality, then where do you draw the line. My thoughts.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
All coins should always be included. OK to cap the number of registry points per coin to be sporting, but the rarest coins should never count less than the most common coins in the series.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.