Another Phantom Set thread
DAM
Posts: 2,410 ✭✭
Anyone know when or if the Phantom Setsare going to be removed?
I believe the Registry is turning the corner where the application of rules must apply not only to the Registry members, but to PCGS itself.
I've seen discussion about this before. I haven't seen if, or when, PCGS is planning on removing these sets. Perhaps I missed it. If PCGS isn't planning on removing the Phantom Sets, I have a suggestion how the sets could remain in the Registry, and at the same time, how to remove them from the All-Time Finest and Current Finest lists.
I purpose the following:
1. For a coin to be registered it must be graded by PCGS. That's the rule. Not mine, PCGS's.
2. Therefore, for a Phantom Set to be included in the All-Time or Current Finest list it must be graded entirely by PCGS. (Just as our sets must be). If it's not, it cannot be listed. (Just like the rest of us).
3. If a Phantom Set is raw or has coins graded by another grading service, it cannot be listed. Tradedollarnut can't list his NGC coin. I can't list mine. You can't list yours.
4. If PCGS chooses to recoginize an extraordinary set, as defined in 3, a seperate section will be created, outside the current All-Time and Current Finest listings. Example; Louis Eliasberg, Sr. has a (he has them all!) Proof Liberty Nickel set. That set and others like his will be listed in a section with the heading, for example, Historical Significance, or Numismatic Treasures, or etc, etc, etc. Whatever PCGS determines the section heading to be. Not effecting existing sets rankings.
I've got a Set Registry booklet dated 1997 (stapled sheet version). In it are numerous Phanton Sets. At the time there was a Phanton Set in the Two Cent Set in the number 1 position. Somewhere between then and the 2001 Set Registry booklet, it was removed. I remember calling about it. I inquired about the set and asked why no information was given about it. The person I talked to said in some cases they didn't have information other than what came from a dealer, or dealers who had seen the coins. With that information estimated grades where given, to establish estimated grade point totals for the sets. While other sets received no grade point totals. Some, in fact many of the sets, were raw. This can be seen in the Large Cent listings. I think it was because the Registry was new and PCGS was trying to add filer.
Just my opinion.
I think most of these sets, if not all, should be listed. This is part of our numismatic history and they should be preserved. How to best do it is the question.
So, what do you think?
DAM
I believe the Registry is turning the corner where the application of rules must apply not only to the Registry members, but to PCGS itself.
I've seen discussion about this before. I haven't seen if, or when, PCGS is planning on removing these sets. Perhaps I missed it. If PCGS isn't planning on removing the Phantom Sets, I have a suggestion how the sets could remain in the Registry, and at the same time, how to remove them from the All-Time Finest and Current Finest lists.
I purpose the following:
1. For a coin to be registered it must be graded by PCGS. That's the rule. Not mine, PCGS's.
2. Therefore, for a Phantom Set to be included in the All-Time or Current Finest list it must be graded entirely by PCGS. (Just as our sets must be). If it's not, it cannot be listed. (Just like the rest of us).
3. If a Phantom Set is raw or has coins graded by another grading service, it cannot be listed. Tradedollarnut can't list his NGC coin. I can't list mine. You can't list yours.
4. If PCGS chooses to recoginize an extraordinary set, as defined in 3, a seperate section will be created, outside the current All-Time and Current Finest listings. Example; Louis Eliasberg, Sr. has a (he has them all!) Proof Liberty Nickel set. That set and others like his will be listed in a section with the heading, for example, Historical Significance, or Numismatic Treasures, or etc, etc, etc. Whatever PCGS determines the section heading to be. Not effecting existing sets rankings.
I've got a Set Registry booklet dated 1997 (stapled sheet version). In it are numerous Phanton Sets. At the time there was a Phanton Set in the Two Cent Set in the number 1 position. Somewhere between then and the 2001 Set Registry booklet, it was removed. I remember calling about it. I inquired about the set and asked why no information was given about it. The person I talked to said in some cases they didn't have information other than what came from a dealer, or dealers who had seen the coins. With that information estimated grades where given, to establish estimated grade point totals for the sets. While other sets received no grade point totals. Some, in fact many of the sets, were raw. This can be seen in the Large Cent listings. I think it was because the Registry was new and PCGS was trying to add filer.
Just my opinion.
I think most of these sets, if not all, should be listed. This is part of our numismatic history and they should be preserved. How to best do it is the question.
So, what do you think?
DAM
Dan
0
Comments
But in the long run does it really matter? I know, and most collectors know, that I have that coin - so it is pretty well accepted that my set is the finest all time - not just finest PCGS graded but finest period. (Accepted by everyone that really matters to me, anyway)!
already sold and are in hundreds of different sets. This is as appealing
to me as renting verification numbers.
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
Enjoy your coins......I do
NICKEL TRIUMPH 750....EARLY PROOF JEFFERSONS....#10 AND HOLDING
Camelot
Camelot
Does that mean I don't have to have cereal for breakfast tomorrow?
Camelot
Camelot