Grant Vs. Grant with Star

DisneyFan

In the 50 Coin Commemorative Type Registry Set should more weight be given to the Grant with star?

Justacommeman

More weigth for Grant with star

I can see the case for an added bonus

m

Namvet69

More weigth for Grant with star

Given the limitations, gotta go with the star. Peace Roy

pcgscacgold

Equal weight

I will go with equal weight. I do not own either, but hope to some day. Population reports at PCGS show very similar numbers with the star type having more MS graded coins. Rarity is the same for both issues. CAC has stickered more with a star. From a population stand point the no star appears a little more rare to find.

BillJones

Equal weight

The idea behind the 50 coin type set is that you collect one example of each design. The idea is not to collect the scarcer or scarcest variety or date and mint mark combination, unless you personally decide to make that your goal. Other collectors should not be required to follow your lead.

If you gave extra credit for the Grant Star half dollar, then you would also need to give extra credit for the lowest mintage Oregon Trail and so on.

JW77

Equal weight

so to change directions slightly, why in the CAC 50 silver commemorative set is the 1982 Columbian excluded from the set, whereas you need the 1983 Columbian to complete the set. It's the only coin/year that is specifically excluded, either in the regular or CAC set. What possibly could the rationale for this be?

DisneyFan

@pcgscacgold said:
I will go with equal weight. I do not own either, but hope to some day. Population reports at PCGS show very similar numbers with the star type having more MS graded coins. Rarity is the same for both issues. CAC has stickered more with a star. From a population stand point the no star appears a little more rare to find.

I think you are referring to gold commemoratives with CACs.

1922 Grant Total Populations 351

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 445

Silver CAC commemoratives.

1922 Grant Total Populations 334

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 86

DisneyFan

@BillJones said:
The idea behind the 50 coin type set is that you collect one example of each design. The idea is not to collect the scarcer or scarcest variety or date and mint mark combination, unless you personally decide to make that your goal. Other collectors should not be required to follow your lead.

If you gave extra credit for the Grant Star half dollar, then you would also need to give extra credit for the lowest mintage Oregon Trail and so on.

Exactly! Right now there are 61 collectors that have completed this set with a set rating of 64 or better. Shouldn't we have the option of whether we spend our money on a lower graded more scarce coin or a higher grade more common coin. I picked the Grant with star as an extreme example. Do I buy a MS 64 Grant with star instead of a MS 65/66 Grant or do I put the extra money towards a MS65 Hawaiian instead of a MS64?

shish

More weigth for Grant with star

Unfortunately our host has proven to be very resistant to modifying registry weights. Has anyone seen or been successful in facilitating a change to the registry weights for any series? I might be wrong, but it appears that the registry weights for the series I collect have never changed despite several attempts.

I understand that this is not a high priority, however it would be an easy way to make a significant improvement in the registry.

DisneyFan

@JW77 said:
so to change directions slightly, why in the CAC 50 silver commemorative set is the 1982 Columbian excluded from the set, whereas you need the 1983 Columbian to complete the set. It's the only coin/year that is specifically excluded, either in the regular or CAC set. What possibly could the rationale for this be?

Not quite sure of your question. I believe one can use either the 1892 or 1893 in the sets.

JW77

Equal weight

@DisneyFan said:

@JW77 said:
so to change directions slightly, why in the CAC 50 silver commemorative set is the 1982 Columbian excluded from the set, whereas you need the 1983 Columbian to complete the set. It's the only coin/year that is specifically excluded, either in the regular or CAC set. What possibly could the rationale for this be?

Not quite sure of your question. I believe one can use either the 1892 or 1893 in the sets.

Copied this from the 50 Silver Commem CAC composition:

COLUMBIAN 50C (1893 Only)

so the 1892 does not qualify, you must use the 1893 to complete the CAC set

Walkerfan

More weigth for Grant with star

ATS, in the one per date category (Not sure about type sets, as I don't participate there), they reward you with more points, when you select a rarer example of a particular date. I believe type sets (and OPD sets) should work the same way here. I like that concept. It gives the participant the incentive to add better dates. This will help the collector, in the long run, too, as it gives his/her set a higher equity or value.

pcgscacgold

Equal weight

@DisneyFan said:

@pcgscacgold said:
I will go with equal weight. I do not own either, but hope to some day. Population reports at PCGS show very similar numbers with the star type having more MS graded coins. Rarity is the same for both issues. CAC has stickered more with a star. From a population stand point the no star appears a little more rare to find.

I think you are referring to gold commemoratives with CACs.

1922 Grant Total Populations 351

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 445

Silver CAC commemoratives.

1922 Grant Total Populations 334

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 86

You are correct. I only live in a gold world. I misread this as gold commemorative and saw star no star. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

JW77

Equal weight

all is good, if anything my fault for deviating off of Grant to Columbian

DisneyFan

@JW77 said:
all is good, if anything my fault for deviating off of Grant to Columbian

Not an issue. I've e-mailed PCGS with your question. Will post the answer.

DisneyFan

@pcgscacgold said:

@DisneyFan said:

@pcgscacgold said:
I will go with equal weight. I do not own either, but hope to some day. Population reports at PCGS show very similar numbers with the star type having more MS graded coins. Rarity is the same for both issues. CAC has stickered more with a star. From a population stand point the no star appears a little more rare to find.

I think you are referring to gold commemoratives with CACs.

1922 Grant Total Populations 351

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 445

Silver CAC commemoratives.

1922 Grant Total Populations 334

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 86

You are correct. I only live in a gold world. I misread this as gold commemorative and saw star no star. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

There may be some good values in gold commemoratives right now. They have come down quite a bit. I think it's worthwhile checking them out - especially the Grant no star.

pcgscacgold

Equal weight

@DisneyFan said:

@pcgscacgold said:

@DisneyFan said:

@pcgscacgold said:
I will go with equal weight. I do not own either, but hope to some day. Population reports at PCGS show very similar numbers with the star type having more MS graded coins. Rarity is the same for both issues. CAC has stickered more with a star. From a population stand point the no star appears a little more rare to find.

I think you are referring to gold commemoratives with CACs.

1922 Grant Total Populations 351

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 445

Silver CAC commemoratives.

1922 Grant Total Populations 334

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 86

You are correct. I only live in a gold world. I misread this as gold commemorative and saw star no star. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

There may be some good values in gold commemoratives right now. They have come down quite a bit. I think it's worthwhile checking them out - especially the Grant no star.

Thanks. I will check those out. I really like the designs on the gold commemoratives. I wish they did $5s and $10s back then.

Justacommeman

More weigth for Grant with star

@pcgscacgold said:

@DisneyFan said:

@pcgscacgold said:

@DisneyFan said:

@pcgscacgold said:
I will go with equal weight. I do not own either, but hope to some day. Population reports at PCGS show very similar numbers with the star type having more MS graded coins. Rarity is the same for both issues. CAC has stickered more with a star. From a population stand point the no star appears a little more rare to find.

I think you are referring to gold commemoratives with CACs.

1922 Grant Total Populations 351

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 445

Silver CAC commemoratives.

1922 Grant Total Populations 334

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 86

You are correct. I only live in a gold world. I misread this as gold commemorative and saw star no star. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

There may be some good values in gold commemoratives right now. They have come down quite a bit. I think it's worthwhile checking them out - especially the Grant no star.

Thanks. I will check those out. I really like the designs on the gold commemoratives. I wish they did $5s and $10s back then.

I love these little gold Grants. They can be balls of fire

pcgscacgold

Equal weight

@Justacommeman said:

@pcgscacgold said:

@DisneyFan said:

@pcgscacgold said:

@DisneyFan said:

@pcgscacgold said:
I will go with equal weight. I do not own either, but hope to some day. Population reports at PCGS show very similar numbers with the star type having more MS graded coins. Rarity is the same for both issues. CAC has stickered more with a star. From a population stand point the no star appears a little more rare to find.

I think you are referring to gold commemoratives with CACs.

1922 Grant Total Populations 351

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 445

Silver CAC commemoratives.

1922 Grant Total Populations 334

1922 Grant Star Total Populations 86

You are correct. I only live in a gold world. I misread this as gold commemorative and saw star no star. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

There may be some good values in gold commemoratives right now. They have come down quite a bit. I think it's worthwhile checking them out - especially the Grant no star.

Thanks. I will check those out. I really like the designs on the gold commemoratives. I wish they did $5s and $10s back then.

I love these little gold Grants. They can be balls of fire

Those look great. Someday.....

BryceM

More weigth for Grant with star

With a star, of course.....

..... but only 'cuz I got one:

BillJones

Equal weight

Okay, I have an 1838-D half eagle in MS63 in my gold coin type set because that’s the highest grade Classic Head half eagle I have. I don’t know the points, but should I be ahead of a person who has an MS-64 or 64+? I don’t think so, and I would benefit if the system allowed it. That’s not what type collecting is about.

winesteven

More weigth for Grant with star

@DisneyFan , you raise an interesting point. I mention the following because it’s on point, but please ladies and gentlemen, let’s not take this in a different direction. Let’s stick with the concept of the op.

Because of this theoretical dilemma with how our host has chosen to weight coins when there are choices for the same slot, according to JA, it sounds like CAC will be starting their own Registry late this year or early next year, where they will indeed give greater weight to tougher dates when slots allow date and/or mint mark choices!

Steve

DisneyFan

@BillJones said:
Okay, I have an 1838-D half eagle in MS63 in my gold coin type set because that’s the highest grade Classic Head half eagle I have. I don’t know the points, but should I be ahead of a person who has an MS-64 or 64+? I don’t think so, and I would benefit if the system allowed it. That’s not what type collecting is about.

Couldn't there be room for both philosophies in the case of the 50 silver commemorative type coins - the largest group of type coins? One registry type set for the highest condition coins and another for the highest rarities?

DisneyFan

@JW77 said:

@DisneyFan said:

@JW77 said:
so to change directions slightly, why in the CAC 50 silver commemorative set is the 1982 Columbian excluded from the set, whereas you need the 1983 Columbian to complete the set. It's the only coin/year that is specifically excluded, either in the regular or CAC set. What possibly could the rationale for this be?

Not quite sure of your question. I believe one can use either the 1892 or 1893 in the sets.

Copied this from the 50 Silver Commem CAC composition:

COLUMBIAN 50C (1893 Only)

so the 1892 does not qualify, you must use the 1893 to complete the CAC set

I sent your question to:

setregistry@collectors.com

L. Emilio Gutierrez is now the Set Registry Coordinator and he quickly agreed the 1892 Columbian should be eligible for the set and the title now reads as, "Silver Commemoratives 50 Piece Type Set, Circulation Strikes (1892-1954)." : )

Nice catch!

P.S. This CAC set has really caught on. There are already 32 participants!

JW77

Equal weight

@DisneyFan said:

@JW77 said:

@DisneyFan said:

@JW77 said:
so to change directions slightly, why in the CAC 50 silver commemorative set is the 1982 Columbian excluded from the set, whereas you need the 1983 Columbian to complete the set. It's the only coin/year that is specifically excluded, either in the regular or CAC set. What possibly could the rationale for this be?

Not quite sure of your question. I believe one can use either the 1892 or 1893 in the sets.

Copied this from the 50 Silver Commem CAC composition:

COLUMBIAN 50C (1893 Only)

so the 1892 does not qualify, you must use the 1893 to complete the CAC set

I sent your question to:

setregistry@collectors.com

L. Emilio Gutierrez is now the Set Registry Coordinator and he quickly agreed the 1892 Columbian should be eligible for the set and the title now reads as, "Silver Commemoratives 50 Piece Type Set, Circulation Strikes (1892-1954)." : )

Nice catch!

P.S. This CAC set has really caught on. There are already 32 participants!

That is awesome...thanks for following through on this Disneyfan!

winesteven

More weigth for Grant with star

@DisneyFan said:

…..This CAC set has really caught on. There are already 32 participants!

And it’s the ONLY set where my set is ranked higher than the set by D. L. Hansen (at least for the moment, lol).

Steve