Should the Complete US Type Sets Run to Present or 1964?

itsnotjustme

I find it odd that the "Complete" US Type Sets stop in 1964. I feel these sets are anything but complete unding in 1964. Running to present would add the Zinc Lincoln, clad Roosevelt, Clad Washington, Bicentenial Washiington, State Washington, 40% Kennedy, Clad Kennedy, Bicentanial Kennedy, Silver Ike, Clad Ike, T1/T2/Silver Bicentenial Ikes, Anthony Dollar, and Sacagawea Dollar.

It's tought to call complete when it ignores our last 48 years of coinage.

What's everyone think?

pcm

those coins past 1964 are really not collectible for true numismatists and are overpriced and very generic.

itsnotjustme

PCM- Send me any spares you have - I'm fond of 72 DDO Lincolns, DCAM SMS coins, High Grade Ikes, and a few other of the non-collectible coins.

keithdagen

Brian,

Traditional numismatics ends at the 1964 line, so you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone to bring the set to present. And considering how bland many of the current designs are, I'm happy keeping the stuff separate.

CarlWohlforth

I'm happy keeping them seperate. But to me a complete type set would have the modern stuff too.

Swan

It is bad enough to have to include 1964 vintage coins (the last coins having intrinsic value). I would not buy any clad coins for that set. I think once you start collecting 18th century coins, you will feel the same way. I am not knocking clad coins for collectors...they provide an important entry into coin collecting and enjoyment to advanced collectors, as well.

TWQG

I collect it all. One of every type. Doesn't matter 1804 or 2004.
It's just going to take a while to get to the older stuff.

Sean

keithdagen

I think that the clad coins are a good tool to help young collectors get started, especially with the 1976 design changes and the state quarters, but the beauty of coin designs cannot be experienced until you get further back.

Flash

those coins past 1964 are really not collectible for true numismatists

Well gee, I guess the U.S. Mint should have just stopped minting coins alltogether after 1964. A true type set includes those types that exist AFTER 1964. It has been 38 years since clad coins came into existance, so get over it. True numismatists recognize that a coin is still a coin, regardless of the metal it is made out of.

cladking

The fact that most true numismatists have long believed that coins made after
1964 are not collectible (or even really coins) is what has made so many of them
so very rare.

Steve27

I predict that in the near future PCGS will add this as another type set (i.e. they won't eliminate the one which goes only to 64). It gives them the opportunity to make more money, so I'm surprised they don't already have it.

Steve27

I forgot to add that you shouldn't feel so bad, it's only 38 years of coins they're ignoring.

itsnotjustme

Steve,
I suspect you're right. The new one can carry the name complete, the other can be a pre-1965 set. I should have everything I need...

And I noticed my math error, but didn't bother revising my post.

braddick

<< <i>those coins past 1964 are really not collectible for true numismatists and are overpriced and very generic. >>


Ouch!!
Aren't you condemning many coins that "may" be somewhat nongeneric and/or not overpriced? I can think of a dozen or so, right off the bat, but am curious as to how you came up with that conclusion?

JoeLewis

I know this is old, but do people really feel this way?

I mean, the new designs that came about after 1964 certainly qualify as type coins (is there any numismatist that would argue that the Ike dollar is not a new type of dollar?)

I wish these things were handled more objectively!

-Joe

LindeDad

They do have the 1950 to date sets. I just started a circulation set today and only got to 21st palce as I have not collected that much of the gold or commemeratives.

JoeLewis

<< <i>They do have the 1950 to date sets. I just started a circulation set today and only got to 21st palce as I have not collected that much of the gold or commemeratives.
>>



I know. It just seems that with all the different registry sets they would have a type set that goes from 1792-present.

Silverstate

<< <i>I'm happy keeping them seperate. But to me a complete type set would have the modern stuff too. >>



BJ said they were going to add Complete and Major sets.

This would be the way to handle it.

Lets face it.
A Complete Set through only 1964 does not make sense.

Regardless of liking or not liking present day issues.

Rename the set like the Merc dimes.

Complete US Type set - "Short Set" Through 1964

DIMEMAN

There ARE type sets that go 1792 to present...three of them!

JoeLewis

True. I guess we're referring only to the "Complete U.S. Type Set."