UPDATE - My Registry Set of 1950-1964 proofs now ranks #12 on the Current Finest list.

SanctionII

UPDATE - With grades posting on a new submission I was able to upgrade 9 of the 75 coins in this set. Doing so moved my set to #12 on the current finest list. The set now has a grade of 67.816.

Last year and this year I have submitted coins I have collected raw (since returning to the hobby as an adult in 1998) for grading. Grades posted on a recent submission yesterday and when I added them to my inventory it completed this Registry Set.

This set has a grade of 67.59.

Trueview photos of all 75 coins in this set will eventually be available.

Now that this set is complete I will be turning to upgrade mode. I hope to one day catch up with and maybe even pass Cameonut and Modcrewman in the rankings for this set.

winesteven

Congratulations! Unlike those ranked ahead of you, YOU got to your ranking by having a keen eye having bought your coins raw. You should be VERY proud!

Steve

winesteven

My Proof Registry Set is of the immediately prior era (1936 - 1942), also highly ranked (#4). If @SanctionII and I combine our sets, wow - super high ranked 1936 - 1964 Proof Registry Set!

Steve

SanctionII

Steve.

Modcrewman has also built his Registry Set of 1950 - 1964 proof coins from cherrypicking raw coins. His set is in the top 8 on the current finest list.

I will eventually create a Registry Set for the 1936 - 1942 proof coins. I have sets from 1939 to 1942. All coins were acquired raw and have been graded. The cents have been the toughest. I have obtained multiple PF67 grades.

Your #4 ranked set is gorgeous.

winesteven

Thanks for your kind words, but I did it the easy way - I bought the coins already graded by PCGS, with CAC’s. The time consuming part was rejecting well over 95% of the coins in the grades I wanted, but I just didn’t like the eye appeal. Not anywhere near as tough as what you do.

Steve

FlyingAl

@winesteven said:
Thanks for your kind words, but I did it the easy way - I bought the coins already graded by PCGS, with CAC’s. The time consuming part was rejecting well over 95% of the coins in the grades I wanted, but I just didn’t like the eye appeal. Not anywhere near as tough as what you do.

Steve

I would argue this isn't easy at all , but @SanctionII has us beat on that scale.

I looked at your set, gorgeous. Is there a reason you prefer the blast white coins to the toned proofs of the era? Not trying to take away from your set, just trying to get a bearing on why you prefer one over the other as I prefer the other. I always love to hear opinions on the contrasting side of the scale!

SanctionII

I like untoned and toned proof and SMS coinage from 1936 - 1970, preferably those with mirrored fields and frosted devices.

Some of the coins I recently had graded are gorgeous toners.

I will post Trueviews of many of these newly graded coins when I receive them.

winesteven

@FlyingAl said:

@winesteven said:
Thanks for your kind words, but I did it the easy way - I bought the coins already graded by PCGS, with CAC’s. The time consuming part was rejecting well over 95% of the coins in the grades I wanted, but I just didn’t like the eye appeal. Not anywhere near as tough as what you do.

Steve

I would argue this isn't easy at all , but @SanctionII has us beat on that scale.

I looked at your set, gorgeous. Is there a reason you prefer the blast white coins to the toned proofs of the era? Not trying to take away from your set, just trying to get a bearing on why you prefer one over the other as I prefer the other. I always love to hear opinions on the contrasting side of the scale!

There’s no doubt that knowledgeable collectors prefer toned coins, especially where the toning is deemed “attractive”. However, as you’ve noted, I’m part of a large but silent minority who prefer their coins (especially 20th century silver) super lustrous blast white, where the coin looks as if it came off the press yesterday, just as the designer envisioned their coin would look. There’s no doubt these coins of mine were likely dipped at some point in the past, but apparently it was done gently enough that every one of my coins still merit CAC stickers, AND the majority of my coins also have “+” grades, despite the dipping.

I know I’m not alone, as quite often when I bid in auctions, the bidding is quite vigorous.

Another thought/comment. I often hear by the majority that toning proves the coin is “original”, and that’s true (other than “artificially” toned coins). As we all agree, eye appeal is a personal judgement. But in the art world, museums spend hundreds of thousands of dollars having their centuries old paintings “restored” professionally, where they apply bright colored paint to make these 400+ year old paintings look now like they did when the artist finished them. As such, in the art world, the preference on these old faded paintings is the heck with “originality”, the majority of knowledgeable art professionals favor professional restoration, so when we visit museums, we see the bright colors that the artist intended. Go figure!

Here’s an example - PR67+, w/CAC, 83 years old:

Steve

FlyingAl

@winesteven,

I agree with you here with everything. I'd say you are part of the large majority of collectors in this series with your coin type preferences, and they are really stunning when you get the right look. You noted spirited bidding on coins you bought and I think it's probably because the coins are very attractive and there are many many other bidders out there willing too buy it.

You are right about the toning, it doesn't prove originality. However, there are certain types of toning that do for the era. The first is the classic hazy blue, which is often the despised "original" look that is dipped off if it's not colorful:

.
.
And the second is this tone type, which I can't explain in words. I have seen coins very very similar to this one in an original set that was posted on the boards here. Almost dead ringers to it, actually.

I do have toned coins that may or may not be original, but as long as I stick to the two above types I think that there is enough evidence to prove originality. Outside of that, I think there's more evidence that your coin is not original. There are certainly many more types than the two I grave above!

One last note, I had to mention that gorgeous 1939 that you posted. I oftentimes see to sets with high grades that have coins that make me say "meh" if you will, I think you would know what I am describing. It almost is as if the collector didn't care so much about the coin as the number on the slab. You clearly took the time with this one to find one with full detail, some contrast, and an even untoned surface. That's actually a pretty rare coin in any grade, but I imagine you know this .

winesteven

@FlyingAl - Thanks for your kind comments. We agree!

Any comments on my analogy to the art world, that "other' collectible of value?

lermish

@winesteven said:

Any comments on my analogy to the art world, that "other' collectible of value?

Congrats @SanctionII , must feel amazing after decades of (fun) work put in.

@winesteven I am totally agnostic on toning, I'm happy to buy blast white or toned coins, as long as they're attractive. Most of my collection is white (if not gold ). But I'm not sure if your analogy is apt. Toning on coins can (often) add color, depth, and focus on features - to the point that many collectors only want to collect toned coins.

Fine art is degraded 100% of the time by fading/discoloration/"toning" and restoration is intended to restore the original beauty. Coins that tone often have greater (or equal but different if you prefer) beauty. Additionally, fine art is 1 of 1. Toning can add individuality to coins that are 1 of thousands or millions.

winesteven

I hear you, but we disagree on your main point. We do agree that some toning is nicer than other toning. However, the "Mantra" from the majority is that old blast white coins have been dipped, and that makes them no longer "original". It's the concept of originality (or lack of) that my analogy is for, not that some rainbow naturally toned coins make the coin super desirable.

Talk to anyone selling a coin with toning that is not the colorful, highly desirable type. If the buyer balks at the toning, the seller will point out that it proves originality!
Steve

lermish

@winesteven said:
I hear you, but we disagree on your main point. We do agree that some toning is nicer than other toning. However, the "Mantra" from the majority is that old blast white coins have been dipped, and that makes them no longer "original". It's the concept of originality (or lack of) that my analogy is for, not that some rainbow naturally toned coins make the coin super desirable.

I agree completely that originality is often a facade. Coins toning from a burlap sack or a coin folder are just as unoriginal as a lightly dipped coin. The original as struck surface is no longer in tact for whatever reason. Then it's just a matter of aesthetics which are almost completely subjective.

However, while I don't mind a gentle dip, I still wouldn't equate it to art.

...And as I'm typing this I'm coming up with examples that would disprove my point. Like PVC removal...that's a good analogy between art restoration and coin dipping. Sigh. Just buy attractive coins.

winesteven

Agreed!

SanctionII

Update.

Trueviews of all 75 coins in my Registry Set are now available.

winesteven

@SanctionII said:
Update.

Trueviews of all 75 coins in my Registry Set are now available.

Congratulations, not only on your ranking, but on having TrueViews for every coin. How about providing a hotlink to your set to make it easier for the rest of us to see?

Steve

Goldminers

@winesteven said:

@SanctionII said:
Update.

Trueviews of all 75 coins in my Registry Set are now available.

Congratulations, not only on your ranking, but on having TrueViews for every coin. How about providing a hotlink to your set to make it easier for the rest of us to see?

Steve

https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/proof-sets/1950-1964-proof-set/publishedset/259421

Some beautiful coins (and photos) in this set.

WaterSport

Fabulous set that obviously took a lot of time to find. And you probably already know your 53 Cent is DDO -FS-101.

WS

FlyingAl

@winesteven said:
@FlyingAl - Thanks for your kind comments. We agree!

Any comments on my analogy to the art world, that "other' collectible of value?

I somehow missed this until I clicked on the thread again. Sorry about that!

As to the art, I feel that the coin hobby is very much so different than every other hobby. I remember reading an article about a painting (perhaps a Michelangelo, I don't remember) that was restored to reveal a part of the painting that had been covered over. I remembered thinking "That's interesting, I would have wanted it left that way if I was a buyer."

I suppose it all comes down to what the individual prefers. I see a bonus to the history of how a coin was stored in it's appearance, but I can understand wanting a coin to look like it did when it left the mint.

SanctionII

Watersport.

After reading your reply I looked the DDO FS-101 variety photo on Coinfacts and compared my coin to it.

To my surprise you are correct. My 1953 cent is the DDO FS-101 variety.

bennybravo

Congratulations, great accomplishment!!!

jbo

I recently completed this set and am #18 on the current list. Some upgrades to do at some point for sure, but my basic goal was CAM for 55-59 and DCAM for 60-64. That seemed to get me decently priced coins for the later dates. Despite many of them being only around $100 or so, finding them was extremely challenging! Found the last two at the ANA show, 1960 cent and half dollar. I may start adding some CAMs to the earlier years next, but I'm extremely happy with my 1950 set which has no CAMs, but is an honest-to-God original set.

SanctionII

Last week I submitted about 50 proof coins to PSCG for grading (both toned and untoned).

Hopefully some of these untoned coins, when graded, will upgrade my 1950-1964 Registry Set.

For the toned coins, when graded they will fill multiple empty holes in my second 1950-1964 Registry Set that has toned coins in it.

I also picked up at Long Beach a 1962 PF69CAM quarter and a 1964 PF68DCAM quarter as upgrades to the 1962 PF68CAM quarter and the 1964 PF68CAM quarters in the set.

SanctionII

TTT. I upgraded my set with nine coins (which I purchased raw and submitted). The Trueviews of these nine coins are set forth below.

I am very happy with these upgrades.

I also have 18 1951-1963 proof quarters being graded. There may be additional upgrades to this set in those coins.

Hobby fun for me.

winesteven

You’re amazing! You’re the King in this niche, scouring hundreds of raw Proof coins regularly to “make” high graded, super attractive Proof sets!

Congratulations!

Steve

davewesen

amazing that almost all were submitted by you

link to your set -> https://pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/proof-sets/1950-1964-proof-set/publishedset/259421

winesteven

@davewesen said:
amazing that almost all were submitted by you

link to your set -> https://pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/proof-sets/1950-1964-proof-set/publishedset/259421

I believe EVERY graded coin in his proof sets were submitted by him entirely from raw coins!

Steve