How many sets should a person have in the same series?

RLSnapper

I pose this question because I feel a sense of frustration. I am a collector of modest means. My goal is to have a set in the top ten. When I see a person proudly brag this is my second set and this is my third set of the same coins I wonder why. I say put your best set together and as you upgrade sell your coins no longer need for funds towards your next upgrade. Don't clog up the top ten with three sets. Just my 2 cent piece.

winesteven

I agree with you. While I’m thrilled “the top” collector participates in our wonderful hobby, and I know he’s absolutely a positive asset for numismatics, it does make me wonder why he often chooses to have more than one coin set in the same Registry set. There’s no doubt it creates negative feelings among many other collectors!

Steve

RegistryCoin

The frustration is totally understandable, but the collector’s second and possibly third sets do exist, and if they are superior, they deserve their position(s).
These second and third sets could, just as easily, now or in the future, be owned by someone else, and the same results would occur.
For some registrants, it’s good to know where the coins they need reside. A deal could be just an email or phone call away.

On the other hand, I would hope a top collector with multiple high ranked sets in a series could see greater benefits hiding their back-up set(s), and remain sufficiently satisfied with the display of their single superior set.
Edited to add: exceptions may include, for example, two deserving top sets in a series from one owner, one white set and another toned.

braddick

Suppose you consider the Registry as coins competing against other coins instead of collectors competing against other collectors. In that case, it'll put a perspective on the Registry and bring you more joy and less frustration.

mrcommem

Only one set should be allowed per person

Goldminers

I keep a couple spare sets visible sometimes in case someone wants to ask about buying them. These are not competitive sets and so should not interfere with other collectors negatively, and I do not try to upgrade them, just sell or use them as inventory place holders.

When someone has multiple top published entries in the same set and is blocking other collectors from their quests, it is a bit excessive to take those spots and this should be discouraged.

At some point if every top set, (and several other close to top sets) are owned by one person, that could be a drag on the set registry, as some may simply give up.

This is a simple fix. If someone has more than one set in the top 5 or 10 that discourage other collectors, all they have to do is unpublish the extra sets. The sets are still active to the member and the set can stay in their monitored inventory, but it will allow others to move up in ratings and positions and would be a good compromise.

I have several extra sets that are top sets that I have unpublished for this reason.

keyman64

Only ONE for ranking.
One person at the top of most sets annoyed the **************** out of someone by running multiple sets so someone else ventured into additional sets, bumping him out of some top spots he once held and I was a proud helper in getting him bumped out of the way. The ego trip this person must be on is not good for the hobby and I am proud to have helped in a small way to take him down a notch for two sets.

JonJet

As evidenced by the rankings...the is no rule as to how many sets can be registered

You or anyone else is only limited by the financial ability to buy the coins that fill those slots

Right or wrong there is nobody who matters or could change it that monitors these threads

PwrHsePro

I find myself in a similar situation. I have a number of Mercury Dimes so would like to use 2 sets as examples and maybe what I could see happen... assuming that collectors are intent on growing as a collector and continually wanting to better their sets...

There is a 1934-1934 set and the 1916-1945 set (and others) for Merc's.... If I complete the 34-45 set, that can show as complete and show the 16-45 set as partial. I think that if I complete the 16-34 set that the completed 34-45 set should dissolve. The next step may be if you have varieties, the same thing happens, if I get all the varieties the 16-45 set dissolves and turns into a 16-45 with varieties.

Of course ya need to figure out how/if Proofs fit in... and if for having FB you get more points and if that turns into a 16-45 FB set....

winesteven

@PwrHsePro said:
I find myself in a similar situation. I have a number of Mercury Dimes so would like to use 2 sets as examples and maybe what I could see happen... assuming that collectors are intent on growing as a collector and continually wanting to better their sets...

There is a 1934-1934 set and the 1916-1945 set (and others) for Merc's.... If I complete the 34-45 set, that can show as complete and show the 16-45 set as partial. I think that if I complete the 16-34 set that the completed 34-45 set should dissolve. The next step may be if you have varieties, the same thing happens, if I get all the varieties the 16-45 set dissolves and turns into a 16-45 with varieties.

Of course ya need to figure out how/if Proofs fit in... and if for having FB you get more points and if that turns into a 16-45 FB set....

In my opinion, I think you're fine keeping EACH of those sets. I believe the problematic issue is having multiple sets listed in the SAME Registry set if you're in the top 10. This issue came up because the top collector (and I'm thrilled he's partaking in our hobby) often has more than one set in that same Registry set, typically #1, along with either #2 or #3. The listing of those "extra" sets in the Top 10 disturbs others near that ranking.

Steve

Tom147

@PwrHsePro says

    " the 16-45 set dissolves "                                                                                                                                                      

Not sure if I understand what you're saying here. I have several sets of the same type coin but different compositions with individual coins that are in multiple sets. Never had a set " dissolve " Are you saying they should ? Or they do automatically ?

marmac

I pose this question because I feel a sense of frustration. I am a collector of modest means. My goal is to have a set in the top ten. When I see a person proudly brag this is my second set and this is my third set of the same coins I wonder why. I say put your best set together and as you upgrade sell your coins no longer need for funds towards your next upgrade. Don't clog up the top ten with three sets. Just my 2 cent piece.

I'd rethink my goals to contend with the frustration.

You are suggesting a new set of rules for registry sets as a means to elevate your set in the ranks?

That makes no sense-

Be content with your achievements or achieve more.

and maybe put a little less emphasis on your ranking in the registry.

Tom147

Maybe I'm a bad guy here but I'd like to state my case as I do see both sides of the issue. My emphasis is on one particular series, that being the Roosevelt dime. I'm a collector of modest means, certainly not able to collect high dollar coins of multiple series. Yes, I have two modest sets in the Registry, that being FB Basic set 46 - 64 circ. strikes. Currently # 3 and a long ways from passing # 2 ( D.L. Hansen ) I 've worked hard to attain this position ( read this as LOTS of overtime )
As I've upgraded this set I realized my second set is worthy of being ranked around # 9 to # 11. Am I taking a spot from those ranked # 10 to # 12 ? Yes I am, but I'm proud of my accomplishments and I'll continue to have my 2nd set listed until the rules change. If those at #10 to # 12 don't like it, upgrade your set. There have been times another person had 2 sets above mine. Didn't care who had them, just that there were multiple sets ahead of me. What did I do ? Upgraded. I will apologize in advance if I upset anyone. Not my intent.

gumby1234

The multiple sets thing is fine. What i don't agree with is having a coin in multiple registry sets. I think one coin should only be allowed to represent one set. Its not really multiple sets if each coin can be listed in multiple sets.

Martin

@gumby1234 I see your point about a single entry per coin. But I also see the side of let’s say tom147 has the basic roosie set 46 to 64. And also a 46 to date set should he have duplicates of the silvers to participate in the two sets? That’s what makes it a hard call

Martin

gumby1234

@Martin Yes I believe 2 sets should be 2 sets. In real life if you sold 1 set would you still have another set? Or would it be half a set remaining. 2 sets is 2 sets is my way of thinking.

Tom147

Agree Gumby & Martin. Obviously my # 3 and # 11 are two completely different sets of coins. I actually have coins to make a 3rd set, still 100% full bands which would rank in the low 20's but not gonna be greedy. Now I do have a question on the point of the same coins in two different sets. Regarding proofs VS circ. issues. My top set is circ. strikes only. My proof and circ strike set has the same circ. coins in addition to my proofs. Different composite set. Is this a problem in your opinion ?

Martin

@Tom147 no I don’t have a problem with that. I would have more of a problem using say a coin from the roosie fb set in a non fb set and visa versa if the coin was used twice.

If lets say you have a year set and used a coin that was in a date run set at this point I’m ok with that. However my opinion could change with compelling auguments.

Martin

Tom147

I do have a non fb set simply because I have some dimes that are higher than my fb's for that same year. In compiling that non fb set, I took the highest scoring available from my inventory to place into that set. As fb's doesn't score any higher in that composition set I place a 67 non fb over a 67 fb in that set simply because I want to feature as many coins as I can and the fb's are featured in the fb set. However I may have a 67+ or 68fb and only a 67 non fb in my inventory. In that case, the higher scoring 67+ or 68 gets the nod. I am slowly working on improving the non fb set with non fb coins.

Martin

@Tom147 Not meaning to pick on you I just used the Roosies for an example. In fact I need to go check our your set, if you are sporting 68fb's

Martin

Tom147

Please do. Opinions welcome. 46 - 64 fb circ. strike. # 3 set.

Tom147

Not all have trueview. A problem I'm hoping to remedy sometime this year.

lablover

I'll not indulge in the 'multiple set' question per say.

But will pose what I believe is another issue which has been mentioned above. For those of us not interested in collecting Full Bands, I think it's somewhat unfair for Full Bands to be allowed in the Non-Full Band categories, i.e.: Specialty Sets such as, as an example the Roosevelt Dimes Basic Set, Circulation Strikes 1946 - 1964.

I know there are no added points given for the Bands in a non-FB set, but there is a Category for the Full Band Coins. Adding the Full Bands in the Specially Sets places us Non-Full Band collectors at a severe disadvantage toward achieving a higher ranking.

If you'd like an example, please view my retired set of (Emerald Coast Seven Plus Roosies) Circulation Strike Roosevelt Dimes (retired at #7 in the non-full band category (link below) to the other sets in the same category. You'll see that all of the coins were MS67+ with three exceptions where those three were full band used as a place holder until a 67+ could be found...never did find those before the retirement. The goal was to have all 67+'s and no full band.

Then, compare the set to those ranked above it. Remove any Full Band Coin and see what happens.

https://pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dimes/roosevelt-dimes-specialty-sets/roosevelt-dimes-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1946-1964/alltimeset/146424

One could believe that having to not compete with Full Bands in the category the ranking may have been much higher.

It's just something to consider...

Happy Collecting,

Tom147

Lablover, I see what you're saying. But just as you had 3 fb coins in your set, I have fb coins in my non fb set, same as you. Placeholders if you will. As all Roosie collectors know, fb coins can be many multiples in price over a non fb coin of the same grade. I cannot agree with your assumption that not allowing fb coins in a non fb set ( which you yourself admit to " as placeholders " ) would push the rankings of a 100% non fb set higher. As one who has spent quite a large sum of money buying fb coins when I could spend alot less buying non fb coins of the same grade, I fail to see your logic.
Until such point in time that our hosts state that fb coins aren't allowed in a non full band set, OR I replace my own placeholders with non fb coins, my set will stay " as is " It will take a lot less time and $$$ to buy non fb coins compared to the $$$$$ spent to complete my fb set. Hopefully my opinion does not offend you a fellow Roosie collector as I assure you that is not my intent.

lablover

@Tom147 said:
Lablover, I see what you're saying. But just as you had 3 fb coins in your set, I have fb coins in my non fb set, same as you. Placeholders if you will. As all Roosie collectors know, fb coins can be many multiples in price over a non fb coin of the same grade. I cannot agree with your assumption that not allowing fb coins in a non fb set ( which you yourself admit to " as placeholders " ) would push the rankings of a 100% non fb set higher. As one who has spent quite a large sum of money buying fb coins when I could spend alot less buying non fb coins of the same grade, I fail to see your logic.
Until such point in time that our hosts state that fb coins aren't allowed in a non full band set, OR I replace my own placeholders with non fb coins, my set will stay " as is " It will take a lot less time and $$$ to buy non fb coins compared to the $$$$$ spent to complete my fb set. Hopefully my opinion does not offend you a fellow Roosie collector as I assure you that is not my intent.

Tom,

The logic is to have all non-fb coins in the set. My "placeholders" were to fill the set only. But that's not the goal** The purpose is to have Non-FB coins in the set, regardless of what has occurred in the past.

The logic is to have non-FB coins in one category and FB coins in another...let's not mix the two.

No, your opinion does not offend me, it's just a difference of opinion on what I think is fair, not that yours is not. Let's have a "Full Band" Category for those coins with that (designation) and a Category for those that are not FB. That's all I'm saying to even the playing field.

Tom147

I have no issue with that. I am working on getting my non fb set to be 100% fb. It's just my priorities lie in getting my fb set to where it is. From here it'll only be small steps of improvement on it. We had messaged back and forth earlier about your beautiful non fb's at GC and I did place bids on a few. Hopefully I'll get to 100% someday.

Tom147

I reread my previous post. WHOOPS !!! Working on getting my non-fb set to 100% NON fb.

coinbuf

Hmm so it seems a few folks are upset that they feel they are being pushed down by multiple sets, to those folks I say what are you in the registry for? If your goal is to have the very best set and be ranked #1 then you had better be prepared to spend some serious money because you are always going to be competing against enormous wealth. And limiting a participant to only one set is a hollow victory, those coins are still out there and your set hasn't really gotten better, all you will succeed in is tricking yourself into thinking your set is better than it really is. The fact is there are lots of better sets out in the wild or on the NGC registry that if combined into one registry many of the top ten, and even top five sets on the PCGS registry might not even be in the top 25 sets.

Read the post by @winesteven on the US section of the forum about his friend who just listed his high ranking IHC set, there are more sets out there like that. What does being the third loser get you that being the 5th loser doesn't? You only win that $2 pin if you are number one, so all this nonsense about how many sets a person can have listed is just silly imo.

RLSnapper

@coinbuf using the term "loser" for those who participate in the Set Registry and are not #1 is a bit harsh don't you think. Some competitions limit each person to one entry ...some don't. While I know I can never compete with DLH it is nice to see how his best stack up against my best. I really don't feel the need to see his 2nd best and third best. Showing off your 2nd and 3rd best seems to me just that...showing off. I believe the set registry provides a Showcase feature for that very purpose.

Tom147

My silver full band set is currently # 3. I have no delusions on ever reaching # 1. I cannot financially compete with the big boys. I'm in the Registry simply to show my set'(s), the results of a lot of hard work with help from the gentleman who was in the former # 3 spot. We talk alot, he's happy for me and I am forever indebted to him. I love looking at the sets of others. doesn't matter if they are ranked higher or lower, fb or non fb. Lablover had some of the most beautifully toned Roosies I've ever seen. Had the timing been different, I would love to have bought every one possible.
I need to explore the " showcase " feature and then possibly remove my 2nd fb set. The intent of my 2nd set was not to showoff, or take a place from another Registry member. Simply to present the results of alot of work. By this I mean working overtime. Almost 67 years old, collecting since 1964 and still choose to work 80 - 90 hours a week in order to acquire these lovely little silver discs.
I'll say it again then I'll get off my soapbox. I do not wish to offend anyone with my opinions, I'm playing by the rules and I wish no ill will to any other Registry member. I wish only the best for all collectors.

Martin

Geeeezzz all this thread I thought we were talking about using the same coin in different sets. Not have two or more of the same set. If that’s the case then a person should be able to have more than one set, using completely different coins of
Course.
@Tom147 I think your second set knocked me down one spot. I know your number three
Set did. Nice job. It’s been so long since I added a coin. I can’t remember you log on

Martin

Tom147

Thank you sir. Much appreciated. I'll take a look at your set. Maybe able to help you out as I have quite a number of PCGS Roosies.

coinbuf

@RLSnapper said:
@coinbuf using the term "loser" for those who participate in the Set Registry and are not #1 is a bit harsh don't you think. Some competitions limit each person to one entry ...some don't. While I know I can never compete with DLH it is nice to see how his best stack up against my best. I really don't feel the need to see his 2nd best and third best. Showing off your 2nd and 3rd best seems to me just that...showing off. I believe the set registry provides a Showcase feature for that very purpose.

I wonder how offended you would be if I written what I really think. I did not grow up in a participation trophy world so perhaps I don't see the world the way you do. Also, I did not use the term "loser" in a derogatory way or in any way attempt to insinuate that those who participate (and their sets and coins) which rank lower than the top spot are inferior. Only to point out that this is a competitive registry, there is only one winner everyone else (including myself as I have no top ranking PCGS registry sets) is playing catchup. No different than a NASCAR race, one car wins the rest lose.

" While I know I can never compete with DLH it is nice to see how his best stack up against my best" If what you have written in your reply is true then why does this thread exist? You can measure your set against his best by comparing the set metrics, your rank is irrelevant in that context. Limiting competition is not a true measure of where or how your set/coins stack up. Are you also frustrated that some Olympic athletes win multiple gold medals at the same Olympic games, if the same person wins the gold for the fifty yard and hundred yard dash are they "showing off" too?

Have you considered that maybe the showcase is the best place for you to list your coins, that way you will not have to be frustrated by the ranking.

marmac

@RLSnapper

Your argument boiled down from what I see- one collector having multiple top ranking same sets is both “showing off” and apparently an obstacle to you as a collector of modest means and the goals you’ve set of achieving a top 10 ranking for your set.

Therefore your pitch is limit individuals to only one set, even if they might have assembled multiple top pop sets, in order for you to climb in the rankings, achieve a top ten set, and maybe even a little showing off to go with that achievement?

Hmmm…

RLSnapper

@marmac I think it levels the playing field a bit. Everyone gets the same treatment....one set in each category. Use the showcase to show off your duplicates. Makes having the deepest pockets somewhat less a factor. I actually have a number 3 ranked set...of course there are only 8 sets in that category.

marmac

@RLSnapper

I understand what you are saying. And I even agree with some of the sentiments as to a collector posting multiple top ranking sets of a particular issue. But at the end of the day each of those sets is an accomplishment and does meet the criteria to post in the registry.

Limiting collectors to posting only a single set of something when in fact they may own multiple sets of some of the finest known for the series, somewhat invalidates the rankings below #1 set doesn’t it. By doing so, has one really achieved a set in the “top ten” when you get there?

The registry is a great thing for the hobby, as well as keeping the gears turning with upgrades, crossovers, regrades,…

Personally speaking, I enjoy looking thru the lower ranked sets for the stuff I’m interested in. Maybe even more than the top pop sets. I find a masterfully assembled Well matched Low or mid-grade set in certain series just as appealing and maybe even more appealing than the #1 ranked sets.

While I have a few sets in the registry, I use it more as my tick list for building a set than competing against other set builders.

RLSnapper

@marmac I am currently working on a Matron Cent Date set all PCGS G06. So far I have 5 dates. This is going to be a real challenge that doesn't require deep pockets...only a lot of patience and looking. I am only competing with myself. Good discussion with you on this topic.

EliteCollection

I think someone's 2nd set should not compete in the rankings. This is an easy fix for PCGS. Just do something like this:

1 Collector A
2 Collector B
...Collector A 2nd set
3 Collector C
4 Collector D

So still list the 2nd set in the same order but don't assign it a ranking. This way, Collector A can still see where his 2nd set will rank and Collector C & D will not be affected. I think this is the best for everyone.

ChrisH821

I have wondered if the way I have my sets set up would be considered bad form...
A complete 1936-42 proof set is essentially 13 sets in one.
1. Complete 1936-42 proofs
2. 1936 set
3. 1937 set
4. 1938 set
5. 1939 set
6. 1940 set
7. 1941 set
8. 1942 set
9. Proof cents 1936-42
10. Proof nickels 1936-42
11. Proof dimes 1936-42
12. Proof quarters 1936-42
13. Proof half dollars 1936-42
I have a registry set for each of the above. I would definitely not create additional sets of any, but the coins within the subsets are in the main complete set. If I was to get rid of any of the coins it would impact at least three of the listed sets(date, type, and complete).

lablover

Ok, let's end this. If one can afford a zillion coins in the same series and reach Ranking #1 through #10 then so be it. Step up to the plate or be resolved to land at # 11.

However, my contention is they should remain in the Registry Category that they (or was setup for) belong to. If they are Full Band, then compete in the Full Band Category only. Not in the Circulation Strike Category where those not seeking Full Bands attempt to compete.

I realize FB coins do not get the extra points, but dang, for those wanting to establish a Top Set in Circulation Strikes only, no FB's get hammered when the others are included.

Why is that hard to understand?

RLSnapper

@ChrisH821 you are not in bad form at all. I think it is bad form to have multiple sets in the same series...especially when the sets are named Joe Blow set 1, Joe Blow set 2, Joe Blow set 3, This is clearly a collector saying look at my big wallet. I would think being a bit more discrete in naming your second and third sets may be in order,

epc

@RLSnapper said:
@ChrisH821 you are not in bad form at all. I think it is bad form to have multiple sets in the same series...especially when the sets are named Joe Blow set 1, Joe Blow set 2, Joe Blow set 3, This is clearly a collector saying look at my big wallet. I would think being a bit more discrete in naming your second and third sets may be in order,

Hello everyone. I'm new to these discussion boards, and started reading this topic.

I'm currently focusing on Liberty Seated Half Dime varieties. I'm in the NGC Registry because I own many NGC and PCGS certified coins. I wanted a place to catalog and display them. I tried using NGC's non-competitive custom set interface for the half dime varieties, but found it to be awkward for holding and organizing hundreds of varieties. So, I put them all in the regular 70-coin competitive category. I currently have 37 1838 half dimes, so I have 37 of those sets, numbers 2 through 37 named essentially with my user ID and a number. But I'm not trying to say 'look at my big wallet'...

When I started collecting half dimes, my goal was a single complete set, as nice as I could afford. I had no thought regarding topping the charts. But over 15 years I had enough money to put together a pretty nice set, which, when completed, sat at #3 until Gene Gardner sold off his coins, when my set moved to #1 by default. But I'm well aware that there are enough higher-graded coins out there to make numerous higher-ranking sets, and wealthier collectors who have done so. Several such sets have appeared in the registries; surely others remain more private. That doesn't affect my enjoyment in seeking, finding, owning, and studying the coins I have.

My 37 half dime sets are intended 1) to be an external catalog of my coins, and 2) to display them in a way that may be useful to other variety collectors (I include 750x750 photos of each coin, and am working on improving descriptions). Yes, they do clog the ranked list of sets, occupying ~25% of the top 150 slots, including four in the top ten. Is that really a problem? Does anyone suffer any real harm? Hobbies are supposed to be fun. Be happy with the coins you have, no matter how they rank!

RLSnapper

@epc A showcase of your 37 different 1838 half dimes would be quite impressive. Having 37 "different" sets clogging up the registry is over the top. You seem quite proud of it though..I give you that. Welcome to the Boards!

epc

@RLSnapper Unlike Scotty in "The Trouble with Tribbles" Star Trek episode, this is not a matter of pride for me. For me, the public aspect of the registry and forums like this is about sharing information. Some may view it as showing off, but you can't share what you don't show. For me, the pursuit, acquisition, and study of coins is fun. But I do wish I had a better way to show the variety collection. If I find it, I'll be happy to remove the 'extra' sets from the competitive registry.

giorgio11

I think every collector should be able to have as many of any set as they desire. If others have better, they rank higher. And so it is, apparently. End of story.

Kind regards,

George