Would you include proofs and circulations strikes in a type set or date set?

MidLifeCrisis

Would you have a mixed set? In other words, would either a proof example or a circulation example of a particular type or date be acceptable? Or would you stick to only circulation strikes or only proofs?

Mr_Spud

I voted no because I was tempted to purchase a PF58 Liberty Seated Dollar for my circulated type set because it was cheaper than the AU58s I was finding and also had better eye appeal than the AU58s I was finding, but then a nice looking AU58 came across my path and I snatched it up and I was glad I had hesitated and didn’t get the PF58 one.

OAKSTAR

Generally speaking I wouldn't. I like sets or albums looking consistent. However, there might be instances where proofs and business strikes look good together. However with that said, I did find an impaired modern clad commemorative proof in circulation. The proof luster was completely gone, it looked like a business strike. I had it in my 7070 for awhile, until I got tired of it.

oldabeintx

I voted yes because I have put together both, although I haven't gone into very early proofs or proof gold, or very costly proofs, such as a '53 50c. That is, in most cases I have an example of each in my type set. I should add that I'm an obsessive type collector who also includes colonials and foreign that circulated here before '57.

oldabeintx

If I had to choose one or the other of course circulation strikes as proofs aren't available for all types and are very expensive for many types. And simply mixing them doesn't display well IMO.

gschwernk

I would mention the Eliasberg collection contained many proofs and was far from complete by PCGS statands for circulated coins. The set shown in the registry paints a false picture as the set gave many assumed grades of MS to proofs.

lermish

@Mr_Spud said:
I voted no because I was tempted to purchase a PF58 Liberty Seated Dollar for my circulated type set because it was cheaper than the AU58s I was finding and also had better eye appeal than the AU58s I was finding, but then a nice looking AU58 came across my path and I snatched it up and I was glad I had hesitated and didn’t get the PF58 one.

I caved and bought an impaired proof for my LSD.

In general, I try to lean towards proofs for my type set but I'll buy what appeals to me. Having modern coins in my type set of choice means that there will never be a unified feel/style for the entire set so it frees it up. I have a wide range from blast white proofs and business strikes to heavily toned proofs and business strikes and crusty originals too. I like them all!

WilliamF

I have several proofs in my type set alongside bus. strikes, so... yes, guilty!

TomB

Definitely mix them. I used this coin for many years in my mostly circulation strike type set (the coin is a proof)-

winesteven

Like many above have posted, my various Type Sets are a blend of MS and Proof coins. In each of these various Type Sets, PCGS not only allows it, but indirectly ENCOURAGES it! I say that, because VERY often in higher grades, it’s less expensive to buy an eye-appealing Proof coin than a MS coin in that same high grade. Due to flashy lustrous mirrors and often better strikes, the Proof coin has nicer eye appeal than its MS counterpart. Without MY choice to include proof coins, my Type Sets would be ranked lower.

Steve

Mr_Spud

Earlier on I said no, wouldn’t mix in proofs with non proofs in type sets, and I didn’t add them on purpose, but I realized that in the PCGS Registry I have my main sets I actively work on but also a bunch of side type sets that I don’t really work on. I just made the side sets because my main ones plus random coins I had in my inventory ended up making them more than 25% complete but I let the computer auto pick them and it picked proofs if they were higher points. If I ever actively work on those sets I’ll probably manually change out the proofs with non-proofs when I obtain them.

OAKSTAR

I'm kinda surprised to see a 50/50 split at this point.

DisneyFan

For fun I'm putting together a 19th century date set in honor of my paternal grandparents' year of birth. They were both born in the same year. The only requirements are that the coins be attractive to me, have a CAC, and cost less than $1,000.00. Since there are just a few coins involved, I'm not starting a Registry Set to keep track of them, and thus, I am mixing NGC and PCGS coins as well as mint states and proofs. Since the coins are in slabs, I'm enjoying looking at each coin, one at a time.

RLSnapper

For my Late Date Large Cent Collection I will have to have just 1 proof to show the design in all its glory. I will probably have to sell my Rolex I never wear to afford it.

DisneyFan

@RLSnapper said:

I will probably have to sell my Rolex I never wear to afford it.
>
Don't discount the Rolex as an alternative investment.

winesteven

@RLSnapper said:
For my Late Date Large Cent Collection I will have to have just 1 proof to show the design in all its glory. I will probably have to sell my Rolex I never wear to afford it.

So, you’re going to go “fishing” for that one Proof coin?

Separately, your comment “show the design in all its glory” is EXACTLY why Proof coins should be chosen to be in Type Sets - a Type Set is having one coin of each “Type”, and as such, the coin chosen should indeed show that coin as the designer of the coin intended for that coin to look (but still keeping it to a grade within one’s budget)!

Steve

OAKSTAR

@TomB said:
Definitely mix them. I used this coin for many years in my mostly circulation strike type set (the coin is a proof)-

Here's the impaired modern clad commemorative proof I was talking about.

jmlanzaf

@OAKSTAR said:
I'm kinda surprised to see a 50/50 split at this point.

It's not like there's any right answer.

jmlanzaf

I think you have to separate type set from date śet.

3 cent nickel date set. Discuss.

winesteven

@jmlanzaf said:
I think you have to separate type set from date śet.

3 cent nickel date set. Discuss.

I agree. At least with the PCGS Registry, for Type Sets, they usually allow a Proof or Business Strike coin to fill each slot, but with Date Sets, they typically offer a set that requires ALL Business Strikes for each slot, and a separate Date Set for those that want Proof coins, as those Date Sets require only Proof coins for each slot.

For those collectors that really want a challenge with Date Sets, PCGS also offers sets where BOTH Proof and Business Strike coins are required, but not “either/or”. Those sets require each Date in Proof AND each Date in Business Strike!

Naturally, for those creating a set NOT in the Registry, whether a Type Set or Date Set, the collector can do as they choose, as there is no right or wrong!

Steve

ricko

It is, of course, a personal choice. Generally, I would not mix them... That being said, if it was a key coin in a series, and availability limited, I would take what was available. Maybe change it later, maybe not. Cheers, RickO

jmlanzaf

@winesteven said:

@jmlanzaf said:
I think you have to separate type set from date śet.

3 cent nickel date set. Discuss.

I agree. At least with the PCGS Registry, for Type Sets, they usually allow a Proof or Business Strike coin to fill each slot, but with Date Sets, they typically offer a set that requires ALL Business Strikes for each slot, and a separate Date Set for those that want Proof coins, as those Date Sets require only Proof coins for each slot.

For those collectors that really want a challenge with Date Sets, PCGS also offers sets where BOTH Proof and Business Strike coins are required, but not “either/or”. Those sets require each Date in Proof AND each Date in Business Strike!

Naturally, for those creating a set NOT in the Registry, whether a Type Set or Date Set, the collector can do as they choose, as there is no right or wrong!

Steve

Agree. I wasn't necessarily considering registry sets, but it is interesting that they follow the same logic.

rec78

I have done it, but I voted no because I do not think they really belong together, generally.
For Trade dollars I added late date proofs to 1883 because their were spaces in the album that I had. JMHO. Bob

rec78

@jmlanzaf said:
I think you have to separate type set from date śet.

3 cent nickel date set. Discuss.

I added the 1877 and 1878 because there were spaces in the album for them. Also, the set seems incomplete without every available date possible.
Also, 20 cent pieces, I got the 1877 and 1878. There is no space in the album for the 1876-CC, so, i don't need it.

NeophyteNumismatist

I am building a type set that is all business strike. NGC's adds some modern (post 1992) silver in their type, so... I do have proofs online... however, my type slab binder is all business strikes. That said, I would love a proof type set (and an error type set, and a key date type set)

Catbert

Voted No. I have mixed emotions for my collecting journey. I love proofs since they show a design in all their glory. However, business strikes were obviously used in commerce (most of them anyway besides bank vaulted Morgans) and there is an allure with that concept, particularly when building a date set (and I'm only doing one of those).

I can appreciate where a type set might be mixed, but as I think about my collection there are just some smaller coin types that I have no interest in owning and so I reject the constraints of a registry format that requires a type coin that I would take no joy in ownership or in a requirement that they be either proof or business strike to complete.

These days, I just buy coins I like without regard to any formal requirements. So, I'm an orphan of sorts!

ShaunBC5

I put no but I read it as only “date set” before I answered.
If it was a date set, I’d stick to one or the other. Type set and I might mix.

The_Dinosaur_Man

This poll needs a third option for "It Depends on the Series." Ultimately, it is up to the collector to determine what they feel is a complete set to aim for, proofs included or not. Some sets include dates that are Proof only, for example the Nickel Three Cents, Shield Nickels, and even sets like the Morgan Dollars requiring the 1895 Proof or the Barber Dimes asking for the 1894-S. I've met collectors working on proof-only sets. And for those with limited budgets, they will pursue a series like Nickel Three Cents because it is an interesting odd type, but they will never afford the low mintage business strikes. Should that same collector have to get the proof-only dates but ignore getting the similarly priced proof for the other dates?

Then you have to consider series from the 20th century. Do you include Proof Mercury Dimes which didn't start until 1936 whereas its sibling series, the Standing Liberty Quarters, had no proofs at all? And what if you stumble upon an unidentified proof issue, like the $10 Indian posted in another thread a few weeks ago? Does that change the dynamic of the set you are building?

When I work with other collectors, I like to give them all sorts of options in this regard. They never have to buy anything, it's always up to them what they want to have in their collections.

divecchia

I mix proof and business strikes in all the type sets that I am working on. As a matter of fact, I prefer the proofs as the design is mostly all there. Soft business strikes don't generally work for me.

Donato

BillJones

I voted yes. I prefer Proofs for type coins when I can get them. If you want an example of the design, a Proof often provides the better impression.

I had a customer who was working on a MInt State Indian cent collection years ago. He bought an 1877 cent in Proof because it was cheaper than the business strike coin. Many Proof cents were carelessly made during that era, and the coin fit in with the rest of the set.

Walkerfan

I like consistency, so I voted no.

WCC

I voted no but the one thing I definitely would not do is include proof-only dates in a circulation strike set. If the circulation strike was never struck, it's not necessary to complete it. An example is the 1895 Morgan dollar.

MidLifeCrisis

It's interesting that the results are split 50/50 at this point.

Catbert

I think the clarity comes with whether one is doing a type set (mixed is OK) vs a date set (not OK to mix). I then think your numbers would not be split evenly. If the question was asked separately for each approach, you’d have had a better poll MLC. 🙂

MidLifeCrisis

@Catbert said:
I think the clarity comes with whether one is doing a type set (mixed is OK) vs a date set (not OK to mix). I then think your numbers would not be split evenly. If the question was asked separately for each approach, you’d have had a better poll MLC. 🙂

Fair enough. I just don't get the difference though. Say, for example, I put together a date set of 3 Cent Nickels. The 1877, 1878, and 1886 are proof only. The 1873 Open 3 is a circulation strike only. If I didn't mix them, I wouldn't be able to complete the set. There may be better examples, since the Open 3 is a variety of an otherwise available date, but it seems to me that mixed for both type sets and date sets gives you the best option to form a complete set of either.

When I made this poll, I was focusing on what I thought would simply be a difference in personal taste.