Registry Set Major Variety Designations
hbarbee
Posts: 189 ✭✭✭
In preface to my question, please allow me to provide the following paragraph.
I know that a collector can define what they want as a “complete” set. However, I decided long ago to eliminate any personal bias and use a PCGS registry set as my definition of a collection. In my case since I was collecting Lincoln Cents, I decided on the “Lincoln Cents with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes and Proof (1909-Present)” for my set. This set currently has 434 pieces and if you are familiar with the series, it is quite a challenge. I now have the complete set except for 3 examples. The set Is exclusively mint/proof state and in PCGS holders if valued at over about $100. The rest are raw as they are not worth the grading fee.
My question concerns the 3 examples that I am missing and why they would be considered “major varieties” in this registry set considering all of the other varieties in the set that are fairly easily obtainable. Not complaining, just curious. These are the 1958 DDO, the 1969S DDO and the 1992 CAM. The 1958 is valued beyond the scope of most any collector and never comes to market. The 1969S might be obtainable but also seldom comes to market. The 1992 is relatively cheap but never comes to market.
Understand that I am not a registry collector although I do enter my PCGS examples in the set just for grins but it would seem that including pieces such as these 3 pretty much excludes one from completing the set.
So why are these 3 coins considered major varieties and therefore included in this registry set? I personally consider them unobtanium. I would guess that the same occurs in other series that I am not familiar with.
Comments
The debate on the 1958 DDO being included in a variety set has been around since this forum started. The complaint was more of an irritant that folks could never be 100% complete as long as every variety set required it. And I also could see that if you were fortunate to own one of the 3 examples – there was no place to show it except maybe buried in a showcase set?
The 1969 S DDO is another story. I have seen a half dozen show up for auction the last 6 months or so. (https://www.northeastcoin.com/inventory.jsp) the PCGS Population is 47 – and you would need to add the other TPG pops – it is common enough variety to be included. (But IMHO it does not warrant the $20,000+ figure.) This number is driven by the fact more non-variety collectors want this example because of its extreme doubling (just like the 1955 DDO).
And yes, the 1992 CAM does appear to be rare. The pop is 6 at PCGS – so that’s 3 more than a 1958 DDO so you can believe it will remain. I am also confident more will be found by roll searchers in the years to come.
But I will also point out the 1992 also has a higher pop that the 82 DDR, 83 Cud, and 88 DDO. So if you have these 3 – you are way ahead of me and most others who will ever sincerely take on the series.
WS
Thanks for your comments. I know that you are very knowledgeable on this series. I agree that if I were ever to obtain any of the 3 it would probably be the 1969-S DDO. But since I pretty much hit a wall on the Lincolns, I went into a major type collection for the one cent pieces prior to Lincoln based on the PCGS "Small Cent Type Set" and "Large Cent Type Set" registry sets, all in MS63 and above so far. Still need the first 2 1793's if you have any extras lying around.
LOL, Don't I wish. I left it to my working son to get the Chain cent I could not afford. Good luck with your set.
WS
I just got an email from Rick Snow at Eagle Eye about this 1969-S DDO
He has it listed for $450K on his web site
https://www.indiancent.com/1969-s-1c-doubled-die-obverse-lincoln-cent-modern-type-3-memorial-reverse-copper-pcgs-ms64-rd-cac-187425493.html
However the email offered it at $125K for now until it goes up for his auction.
I think putting the same money into the 1793s would be more substantial.