Which set is more popular and why ? A variety set or a basic set ?

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

I am primarily a copper collector.I have registered my Lincoln cent sets with both variety and basic sets.I prefer my variety set more but wish Mr. Hall would include more varieties in the set

Stewart Blay

littlewicher

Do they do an RPM set?

Keyrock

I think the basic set is more popular due to cost, however, I feel that the variety set is the true set. At a minimum, PCGS should recognize all of the major errors like the 55/55, 22 plain etc. I started the 1950 to date proof set primarily due to the 1990 no S.

In my opinion the set would never be complete with classics like the 55/55 and others as Steve had mentioned.

Now if PCGS recognizes more varieties that would be a bonus! Hopefully in due time the other varieties will be recognized, probably not to the extent that ANACS does.

Rich

mdwoods

The basic sets are more popular simply because they are easier and cheaper to complete. And like others have mentioned, some of the varieties that "make up" a set are not well defined. Personally, in the type sets, I don't consider my set complete until I have completed the major varieties as well. Mark

TWQG

I gravitate to the varieties because its more coins to collect and often fewer competitors.

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Littlewicher - Do you collect RPM's ? Do any of your YN friends collect Double Dies. Do any of your YN friends have registry sets ? Do you know any YN cherrypickers ?

I agree that the Double Dies in the PCGS Set Registry don't follow any order.NGC follows the Cherry Pickers Guide by Fivaz/Stanton giving all varieties FS numbers.I feel there are too many varieties in the cherry pickers guide.PCGS recognizes only certain varieties.Their policy was that if the variety sold for a considerable premium,they would recognize the variety. Now there are some varieties that they recognize that they do not include in the Varieties Set Registry.I for one would like to see more varieties in theSet Registry perhaps as "Optional Varieties"

Stewart

IrishMike

A month ago I spent about an hour with a dealer who specializes in lincoln varieties, that is his true love. It's a fascinating subject to be sure. I like the concept of a set without varieties and on with. The difficulty to me is what should be included and excluded. It's seems like there are hundres out their. I ended up purchasing a top pop 59D, which is an interesting coin. It has a second D in the second nine and the coin also has a die chip between the last nine and the rim. Just a totally cool cent. Unfortunately my camera is still in the clutches of Nikon repair. I suppose the comment about letting the market decide is the best alternative to choosing which ones to include.

WWBillman

I am a Type collector and feel all the major varieties should be part of a true type set and enjoy collecting them. I think the problem with the PCGS registry with varieties sets is that a lot of collectors do not agree with PCGS on what should really be considered a variety.

The 20th Century Type Set With Varieties, No Gold - Circulation Strikes (1900-1999) requires a SMS Piece (1994 or 1997 Nickel or 1998-S Half Dollar). I do not consider any SMS Piece a variety in a circulation strike type set. With PCGS saying they are then why do they give you a choice between 2 Nickels and a Half? If they are true varieties shouldn’t one of the nickels AND the half really be required? If SMS is a true variety what about all the 1960 SMS pieces?

For that reason I will never register in the with varieties set. I do not want one of the SMS coins and refuse to spend my money to buy one just because they say so.

lincolnSence

I collect the varieties as well in the lincoln series. If PCGS will grade it and mark it on its holder, then I believe it should be part of the registry set. Yeah it gets expensive, well very expensive. But we are talking about the best sets registered. People are always free to collect what they want. All you can do is enjoy what you personally have collected. I like to look at a set and imagine what amount of effort and resources it took to assemble it. At a minimum the registry should have the optional coins so people can let others know what else they have collected. Collecting varieties has only expanded my knowledge of the series. I also collect lincoln errors, OMM's, RPM's, Cuds, DD's anything Lincoln. This way not a single date you can think of in the series doesn't have something to look out for. Just makes it more interesting and keeps me on my toes.

Besides, when I'm out of money I can still get the collecting thrill by shifting to the Cuds or cheaper DD's.

CarlWohlforth

First things first. It is hard to complete any set. I think most people work first on completing the set. Then they either sell, work on a new set or move on to varieties. I mean if you really love a series then you are probably interested in the varieties.

With type collections it is often hard to determine if something is a new type or a minor variety. I happen to be a Proof Jefferson and Type collector. Since I considered the modern SMS coins to be proof I had to have one for my Jeff set. So I had no problem coming up with one of those for the type set

Keyrock

Stewart,

Are you planning to discuss this issue w/ Rick et al at the show down? It might be a great time to breach the subject and since you are the top dog, your voice may have more weight. I would love to see the cents expanded, even if it just identifies the coins as optional.

Rich (The R.S. Gore collection)

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Rich,

I have done everything I can think of to try and get PCGS to recognize more varieties.The big discrepancy is you can't register what PCGS certifies.I have asked as many people as possible to e-mail dh@collectors.com to voice their opinion.Rick is not in charge of listing varieties in the set registry.Rick is only in charge of certifying varieties.Only David Hall has complete control of the varieties listed in the set registry.David has asked me to back off until November so I will wait until that time...........and try to get him to agree at a vulnerable moment.

Stewart

keoj

Varieties have always been a hot topic with me. There are several levels of the issue:

1) Should varieties be allowed or not? I think that PCGS' solution is a reasonably good one. That is, have a basic set and then have a variety set. My main issue is that consideration of whether a variety set for a series is totally inconsistent between series. I'll give a couple of examples:
- Lincoln sets have varieties (this makes total sense)
- Twenty Cent Circulation and Proof Strikes have a Variety Set (okay, but it seems that we're back to be basic discussion on ultra rare coins.....some series have them in the basic set and others do not)
- Circulation strike Trade dollars have no variety set (the 76-CC DDR (recognized as one of the most significant of DDR's and which has a number by PCGS) has no home in the PCGS registry set).
- Early dollars do not a variety set but take a look at what is in the basic set in terms of what coins are needed. For just 4 years, 18 coins are needed for 1795-98. (Pretty tough to see this logic)
Seems pretty inconsistent.

2) What varieties should be considered? Always a tough question. My preferences are that anything that can be seen with an unaided eye, but usually I defer to just F&S numbers. This is a line that should be drawn and then for reveiwed for general consensus.

keoj

perfectstrike

Let us know when you want to start campaigning for having the Lincoln varieties that PCGS recognizes added, even as optionals. I've found your past posts to closely mirror my desires, even if I don't ever expect to own each variety in MS. Maybe DH would consider a set where NGC varieties are recognized, as an intermediate step.

perfectstrike

BNE

Basic sets are probably more popular, but the varieties separate the men (and women) from the boys (and girls). PCGS ought to attribute more varieties and add more varieties to the "with varieties" sets. Proof Jeffersons are pitiful now. At least we had the two "reverse of" varieties as "optional coins" before the reweighting. Then, PCGS created a "with varieties" set and ELIMINATED these varieties, and moved a formerly required coin (the '71 no-S) into the "variety" category. The '71 no-S is now the ONLY proof Jefferson variety recognized in the registry. Some improvement!

There are about a half-dozen significant "Cherrypickers" varieties in the proof Jefferson series. In addition to the two "reverse ofs", there are important multiple dies in '51, '53, '55 and '56. (I can see why some of the later ones from the 60s might not be included.) We need a serious "with varieties" set that includes all of these. To go back to a Redbook of X date as the "standard" for whether a variety ought to be recognized is retrograde.

PCGS could make a lot of cash getting into the variety attribution business. It really seems to be a no-brainer.

Thanks, Stewart for raising this bug-a-boo issue with the appropriate folks at the appropriate time. If I can help, please let me know.

Lakesammman

It seems silly that a specific basic set should even be specified. Why not just list the year and let the collector decide what to collect. If one chooses to buy a tough variety to fill that years spot, why should there be a penalty in not being able to use it?

Deciding which varieties to include is tough. Some years in the IHC series have over 30 varieties. I like what was done with the IHC series. PCGS included the "midyear" design changes, the major overdate and the most significant DDO/RPD. Each series would be different, obviously. But it would be a shame to include allot of minor varieties that haven't "stood the test of time" in terms of being desirable in the eyes of collectors.

My vote is the variety series being the most popular - I've never met a serious IHC collector that didn't aspire to own a 1873 S1 DDO, for instance.

Spooly

PCGS got it right. A basic set and a variety set. Makes everyone happy. Now if PCGS would put some real varieties in the variety set.... everything would be great.

keoj

Spooly:

I couldn't agree more. It riles me that PCGS attributes varieties on the holder (I assume this means that they are collectable), yet has no variety set to put them in?????!!!!!! When I've asked, the answer is that "there ins't enough interest". If that was the case, then don't recognize the variety at all, or let me put my own variety on the "normal" holder.

Second point, NGC does a good job (not excellent, just good) as drawing the variety line. They use several recognized sources.

It seems that PCGS is missing the boat on this one. Sorry if I sound a liitle torqued on this one but I've not been listened too at PCGS at all on the series that I collect.

keoj

Lakesammman

Spooly:

What are the "real" varieties, in your opinion??

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Lakesammen - Perhaps some "real" varieties are the ones not listed that you and I collect.

Would you not like to see the 1867/67 and the 1865 plain 5 listed in the Indiancent varieties set ?I would also like to see the 1857 DDO Flying Eagle

In the Lincoln Cent varieties set: Let's list the 1909 vdb DDO,the 1917 DDO,1936 DDO,1941 DDO, and the 1943 D/D.Let us not forget the 1969 s DDO

Yea !!!!! Let's all list the varieties we want in our series put into the set registry. LET'S WAKE UP DAVID HALL

Stewart

Spooly

I would support a "push" to get more varieties noted on the holders. But we need to get organized. You have to make a clear and compelling case to Rick and David. This means people will have to speak up.




Lakesammman, I would use the "The Cherrypickers Guide" all coins with a "interest rating" of 4 and 5 stars to start with.

Lakesammman

Agree - it sure seemed silly to include the 1867/67 or 1865 plain 5 in the old set as desirable and not include it in the variety set! I personally would support the "top 20" as described by Flynn/Steve for the FE/IHC variety sets but even those wouldn't satisfy a true variety collector.

I still think the basic set should accept all coins of the proper date. Why penalize someone with a great plain 5 1865 or 1873 closed 3? The price of the 1865 plain 5 in particular will likely decline in the near future (good time to buy and get ready for the next PCGS set iteration!). Let's face it, PCGS is doing this as a business, not for the good of the hobby (so why am I a share holder???). Why they would make a large subclass of coins/varities undesirable (read that unmarketable) is beyond me. Isn't the idea to grow the business??

With regard to listing the varieties on the holders, the game for PCGS is to get us to recertify coins as many times as possible. Once the submission volumes drop, a new gimic will be rolled out to get us to send them in once again. I'm sure variety designation is in the bag of tricks for a future roll out. They even have me sending in proofs trying for the "coveted cameo designation". Will I like the coin any better - NO! As long as we passively follow along and allow ourselves to be manipulated, the gimics will continue to be invented.

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

PCGS is doing this as a business,NOT for the good of the hobby (Why am I a shareholder ???)

If you think PCGS is making money by by not putting varieties in the set registry or if you think PCGS makes money off the forum,then you're on the wrong page Lakesamman.I know David Hall well enough to tell you he is indeed doing it for the hobby.He has a HUGE EGO and is VERY proud.He feels he is an ICON in Numismatic history and he probably is but we have to persuade him to list more varieties and the only way is to keep chipping away.A number of us have persuaded Rick Montgomery to list varieties on the holder.In time I feel we will convince David to list more varieties but it will take time and patience

Could you imagine if we had to pay a fee to enter the FORUMS ??
Isn't it a more valuable coin with a cameo designation ?

Stewart

michael

i would love both sets! but for me i really do not know as i have not thought about it usually i am like a regular set person if i did that kind of thing for me i like type sets or special cioins within a set and of course the term special leaves much to the individuals imagination!

now of course for me the best of the best would be a set including all the reconigued varities in finest knoen grades if i could afford that and have the expertise to me it would be the ultimate showstopper!!!!!

i think varities will gain strength as long as they are mainstream with many or most overall collectors are in the red book and MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE NOT ONLY THE ROMANCE LIKE THE 55 DOUBLED DIE LINCOLN

BUT CAN BE EASILY SEEN WITH THE NAKED EYE IN MOST ALL GRADES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sincerely michael

Lakesammman

Sure it's more "valuable" to those who buy plastic or are playing the registry game but is the coin any different or more valuable to a knowledgable collector - no.

I'm waiting for the final iteration to submit my coins - not cameo or ultracameo or deep cameo or deep mirror ultra cameo or super duper ultra pretty cameo but the ultimate - THE MOTHER OF ALL CAMEOS!

Can you imagine all the money I'll save by waiting....?

Coppernicus

I've got to jump in here. I agree that more varieties should be recognized in the registry sets but where do you draw the line? In many series, the varieties are almost limitless.

On a more personal note, I don't collect the varieties because at heart, I am a purist. The term variety to me spells mistake, error, malfunction, etc. The 55DD Lincoln is something to behold but let's face it, it was a mistake. I prefer a high grade MS near perfect stike, on a flawless planchet, with eye appaeal that can only be described as "glowing."

Any departure from this ideal, to me, is distracting. I do understand however, those that are attracted to the varieties - it's just not me...