Registry set types, too many or too few?

Steve27

On one hand, when I look at the registry set types which are available, I find it lacking. On the other hand, when I was looking at the type sets, I had trouble distiguishing between:

20th Century Type Set, No Gold - Circulation Strikes (1900-1999),
20th Century Type Set, Major Types, No Gold -Proof (1900-1999), and
20th Century Type Set, No Gold (1900-1999)

So in general are there too many or too few?

keithdagen

Steve,

In the Type sets, there was strong demand for a Mint State only or a Proof only version of the 20th Century set because many Type collectors specialize and in the case of MS, the expensive MS pieces were being outweighted by inexpensive proof coins. And since some don't care, the mixed set, where proofs or MS pieces can be combined, was left.

kieferscoins

I think there is just enough sets. As more collectors come, the sets may expand with the growth, but now it is good.

Cameron Kiefer

goyankeez

I don't have any of these sets, but I always like to see more options. I think a proof type set for the 19th century would be interesting.

CarlWohlforth

I think there are too many. It was great fun when lots of people were racing to finish their 20'Th century type set at the same time.

I'm not saying there should only be a mixed proof and cs set, but there are too many sets. I would have:

- Modern type set including gold (1900-present) proof, circulating strike and mixed
- Complete type set including gold (1792-1964) proof, curculating strike and mixed

So that is 6 sets. I would also have some specialty type set like the California gold and commem sets.

For proof Jefferson nickels I would eliminate the "without varieties" set. There is only one variety added for the with varieties set.

braddick

Right.
Two sets: Mint State and Proof.
Get rid of the varieties and mixed sets. No need.

I wish PCGS would clean up a bunch of rah-rah sets no one really uses (proof and MS Peace dollars? Come on.)

keithdagen

Favorite is still 20th Century Gold Proof Type Set, none registered.

littlewicher

I like the modern type sets, myself.

Currin

I would vote with Carl. I really like his six set suggestions. Some of you old timers may remember me. I was once a very active member of this board , and the Modern (1900-present) set. I was top five at one time (in the good old days). My Modern Set have both 1900 and 2000 year sets included. So, my collecting philosophy does not jive with any of the present options. So, I have been turned off with the registry sets for a long time. Sometimes, I wish of the return of the old registry set days. One thing for certain, I will never sell my "complete" 2000" type coins just to reach 100% in one of the new sets. I am not certain that I understand the logic of limiting a type set with dates anyway (either you have the type or don’t). If you noticed, they do not list the dates in the sets anyway. I do have a suggestion for what's it is worth. Why not let all coins qualify for the type that they are. If the dates are out of the set’s range, then let the weighting system apply a penalty. For example, if I use my 2000 MS67RD in the 20th Century Type Set, No Gold - Circulation Strikes (1900-1999), then deduct a point or two. Does this make any sense to anyone but me?

Oh by the way, I did add a new addition a few minutes ago. An very nice JH Cline SLQ blast white MS64FH! I am still looking for the white 1900 nickel and dime, which will complete my red & white 45 piece Modern (1900-present) set!

PQpeace

I would like to see a 1900-1964 set..
no gold..

but this is coming from a silver dollar collector.

CarlWohlforth

Good to hear from your Currin.

What could be better than a 1900 and 2000 year set! Sounds great. I think they are not to particular about the year over at the NGC registry. That is you can have any year Barber quarter for the 20'th Century type set as they minted Barber quarters in the 20'th century. That sounds civil to me You might like to check them out.

Actually it would really help me. The most common deep cameo proofs seem to be from 1898. I sure would rather buy a Morgan from 1898 than from after 1900. The Barbers too for that matter.

Typetone

I am also dismayed that all the comraderie of the type set competition has died down. This I believe is because of too many sets and complicated weighting. I think we should focus on the combined set with varieties for reviving competition.

What I would really like is to go back to a single 20th century set. Throw gold back in, and keep the varieties down to a minimum. To keep it fair with moderns, maybe give 1950 to present CS pieces an extra point or two to keep them on par with the proofs.

Like the idea of allowing 19th century dates to be eligible for those types which span the centuries.

Greg

tradedollarnut

I would like to see a pre-1900 type set. I would also like to see denomination type sets.

When will the type sets be weighted??????

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

I would like to see pre 1936 Proof sets.I think it would be great to see Proof sets from 1858 - 1916 complete with gold !!!!

Stewart

Zerbe

Correction--A 20th century proof gold type set IS registered.

CarlWohlforth

I noticed the proof gold set before you mentioned it! I was waiting to see if KeithDagen spotted it first

Currin

How would you go about getting PCGS relaxing the date rules in type sets? Are most active PCGS type collectors happy with the date limitations? Is this an useless attempt to make a positive change?

Currin

Type collertors, any additional comments? Is everyone pretty happy?

CarlWohlforth

I'm not %100 happy. But they didn't make the changes we lobbied for in the proof Jefferson set so I don't feel like getting worked up about the type set. And I've already spent my budget so won't be adding coins for a long time.