Is it time yet? YEAR SETS in the Registry!

RegistryCoin

I'd like to see the advent of Year Sets in the registry. I would love to do a 1938 year set, (MS &/or Pf) with the Walker, two nickel designs, and, I think the toughest year for nice commems, for example. Considering the commems in year sets makes me think that 1951 would be fun too. (Wash-Carvers and BTWs)
The earlier years also would be very challenging and fun, and so would the moderns.
Other fun years to do? 1909, 1915, 1932...

gary

Registry,

Year type sets 1999 forward would give the new collectors a chance and would put PCGS in the Black.

I started saveing the grand-kids year-type coins in 1999,2000,2001,2002 with proof and Ms coins.

I't duable for most can be bought off Ebay for around the price of gradeing or can be submitted...

Gary

CarlWohlforth

It would be fun to do all years.

1907 is a fun year also if you inlcude gold. Those transition years can have several types.

solid

I really see no downside to including year sets. Everyone would have one
or several favorite years because of the coinage history, personal anniversaries,
etc. It should get many more people involved in the registry, as even someone
on a very modest budget could complete a set or two.

I would propose that there be up to four sets per year, as applicable; one each for
the MS, Proof (or SMS), Commemoratives, and an all-inclusive set. That makes for
a lot of sets, but gives everyone their shot to make a mark.

Ken

Higashiyama

1921 would be a fun year.

(regarding commems, 1938 of course is tough for those trying to put together the 144 piece set, but 1921 is tough for the type collector)

Sunnywood

Hey would I finally get to post my 1877 proof sets?

I have put together one set 1c - T$1 in mostly 66CAM, another set 1c - T$1 in beautifully toned coins PR66/67, and a complete gold proof set G$1 - $20 !!!!

1877 is a cool year ... the 1c is famous due to the rarity of the business strike; the 3CN, 5c and 20c are proof-only issues, the 10c, 25c and 50c are better dates in proof (although not widely recognized as such). And the gold proofs each had a mintage of only TWENTY, with fewer than (10) surviving in the case of the $10 and $20 !!!

Cool, huh ?

Sunnywood

littlewicher

I just want to put my 2002 coins into my sets right now and I'll be happy.

CarlWohlforth

Very cool Sunnywood!

I'm not sure which dates Mike Bobb had at Long Beach but he had lots of proof sets. All including gold, many with low mintages like yours.

That is a good year with the proof only issues!

BowAxe

Talk about fun years, how about 1916? That's my mom's birth year, and about 10 years ago I decided to build her birth year set out of the scarcest variety of each denomination and type -- that includes the 1916 SLQ, the '16-D merc dime, the 1916/16 doubled die nickel, the large D over small D Barber quarter -- it's been fun, but man, it's hard on the pocketbook! I've got all but the 16-D merc dime, but about half of them are in NCG holders rather than PCGS. If PCGS started year registry sets, I'd have to think long and hard about whether to cross my NCG's over.

Clankeye

<< <i>It should get many more people involved in the registry >>



The proof of this statement is I have not been involved in the registry end of collecting at all. But, if they put up year sets, I'd probably add mine into the mix just for the fun of it.

Currin

Year sets can be really challenging. I have been putting together a 2000 regular issue (no proofs) set. For a complete US mint 2000 set from the Lincoln cents to the $100 platinum eagle, it will consist of 32 coins
(10 statehood 25c). I figure this set with just a net grade of about 67.5 will cost about $5000. It would be very nice to be able to list this set in the registry. So, if you think they will be easy sets to complete, think again. I would predict the 1933 set will be the most expensive, then 1804, 1913…. Any one disagree?
RIC

Monstavet

That is a good point...they should include the silver and gold and commemorative issues for the year as well to make it slightly more interesting/challenging.

RegistryCoin

True. There could be subsets, but a good year set should include all coins minted in that year, including commems, pfs etc., I think.

BJ

The Year Sets are a good idea and one that is not new to us. We expect to be addressing them in six months or so. Right now we have our hands full trying to get the rest of the sets weighted, some new sets added, and of course all the proof and mint sets added. It's a huge project so we appreciate your patience as we work through our queue.

lordmarcovan

Neat idea.

I think some mintmark sets would be nifty, too, especially in something like $5 Libs- one could go for the P, D(ahlonega), C, O, S, CC, and D(enver) coins. It would be challenging, but the set would be nice and small/simple.

Don't they already have a mintmark set like this for Morgans?

Not sure what year I'd pick for the year set idea. 1873 might be interesting. 1916 ditto.

oldcameoproofsguy

Lordmarcovan named one of the sweet years.

I've been considering the 1873 proof set for a while now because it was a transitionary period most of the denominations. It would be like a mini-type set in one year.

lordmarcovan

A denominational set would be interesting, too. I'd love to do halves, except for that deadly Draped Bust Small Eagle. Maybe a 19th century half type set. Mind you, I don't expect to see that on the Registry, but I think it would be fun. I want to stick to the 19th century for a while, I think. The 18th century coins are too expensive for quality examples, and the modern stuff bores me.