BJ and Jefferson People....Varieties Question

GQ

Hello everyone.....When will we be allowed to put our 1939 Jefferson Reverse of 1940s in the Registry?

Thanks....

NIckelCollector

GQ:

I asked that question to Gayle a few weeks ago. The response was not today but perhaps at next annual review of what coins are included in the variety sets.

I did write an email to David Hall requesting PCGS reconsider and include all variety coins graded in the variety sets. No response yet.

Frank

tompkins

It seems to me that any variety that is significant enough to be recognized and attributed in grading should be considered significant enough to be included in the "with varieties" registry set.

Pete

BNE

I agree. The "reverse of" varieties, as well as the 1951, 1953, 1955 and 1956 multiple dies, should be in the proof "with varieties" set. And even the '64 SMS (for Frank).

BJ

Frank,

Although in many ways I agree with you that if PCGS recognizes a variety, it should be added to the variety sets. However, the final decision rests with David Hall and Rick Montgomery. Even though a variety may be recognized, it still may not be accepted by the majority of collectors as mainstream. Every year, David and Rick will be reviewing the variety sets and will add any coins that have moved from a more esoteric level to mainstream.

In the interim, you can continue to solicit David and Rick to change this policy. You never know. If they hear from enough of you, the policy could change.

CarlWohlforth

We let Rick and David know that we wanted the varieties added back in when the composition of the sets changed. The proof reverse ofs used to be included in the sets as optional. Now that there is a whole new set to include varieties they have been dropped.

When the sets were first weighted Frank Corso put together a detailed list of suggested improvements. There was almost universal support for his suggestions from all the Jefferson collectors here. I wrote David Hall stating my complete support for the suggested changes.

I have noticed no changes, nor has David written anything explaining why these changes weren't made. So every once in a while someone starts a new thread asking for varieties to be listed in the with varieties sets. Why even bother with a with varieties set if you don't list the varieties that can already be bought in PCGS holders?

BJ

Carl,

I've seen your mail come through as well as Frank's and a few others. But frankly, there would have to be a lot more mail than that to move the mountain. Also, voicing your opinion in the forum here doesn't necessarily make things happen. What I would suggest you do is put together a poll, get a large number of people to participate, and then send the results to David and Rick. That would have an impact.

As I explained above, the variety sets only include major varieties at this point. But David and Rick will be the first to admit that they don't know about every change in the market. If you and others believe that there are major varieties missing from these sets, please campaign for the change. The voice of many will be heard.

CarlWohlforth

Thanks BJ. At least you are listening!

I don't know if I'm up to fighting for these changes though. We already have a consensus from the top several Jeff sets both proof and mint state. Jeffersons might just not be as popular as Morgans or Indian Head Cents so where to get the huge numbers? And it sounds kind of like work to try to move a mountain.

There have been many threads on varieties in general. It seems reasonable that if PCGS labels the variety it should be in the with varieties set. One also wonders why optional varieties from the old sets are not included in the new with varieties set.

CarlWohlforth

BTW on this thread you already have 5 of the top proof Jeff sets represented as well as the finest circulating strike set...

RGL

Make it six of the top eight basic early Jeff proof sets ... (plus, No. 17 and 23) as well as No. 7 in the 1938 to date basic set. I endorsed Frank's suggestions when he originally made them and voiced my support for them on the threads as well as in an e-mail to Mr. Montgomery. And, this is not out of any self interest. I do not currently own any of the varieties which should be included

BNE

I agree with Frank's suggestions for the variety sets, as well as the ones he made earlier regarding weighting and bonus points for the proof sets. In practice, it is clear that the early coins are weighted too heavily, more bonus points should be awarded for the pre-'50 cameo/deep cameo, and deep cameo SMS issues, and the DCAM issues for the early '50s may deserve one more bonus point. In the interest of full disclosure, some of these changes would help, and others hurt, my sets. But it would more accurately reflect the challenges in putting together a top set.

boston

We're going to have to get our 39's reslabbed to REVERSE 38 or 40, in order to keep POP's accurate. I'm all for it .
Pcgs has to make a comittment to set inclusion and reslabbing fees for this happen though.

Monstavet

I don't know if I count as a top set collector of Jeffs, but I will speak my peace here as well. I fully supported Frank's suggestions when the final decisions were being made regarding the Jefferson variety sets...to no avail. This lack of respect for arguably the most knowledgable Jefferson collector around definitely changed my opinions on the Registry, and my collecting goals. Enuf said.

keoj

Very timely, I sent the question below to PCGS recently, no response yet. I repeatedly requested some rationale on this topic but it always goes back to BJ's comment of Rick and David have the final call. In the series that I collect, most of the serious collectors do focus on varieties yet I keep hearing that Rick and or David don't consider them mainstream. No one has yet asked or polled the collectors listed on the Registry for their opinion.


"Can you tell me why some sets have optional coins and others (which used to) were removed? Once again, I'm hung up on coins that PCGS recognizes yet there is no place in the registry for them (either as optional or as a variety set)."

BJ

Starting a poll is really not complicated at all on this messageboard system. But to make things easier for you, why don't you tell me what the poll should ask and I'll run it for you.

Should the poll be specific to Jeffersons? Or should the poll be general about all varieties? Example, should we just ask these two questions:

1. Should variety sets include all varieties presently recognized by PCGS with new varieties being added annually to the set composition?

2. Should variety sets consist of only mainstream varieties determined by PCGS experts with set compositions being review annually to compensate for changes in the marketplace?

keoj - please note that any set that has been weighted no longer contains optional coins with the exception of 2002 coinage. Eventually, there will be no optional coins in any set except for current year coinage.

tompkins

I like the poll idea; and I think BJ's suggested questions should apply to all series; not just Jeffersons. But, also, I wonder what "mainstream" means. I did a quick survey of some varieties, trying to compare populations with whether or not the coin is in the varieties set. And I find some interesting conflicts (that is, assuming total PCGS population is a valid indicator of mainstream-ness).

These are listed in descending order of population and is be no means complete but is a rather random sampling---the first column is population, the yes/no is whether or not the coin is in the varieties registry.

685 Yes 1939-D Rev 38 MS Jeff nickel
440 Yes 1939-S Rev 38 MS Jeff nickel
379 Yes 1939-P Rev 38 MS Jeff nickel
164 Yes 1939 Dbl Monticello MS Jeff nickel
140 Yes 1971 No-S Proof Jeff nickel
118 Yes 1970 No-S Proof Roosevelt dime
82 No 1939-P Rev 40 MS Jeff nickel
56 Yes 1983 No-S Proof Roosevelt dime
31 No 1939 Rev 40 Proof Jefferson nickel
30 Yes 1990 No-S Proof Lincoln cent
26 Yes 1971 DDO Proof Lincoln cent
24 No 1940 rev 38 Proof Jefferson nickel
11 Yes 1968 No-S Proof Roosevelt dime
8 No 1939-D Rev 40 MS Jeff nickel
6 No 1939-S Rev 40 MS Jeff nickel
5 No 1942-D/horiz D MS Jefferson nickel

So it seems to me there isn't any real consistency using the current standard---there is a pop 82 not included while a pop 11 is included. I realize there are other factors, but my vote would be to include anything that PCGS attributes in the varieties sets.

Pete

BNE

I'm with Tompkins. And those pops will go up, if PCGS recognizes (again, in some cases) the currently-unincluded varieties, as the result of increased cross-overs and slabbing of raw coins.