Variety Poll

BJ

Thank all who voted in the variety poll. The results were as follows:

How should compositions for variety sets be determined?

Total Votes: 94

Variety sets should include all varieties presently recognized by PCGS with new varieties added annually to the set composition.
60 (votes) 63.83 (%)
Variety sets should consist of only mainstream varieties determined by PCGS experts with set compositions being reviewed annually to compensate for changes in the marketplace.
22 (votes) 23.40 (%)
Variety sets should consist of coins determined by a poll of registrants.
12 (votes) 12.77 (%)

As a result of your feedback regarding this poll, one obvious question emerged. If a variety coin is unique, should it be included? If not, what should the cut off be? At least 2 coins graded? 5? 10? I'd like to hear a little more discussion on this matter before sending the results of this poll to David Hall and Rick Montgomery for their review and consideration. Please state your opinions (as I know you will)!

Thanks.

NIckelCollector

I strongly believe the variety sets should include all varieties recognized by PCGS. In my opinion, PCGS currently only recognizes a subset of the mainstream varieties.

The non variety sets are specifically designed for collectors who do not focus on varieties.

Frank

wondercoin

This is really a "no brainer". Of course the sets should include ALL varieties. And, I would add, once varieties are in the set, they should not be taken out, then put back in another time, then taken out again .... The best interests of the COLLECTOR should be considered at all times.

Wondercoin

GQ

That says it all Frank.

NICKEL TRIUMPH...BASIC PROOFS

keoj

I agree. Varieties should be added for all coins that PCGS attributes as varieties. These can be added as either optional in the basic set (if a variety set is not available for a series OR in a variety set if a variety set exists. Either way. My issue is coins that PCGS attributes yet they don't exist as far as the Registry is concerned. I could not figure out how to answer this thread in a Poll format.

keoj

CarlWohlforth

I agree a with varieties set should have all the recognized varieties. That is how I voted. Thanks for setting up the poll.

EagleEye

I guess the Lincoln crew will have to fight over the lone 1958 Dbl. Die. for completeness.


(sorry about the rough picture)

bigt

Why not have custom sets for everyone. Jeez I'm tired of the changes.

RGL

Another vote for option No. 1 ... all graded varieties should be included in variety sets. Thanks for your help, BJ

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

B.J.

Can you tell me why Rick Montgomery and David Hall cannot get together on this one ? Are you aware that Rick determines which varieties PCGS recognizes ? Sometimes with consultation and sometimes without consultation there is no perceivable rhyme or reason.David is the sole determining factor for which varieties are on the PCGS registry.I've harassed David to no end. As a matter of fact my last e-mail from David was sent after midnight when he was working in the office.It basically stated "Back off Dude".

I wonder which varieties will be recognized in the Canadian Set Registry when it is launched in January?

Mitch - This is far from a No-Brainer.Perhaps if you are taught a little etiquette you will perceive how others perceive yourself

Rick - do you know where the 1958 double die is hidden?


Stewart

EagleEye

Sam Lukes ran it awhile back.

abt. 5 years ago he had a sealed bid auction for the coin. I bid $25,000. The winning bid was $25,025.

Arghh.

Keyrock

As long as a few (5 or 10 minimum) are certified why not. As long as a coin is not unique.

It is like the double eagle registry requiring the '33 or the Liberty head nickel series needing the 1913. It lacks common sense in my opinion.

Rich

tompkins

to me, this seems obvious---choice 1. As I pointed out in another thread there is a lot of subjectivity as to what constitutes "mainstream". And the definition doesn't even appear to be consistent within PCGS ---ie a 1968-No-S dime (Pop 11) is included but some of the much more populous Jeffersons are not.

Pete

lava

On a related question, should non-variety coins count toward completion of a variety set? Everyone is probably thinking no. Ironically, the morgan pl/dmpl set, which is somewhat analogous to a variety set, requires only 50% of the set to be pl/dmpl, and for months one collector has been included amongst the top sets with only 40%. If we call it a pl/dmpl set, why do we make an excpetion for non-pl/dmpl coins?

Spooly

People where pissed at me for wanting two sets (Basic & Variety)! I am glad I don't care about the varieties.....so now I don't have to join the debate about what goes in it!

Add them ALL!

DAM

Allow those that collect them to show them off.

Bring on the varieties!!!!!!!!!!!!

lincolnSence

If PCGS slabs it, count it in the varities set. Pretty simple. Give us a shot.

Coinster

I have to agree with Rich (Keyrock) on this one. Sure, all varieties should be included which are somewhat reasonably obtainable by those registrants that want to compete in that set. A unique variety therefore should not be included. Afterall, only 1 registrant could possibly have a 100% complete set. Even a pop-2 variety may be questionable including it in the set. These type of varieties should be optional within the set. This way, those registrants who do have them can show them off. If the pop goes higher on a unique variety, then its inclusion becomes mandatory.
Good poll BJ.

John

solid

I voted for option 1 - to include all varieties recognized by PCGS.

I would like to see the variety sets contain ONLY the varieties for a particular series,
so for some series this may be a one-coin set and for others it could be a dozen or
more.

I feel this would spur interest in the variety sets, without forcing anyone to collect
the entire series by date and mintmark when they have no interest in the basic set.

Ken

DennisH

Like I told Mr. Hall months ago when the Morgan varieties were proposed:

If PCGS recognizes a variety on its holder now, then it should be part of the "With Varieties" set... ALL of them.

Duh.

DeepCoin

I would suggest perhaps a couple of options. How about a varieties set where the major varieties are required and the more esoteric ones are optional. Before the varieties were a separate set, the Mercury Registry set did not require the 1942/1 P & D or 1945 Micro S, however they could be entered.

How about a similar approach where the major ones are required and the others are optional? Or is that a too middle of the road solution? I personally don't collect them so it is moot to me, just trying to provide an alternative solution.

lava

On further reflection, prompted by the possibility of PCGS designating VAMS on the holders, maybe several sets should be constructed, some with the more notable variety coins, and maybe other sets that are nearly unlimited but the leading collections would be distinguished by having accumlated more points. I can't imagine the task of assigning points to all of the morgan vams, however, particularly when it comes to my specialty, pls and dmpls.

Numerous shorter sets could be created which might be fun for collectors. For instance, a year set of morgans that disregards mintmarks-- a reasonable 28 coins set. Other sets could be mintmark particular, i.e., just cc mints, or s mints, or p mints, or o mints (no, the one coin d mint might be too short of set).

I think I struggle a little bit, as apparently some others are, with whether very low population coins should be included in various sets. Hard to penalize a collector for not owning a coin when PCGS may have only certified 1 to 5 samples. I know I'm still looking for that highly coveted 1893-S in pl condition

KoinKollector

PCGS recognizes ONE variety in the seated dime series... The 1873 DDO. What I think PCGS needs to do is talk to some of the experts in the field IE Gerry Fortin (who happens to have the #1 set on the registry at this time), Brian Greer, and a few other folks. The 1841-O closed buds, both large & small O, the 1839-O huge O are just a FEW of the MAJOR varities that encompass this VAST set! Why not include a few more BJ??? Surely Rick or others known how to attribute the coins?? If not I will be more than happy to send you the books FREE OF CHARGE for you all to do so!

boston

All PCGS recognized varieties.

At the present time, I only look at varieties, wondering about the real significance of any coin variety status.
I'm not being sarcastic. There are just too many differing opinions and I don't know JACK S.!

I'm glad to see the poll and to participate in it.

braddick

I agree. If PCGS recognizes it and holders it, include it in the Registry- ONE Registry.
Right now I feel there are too many Registeries and subset registries. Streamline those and include the varieties.
If you don't have what your set needs have comfort in the knowledge others probably don't either.
For example- I'm not even sure it is necessary to break up Series into different sub-registeries.
This is a "no brainer" in my opinion.

mdwoods

I think there should be a basic set and a varieties set. As to what varieties are included, I guess if they are not in the non-collectible category, they should be included. mdwoods

Lakesammman

Poll is confusing - I would favor recognizing all the varieties that PCGS recognizes and add them annually only if a new variety is recognized - first question makes it sound like there's an annual quota or something. I hope the jest of the idea is as above since I voted for the first choice.

Gerry

The whole discussion in this thread assumes, I guess, that the present PCGS scheme of weighting individual issues and calculating set ratings would remain as is.

If so, there may be some cases where anomalous results occur because the present system puts a significant premium on completing a set or at least getting it as complete as is possible. That is, A can have a much better set than B but may be missing that one rare coin because he doesn’t want to settle for inferior quality. B settles for an MS60 or worse in that rare coin, and the result is B’s set is rated and ranked higher than A’s. However, ask anyone here which set they would prefer to own and A would win hands down. Other situations can be similarly envisioned.

No change should be made to a complex system like the PCGS set registry without very carefully testing out the effects of that change, and making certain that you are satisfied with the results. Sorry, BJ, sounds like a lot of work for you.

In general, I believe all varieties recognized by PCGS should be included in a “set with varieties” but some thought needs to be given as to whether the present weighting/rating system needs to be modified to deal with really scarce items. Something along the lines of a bonus system might be workable.

BJ

What is your opinion? If a variety coin is unique, should it be included in a variety set? If not, what should the cut off be? At least 2 coins graded? 5? 10? I'd like to hear a little more discussion on this matter before sending the results of this poll to David Hall and Rick Montgomery for their review and consideration. Please state your opinions (as I know you will)!

P.S. Poll results are posted at the beginning of this thread.

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

BJ - Five (5) coins graded at all grades before the variety should be on the registry.That is my vote

Tell David quickly before he puts anymore unique coins on the registry

Stewart

RGL

If you slab it as a variety or even a rare coin such as 1964 SMS, it should be recognized as such, even if the vast majority of my collectors such as myself never will own such a coin. The registry is to recognize the finest sets which, naturally, will consist of rarities. But, there is perhaps merit to maintaining a basic set for we small guys, in which the top shelf collectors also can compete, and then also recognizing the same set with the addition of varieties. But, to call the current Jeff with varieties proof set as such, without acknowledging the different reverses on early proofs, is a disservice.

DAM

Once you determine the entry level needed, for example 5 like Stewart suggested, lower population varieties would be optional. A set containing varieties with a pop greater than 5 would be considered mandatory to complete the set. A set with (optional) varieties would have the same look as they do now, not mandatory to complete the set. For (example), a 1913 proof Liberty nickel and the 1933 Double Eagle would both be included in their respective sets, but, would be optional. Optional varieties would also have bonus points attached to them. That way if someone did have a super rare, low pop variety, they would be credited for it being in their set.

This allows collectors of all financial means to participate. It also awards a variety with a low pop, points, to determine ranking.