Zerbe: Focus on what is important and let go of the stress on all the things that cannot be controlled. The hobby is much simpler that way!
DMWJR: It's only important if it matters in the big scheme of things that there is a hole on the Registry (two actually, the 1884 was Eliasberg's also). The important thing is that there is not a hole in the SET!
>>> >>The answer to your question is that technically we cannot add non-PCGS graded coins to current sets as the coins are added by PCGS certification numbers.<<<<<<<<
BJ, I apoligize, in advance, for not following the above statement. Are you saying the coin in question was added to Mr. Eliasberg's all time finest set because his set was "not current"??? In other words, if TDN' set was not current, would the coin then be allowed in TDN's all time finest set ? What I am having a problem with, is the fact that the coin WAS NOT PCGS certified, when you allowed it into Mr. Eliasberg's Set. You assigned a PCGS grade to this coin, but it did not have a certification number and you show it in a set today. It seems only fair that you allow it into at least the finest set of all time category for Tradedollarnut. I am sure TDN would have satisfaction knowing that the coin allowed in the Eliasberg Finest SET is allowed as well in his similar set, even thougfh it may not be allowed in his current finest set. Again BJ, I really believe the coin should be allowed as it was and is to this day in another set. If I am wrong, could you make one more attempt to convince me why I am wrong ??? Thanks, ZERBE
TDN, I am not stressed, I am just very curious what is happening here, because I never had realized that PCGS had assigned a grade to the 1885 and then allowed it into Eliasberg's set. It seems only fair to do the same for you, at least in the FINEST OF ALL TIME SET CATEGORY. I won't dwell on the issue, if they can make it clear in my head what their thinking on this happens to be.............ZERBE
Out of curiosity, isn't it true that there are more than a few sets registered that have "assigned" grades? Were the commem sets, Rothenberger, Highfill, and Shepherd sets all pcgs?
That's a relief, would hate to lose a collector of your caliber, nut ... (and as a penance, you may send each forum member a proof Trade $ of your choice)
Comments
DMWJR: It's only important if it matters in the big scheme of things that there is a hole on the Registry (two actually, the 1884 was Eliasberg's also). The important thing is that there is not a hole in the SET!
BJ, I apoligize, in advance, for not following the above statement.
Are you saying the coin in question was added to Mr. Eliasberg's all time finest set because his set was "not current"??? In other words, if TDN' set was not current, would the coin then be allowed in TDN's all time finest set ?
What I am having a problem with, is the fact that the coin WAS NOT PCGS certified, when you allowed it into Mr. Eliasberg's Set. You assigned a PCGS grade to this coin, but it did not have a certification number and you show it in a set today. It seems only fair that you allow it into at least the finest set of all time category for Tradedollarnut. I am sure TDN would have satisfaction knowing that the coin allowed in the Eliasberg Finest SET is allowed as well in his similar set, even thougfh it may not be allowed in his current finest set.
Again BJ, I really believe the coin should be allowed as it was and is to this day in another set. If I am wrong, could you make one more attempt to convince me why I am wrong ???
Thanks,
ZERBE
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)