Is this an unintended impact of the Registry?

tradedollarnut

Look at all the old time collections auctioned off in the past few decades. No attempt was made to collect both proofs and mint state coins - for the most part Philly coins were represented by a single example, usually a proof. The proofs were more available in high grade and often times represented the finest looking example in existance.

Now, the set registries come along and list separate MS and Proof sets - but no combined sets. Doesn't this severely reduce the desirability of collecting like the old timers did? Granted, a proof coin is manufactured differently than a circulation strike, but why isn't a proof Philly coin a good example of the date and type? Why don't we have combined sets that would allow collectors with the old philosophy to participate in the new technology?

Personally, I prefer MS coins because I like the luster in most cases - but not when there is a wide disparity in quality. Take seated dollars for example. A combined set would be a truly noble accomplishment and, quite frankly, doesn't a beautifully toned lightly hairlined PF64 look a whole lot better than a bagmarked & luster impaired MS63? I use this set as an example because the early MS coins are practically non existant in high grade. Many dates will only allow a collector to own an MS61, 62 or 63 whereas a PF 63 or 64 or even 65 might be available. Is it a numismatic sin these days to mix sets?

What do you think? Should mixed sets be acceptable for Registry purposes?

mdwoods

The complete type set allows a mix of coins, both proof and mint state. So does the 20th Century Type Set, Major Types.

Typetone

For my 19th Century Type set, I collect both. Actually, I prefer proofs, but for some of the types they are just too expensive or non-existent. For example, I bought a nice stars on obverse HD in PCGS MS66 for about $1,500 (thank you Legend). I could not have afforded a PR 66. Yet the MS coin is beautiful and a great example of the type. I do see your point about mixed full date and mintmark sets, but aren't the branch mint ms pieces usually the expensive ones. Those would not be available in proof.

Greg

Ronyahski

<< <i>What do you think? Should mixed sets be acceptable for Registry purposes? >>



Not really. Can't remember the last time I ran across a collector that was putting together a combined set. Don't think we collect anymore the way the old-timers did. Most nowadays seem to be working on either a proof set, an MS set, or both. Don't think there would be too much interest in combined registry sets. Then again, many of the classic sets on the registry aren't that well populated as it is.

Maybe they can start a Seniors Set Registry, a place for the old-timers to show us how it is supposed to be done.

raycyca

I started back into coin collecting after about a 15 year lull. That's when I sold my type and bust half dollar sets. When I came back it was to complete a Kennedy set. I bought a Dansco album to complete and started with the ones I found in circulation. Then I bought a 1969 PCGS 68DCAM and fell in love. I made a decision to obtain a complete Kennedy set graded by PCGS in both MS and proof. I've since completed both with the SMS coins to boot. About the only upgrades for the proof are the 70DCAMs and MS 67's for a few of the MS coins. I like the toning on some of the MS coins and have since started a rainbow silver dollar set also but I can't beat the looks of my SMS DCAM's or the 60's 69DCAM's for the sheer beauty. Even those 70DCAM's I have are nice but not as nice as the 60's because of the silver and design. I do wish PCGS would allow the complete set but I made mine without the Registry's assistance anyway. That's just my fifty cents anyway. Hapy collecting! Ray

Cocoinut

I have never considered using proof coins in place of MS coins in a set, simply because they don't match the appearance of the MS coins. I suppose if I collected a series like Morgan dollars, I'd consider purchasing the 1895 (MS coins were supposedly produced, but assumed to have been melted) and 1901 proofs. I'd also consider buying proofs if I collected a series that contained "proof only" issues, such as the 1877-78 Shield nickels, or TDN's 1878-1885 Trade dollars (as if I could afford them!)

If you really want to collect like the oldtimers did, you wouldn't collect a series by mint mark, either. It wasn't until the 20th century that any significant emphasis was placed on where a coin was minted. I wouldn't care to go back to those "good old days". True, there were some fabulous collections formed, but a collector didn't have to be a millionnaire to put one of those sets together. There's infinitely more information available now, and today's serious collectors are more sophisticated than those from 100 years ago.

Jim

oreville

No. Would get too confusing.

How would you rate proof liberty head nickels versus their mint state counterparts, for example. A nightmare even for an accountant to attempt to figure out.

grip

I never heard of mixing PR & MS in my 100 yr.Al

relayer

In the type sets there are 3 combinations; MS / Proof and mixed.

For 20th century type coins, I like to mix the two but then again I'm old