DO WE HAVE TOO MANY REGISTRY SETS?

Steve · April 30, 2003 3:16AM

Here is a question the Registry set owners may want to comment on. It seems that PCGS, in an effort to get more sets registered has broken down some traditional sets into sub sets and has also expanded the variety classifications. The old saying of "the more the merrier" may apply, but, as an example, do we need BOTH a 1950-to date and a 1959-to date Lincoln cent proof sets in both basic and with varieties. Your thoughts are welcome. Steve

Wondo · April 30, 2003 3:31AM

I agree with your example, but I would like to see more vintage subsets, i.e. 18th century type set or 19th century type set. I don't like splitting individual series. Taken to the rediculous: Walking liberty Halves over 15 million mintage.

Russ · April 30, 2003 4:56AM

I don't think we have enough. We need one more; a proof Kennedy half dollar short set, 1964-1970 with the Accented Hair.

Russ, NCNE

Typetone · April 30, 2003 5:14AM

I used to think we have too many, but now I don't see a problem. We all know what the major important sets are. For example, a complete Morgan set will always be more important than a complete early date S-mint Morgan set. The real competition among the majority of the players will be in the major sets. Subsets, year sets, and what not are fine as they give other players, or true specialists a forum for their interests.

Greg

Steve27 · April 30, 2003 5:25AM

I agree, especially with your example, but I like Russ's proposal (although I would include the 1992-date silver proofs as well).

Bear · April 30, 2003 5:47AM

You can never have to many sets listed. Let as many people as possible have a shot

at #1 position. All of us are entitled to at least 15 minutes of fame or at least the

possibility thereof.

DAM · April 30, 2003 6:25AM

I agree with Greg and Bear. Although I don't believe adding sets should be done to allow more collectors the ability to be #1. Rather, I believe it allows for varying collecting interests.

A "to each his/her own" type of approach.

Steve · April 30, 2003 8:25AM

In many ways I believe PCGS is right in expanding the number of sets so everyone can participate. I would suggest that once a year they reevaluate all the sets to see how many people are in each one. I'd say that as long as someone is active during the year by adding or upgrading his set, then the set should remain.

fcloud · April 30, 2003 8:37AM

I would like to see as many sets as possible. Take for example Mercury Dimes, you could have basic set and then have the same set with varieties (oh, they already do that). Then maybe they should do a WW1 set, WW2 set, peace time set, the teens, the twenties, thirties, fourties, the fourties with varieties, and of course a short set. Oh and how about a early shrot set. And, of course, you could use all the same coins to cover each set, so it would really be one set, just broke up into different groups.

itsnotjustme · April 30, 2003 11:41AM

I'm happy to have sets to fit my interest. My biggest interest is Type Sets. I have the modern (1950+) proof and circulation strike sets-I like the fact these include bullion and commemorative coins. I have the 20th century type set.... a good starter type set that is 1 coin from complete. I also am working on the 1792-1964 set. This will take years (or a life time).

At the same time, I can work on sub interests. I once came across a nice batch of 59 proof sets, and slabbed many coins, so I have a 1959 proof set registered. I also had many nice unsearched 65/66/67 SMS sets I bought/slabbed. I have sets of these registered as well.

Even a little guy can be king in his part of the pond!

tompkins · April 30, 2003 12:11PM

I have no problem with the number of sets. I do see the point, however, about the Lincoln's---why is there a 50 to present and also a 59 to present? But in general, having a large number of small sets gives an opportunity for more people to play in their smaller playground of choice, whether it is small playgorund such as a birth year proof set, or a large playground like the complete type set. I think this variety is good for all of us!

Pete

VonZipper · April 30, 2003 12:40PM

I know what will happen if russ gets his wish, he will have the first top 20 sets listed.

michael · April 30, 2003 4:08PM

i can certainly see everyones point on here but
for me i think we need more registry sets as this is for fun and it gives everyone an even better chance to participate!

some would see a set a new registry set to be created and really like it for various reasons and then try to complete it or vie for the finest!
i think it is good friendly collecting fun i mean that is what it is really about

we are not talking about serious subjects like doctors requirements for surgery
or ethics standards

just collecting for fun! just little disks of metal so for me the more sets the better!

this i think will create more demand for collectors and help make the hobby stronger

more registry sets YES GFI meaning go for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sincerely michael

i mean weather you got the number one set worth millinos or you have a set worth 100 dollars or less!
who cares? what is important is the goal and the excitement of trying to complete the set as YOU WANT TO BE!

and try within an established set of parameters to complete it to the best of your ability

Russ · May 1, 2003 2:13AM

<< <i>I know what will happen if russ gets his wish, he will have the first top 20 sets listed. >>

Hehe, that's a thought.

I wouldn't, though.

The real deal is that there are quite a few collectors that like the early silver content Kennedy's, but can really take or leave the '71 to date stuff. Even the new silvers, although nice, have the radical design change on the obverse that just somehow makes them less desirable.

I can think of a couple collectors that sold off their proof Kennedy sets, but are still buying and focusing on the 1964 to 1970 years. It also occurs to me that with a short set, we could draw in some new collectors that either don't have the time or the resources to assemble the entire 53 coin set.

Russ, NCNE

michael · May 1, 2003 2:37AM

lets make that 64 to 70 setr of kennedys a reality from what i have seen a distinct set and type!

sincerely michael

that would be a grest addtiton to the registry!

Russ · May 1, 2003 3:05AM

Michael,

Thank you. It means a great deal to me that a numismatist of your caliber would support the idea!

Russ, NCNE

PhillyJoe · May 1, 2003 5:59AM

I (proof) just read (Kennedy) an interesting (short) article (set) about subliminal (1964-1970) messages being (w/Accented) buried within (hair) regular messages.

Joe

Robgetty · May 1, 2003 6:31AM

Some of the sub-varieties in the sets seem to be a little overdone; I would prefer to see things
with the "normal" coins as required, and the varieties listed as optional so you could still post
them on the set registry. Having said that, I want a type set for each year listed, for people like
me who will never have the greatest 1792-1964 type set (although I am having a great time
working on it!) but have been working on a specific year.

Wondo · May 1, 2003 11:35AM

Rob,

What is 1872 to you? That is way cool IMHO. I have completed the 1794 silver set but I doubt it is in the top 50 nicest.

Robgetty · May 1, 2003 2:31PM

Wondo,

I was born in 1972, so I just went back 100 years. Of course I did not think at the time
about how hard it was going to be to find a few of the dates. (And I am not even going
to try to talk my wife into the proof G$1 and $3 for several years!) I just picked up the
72-CC dime; my next goal is the 72-S quarter. I'm six coins away from a complete set of
business strike mint mark and proofs for the non-gold, and I am slowly starting to add
mint marks to my gold (but no proof gold yet). Oh well, it's fun hunting for them!

Rob

izzy452 · May 1, 2003 9:05PM

I would like to see a set of Key date Coins, and a merc short set.

Walt

michael · May 2, 2003 1:20PM

thanks russ for the nice comments!

sincerely michael

for me i have begun to appreciate the kennedy halves more and more big coins with some really rare coins in top grades with the accent hair and deep cameo combination

or the deep cameo sms coins

sincerely michael

ConstellatioCollector · May 2, 2003 1:54PM

Still waiting on the Colonial Coin Registry! Especially, Nova Constellatio set!

tgilliams · May 3, 2003 2:00AM

I applaud this change because PCGS is allowing many new collectors to become a part of the Registry. I think this can only help and increase the value of Registry quality coins. As these new collectors strive to move up the Registry and expand interest in fine certified coins.

DO WE HAVE TOO MANY REGISTRY SETS?

Comments