Ike Registry Sets About to be Decimated!!!! Help

segoja · July 22, 2003 11:21AM

Please read the e-mail going around from BJ!

Dear Ike Collector,

As you are probably aware, PCGS has started grading Type 1 and Type 2 1972
Eisenhower dollars. The survey we took several weeks ago indicated that the
majority of you would prefer to see two sets, i.e. a basic and a master.
Therefore, today we posted the variety set on the Set Registry News page for
the weighting review. Please feel free to send us your comments.

http://www.pcgs.com/new_set_registry/news.chtml

In 2-3 weeks, the current set will become the Basic set, which will contain
the Type 3 1972, and the Type 2 1976 and 1976-D. The variety set will also
contain the Type 1 and 2 1972 and the Type 1 1976 and 1976-D. If you would
like us to duplicate your set to the variety set, just let us know.

Thanks as always for your participation in the Set Registry program.

BJ Searls
Set Registry Manager
Collectors Universe
512.496.5018
512.420.8805 Fax

segoja · July 22, 2003 11:22AM

My response! Would love to hear others opinions!

Feel free to use anything I've written in your response to BJ!

BJ,

Thanks for the e-mail. I applaud you for setting up the second Ike set!

The proposal will not go over with most folks very easily, as it is not even
close to what you surveyed everyone on.

Several thoughts:

1) The 76 varieties have been and always will be regular issues, not
varieties. The Type I was with the 75 mint sets and the type II with 76
mint sets ALL THE TIME. They have always been collected as part of the
basic set.

2) The 72-P in the basic set should include any one of the varieties, not
just the easiest (type III). Why penalize someone if they own a tougher and
more expensive coin.

3) The variety set should just include the 3 different varieties of 72-P,
not the 76 varieties.

4) Many collectors who have had multiple sets, some put into the
historical archives, may have some of these new varieties in their deleted
sets. This will make using the number again impossible. Well, if we had
know this, the sets would not have been deleted. You need to give us the
option of pulling a coin out of a deleted set to use again given this
change. There is no way to anticipate the future, so don't penalize us
folks that are not clairvoyant.

5) With respect to the weighting, the 72-P Type II is the rarest. Not
equal to the Type I. The numbers will shake out something like this 20%
Type I, 5-8% Type II and the balance Type III. You should adjust
accordingly.

6) There is a strong uproar among the top Ike folks currently brewing. I
would take your time in getting feedback BEFORE you guys pull the trigger.

Happy to discuss in person!

Holder of the #1 Ike registry Set!!!

James Sego

GRANDAM · July 22, 2003 11:33AM

IKE Collectors,

I agree with James 110%!!!!!! Below is my e-mail to David Hall. Please give us your opinions as well.

Thanks, GrandAm

Current #15 Circulation Strike Set holder.

I just received an e-mail from BJ stating where PCGS is adding the IKE Dollar Variety Set. For that I THANK-YOU!!!

However I am disturbed to see where the basic set will be dropping the TY1 Varieties of the 1976 IKE'S. PLEASE don't drop these coins from the basic set! The 1976 TY1 & TY2 coins have always been considered standard issues in the IKE Dollar Series. I would hate to see that change.

When the survey on the varieties was e-mailed it said nothing about dropping the TY1 from the basic set & I would hate to see that happen.

Thank-you for your time & consideration of my concerns.

GARY D HOOP

CoinHusker · July 22, 2003 11:45AM

Amen, brother, Amen! I haven't replied to BJ's email yet but I plan to this evening. this is major surgery to heal a hang nail. Any of the 72-P's should be in the basic set and the rarer should be wieghted accordingly, not just the easiet type 3. I probably haven't been collecting as long as the majority of the Ike folks, but the proposed changes are just as disturbing to me. I guess it is disturbing becasue it just doesn't make sense. I hope that consideration will be given to any and all of the suggestions that come in as a result of this announcement before anything is finalized. James, you have made some real winners. I hope they are considered!

If the changes do go through however, I really feel for all you guys that have spent so many years trying to build a set to only have it ripped apart and re-distributed this way.

dbldie55 · July 22, 2003 12:09PM

Sounds like you want the variety set and not the basic set. What is the big deal, just remove yourself from the basic set!

segoja · July 22, 2003 12:34PM

Not quite that simple!!!

Why should someone exclude themselves from a basic set that's been listed in the Red book and every coin album in existence, not to mention every coin listed in the greysheet....when the only reason is that PCGS says the basic set should be changed 25 years after the series was last minted.

PCGS polled the Ike guys and did not mention most of what they have come back with.

braddick · July 22, 2003 12:54PM

There should only be ONE Mint State Ike Registry and it should contain all the coins (including the 72-P's and 76's). I fear there are already too many sets and the competition and fun gets lost in the noise.

One of the pleasures of the Ike set is it ISN'T complicated! Please, let us not make it so.

wondercoin · July 22, 2003 2:12PM

James asked me to weigh in. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

1) The 76 varieties have been and always will be regular issues, not
varieties. The Type I was with the 75 mint sets and the type II with 76 mint sets ALL THE TIME. They have always been collected as part of the basic set.

MY COMMENT: NO QUESTION 76 TY 1 AND TY 2 SHOULD BE PART OF THE BASIC SET - THEY CAN BE VIEWED AS 1975 AND 1976 "EDITIONS" AS JAMES SUGGESTED.

2) The 72-P in the basic set should include any one of the varieties, not just the easiest (type III). Why penalize someone if they own a tougher and more expensive coin.

MY COMMENT: I REALLY DON'T HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH PCGS DEFAULTING THE TY 3 COIN FOR THE BASIC SET IF THE "MECHANICS" REQUIRE IT. AFTER ALL, ANY SERIOUS IKE COLLECTOR CAN FIND ONE. IF THEY OWN A TOUGHER AND MORE EXPENSIVE COIN, THEY ARE WELL ON THEIR WAY TO COMPLETING THE VARIETY SET.

BUT, IF THE "MECHANICS" WOULD EASLY PERMIT ANY 1972 TO BE ENTERED IN THE BASIC SET AS A COIN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT EITHER. BUT, AGAIN, IF A COIN TYPE AND A SPECIFIC COIN NUMBER NEEDS TO BE PICKED FOR THE BASIC SET, OF COURSE, TY 3 IS THE RIGHT CHOICE.

3) The variety set should just include the 3 different varieties of 72-P,
not the 76 varieties.

MY COMMENT: AGREED. NO BRAINER

4) Many collectors who have had multiple sets, some put into the
historical archives, may have some of these new varieties in their deleted sets. This will make using the number again impossible. Well, if we had know this, the sets would not have been deleted. You need to give us the option of pulling a coin out of a deleted set to use again given this change. There is no way to anticipate the future, so don't penalize us folks that are not clairvoyant.

COMMENT: I'M SURE PCGS WOULD NOT DO WHAT YOU FEAR. OF COURSE, COLLECTORS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADD COINS TO NEWLY FORMED SETS.

5) With respect to the weighting, the 72-P Type II is the rarest. Not
equal to the Type I. The numbers will shake out something like this 20% Type I, 5-8% Type II and the balance Type III. You should adjust accordingly.

COMMENT: JAMES: NOT THE CASE IN "POP TOP" GRADE -RIGHT? TY 1 IS JUST AS RARE AS TY 2 AT THIS GIVEN MOMENT - CORRECT? AGREED IN LOWER GRADES. YOUR IDEA DOES PENALIZE THE NEW OWNER OF THE TY 1 MS66 - IS THAT THE INTENTION?

6) There is a strong uproar among the top Ike folks currently brewing. I would take your time in getting feedback BEFORE you guys pull the trigger.

COMMENT: NO DOUBT PCGS WILL LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD. GOOD JOB JAMES FORMULATING YOUR THOUGHTS SO CLEARLY

WONDERCOIN.

keets · July 22, 2003 3:27PM

one set with all the coins would probably be too easy to pull off. they should complicate it by making two sets. that way they can piss off and possibly alienate some current registry participants while enlarging the total number of potential participants by "growing" the Registry. sort of like killing two birds with one stone. what a forward thinking way to go!!!

PCGS, keep it simple, one set that just increased by 2 coins.

al h.

jcping · July 22, 2003 4:01PM

First of all, I did not remember that the poll showed to favor to have two sets. Indeed, it is too complicate to have Basic set and Varieties set. My first choice is to have one set including the three types of 72-P. Of course, this would penalize the sets that are not in the current active list.

Also, I think 72-P type 2 Ikes are much scarcer than 72-P type 1 Ikes. Putting these two have the same wieght does not make sense to me. If possible, 72-P type 2's weight should be 11 or 12; nevertheless, I don't know whether PCGS allows any weight above 10.

Just my two cents.

DRG · July 22, 2003 4:22PM

ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!!

The SBA$ set has one variety, the "Wide Rim" and it is part of the basic set. The Ike set should be the same. It is the only logical approach.

Seperating the 1976 TI & TII coins is ridiculous. These are essentially 1975 & 1976 coins. How can it even be suggested? AAARRRGGG!!!!!!

ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!!
ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!!
ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!!
ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!!
ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!! ONE SET!!!

supercoin · July 22, 2003 9:57PM

I sent BJ a message earlier after a customer of mine had some concerns, and she said the MAJORITY (her emphasis) of collectors surveyed wanted a separate variety set. Where is this silent majority?

First, it's obviously completely absurd to separate out the 1976 types. Self-evident to anyone who collects Ikes. And what about the proof set -- would that also be split into a separate "varities" set?

Second, if you were to have a no-variety set, it makes no sense to require a Type 3 to be used. Both the Type 1 and Type 3 were intentionally struck in the many millions. And the Type 1 came first, so if anything it should be the preferred "non-variety" coin. But really either should be allowed.

Which brings me to the main point...

It really MAKES NO SENSE to create two separate sets at all.

The 1972 Type 1 and Type 3 are TYPES not varieties. They are nearly as significant as the 1976 Type 1 and Type 2. Both were intentional designs involving new master hubs -- they are not "varieties" per se and should be a part of the main registry set and any complete Ike collection.

You could argue the 1972 Type 2 is a "variety" but it would be bizarre and confusing to have a separate set that included only this one coin as an addition. And it's not like this coin is an unaffordable ultra-rarity as in some other series.

Further, ALL of the types (1972 and 1976) are now listed in the Red Book, and therefore will increasingly all be considered a part of any complete Ike collection.

PCGS is just now catching up with the rest of the world in recognizing the 1972 types, and it would be a shame for them to be stuck in the past or (aggh) go backward even further by saying the 1976 types are just varieties.

One set! All types! No problems.

supercoin · July 22, 2003 10:14PM

supercoin · July 22, 2003 10:20PM

Regarding weighting... The Type 2 is no-question the toughest in all grades except possibly MS66. And there are so few MS66, and they were graded over such a wide time frame, that it's folly to try to draw too much statistical signficance from them. So in my opinion the Type 2 should have the greatest weighting.

David had asked for my input on weighting last week and there is no way to make it "right" without completely revamping the weighting for the whole series or using numbers above 10. Part of the reason I'm not a fan of the weighting system as designed, but that's a different story.

Anyway, I had suggested this as a compromise solution:

1971 - Weight 8
1972 Type 1 - Weight 9
1972 Type 2 - Weight 10
1972 Type 3 - Weight 8

That bumps the 1971 down to the same as 1976 Type 1 which is pretty close to accurate. The 1972 Type 3 does not get full credit for its toughness, but it allows differentiating the difficulty between the three 1972 types.

But, I don't think the new proposed weighting on the registry news page is really any worse than my suggestion, especially given the limitations of the system. I can live with it (and could even if I actually had a registry set

).

The issue with splitting the sets is far and away the bigger problem.

CoinHusker · July 22, 2003 11:36PM

Thanks Supercoin for all your insight and input! I agree with the one set, no problem approach but it appears (as evidenced by BJs latest email 7/23/03am) that PCGS is going ahead with the 2 sets, again stating the overwhleming majority want 2 sets. If that's so they certainly haven't spoken up recently in the forums. 1 set all coins! It's so simple you need help to complicate it. Then again, it seems we're getting plenty of help.

DRG · July 23, 2003 7:52AM

ONE SET!!!

ONE SET!!!

ONE SET!!!

ONE SET!!!

ONE SET!!!

ONE SET!!!

ONE SET!!!

And in case you didn't understand!

ONE SET!!!

The 1972 varieties are the ONLY MAJOR varieties for the entire series. A seperate set with one or two extra coins is silly. It appears that that fact was not lost on PCGS since they tried to include the Type One 1976 coins in the variety set to make it look sensible. IT IS NOT!!!!

Relegating the 1972 Type coins to a seperate set is silly.

ONE SET!!!

ONE SET!!!

ONE SET!!!

GRANDAM · July 23, 2003 8:11AM

I'm not sure some of you are getting the point!

2 sets is the correct solution. Everyone who currently has or had (a retired set) will still be able to be in the registry just as they currently are. Alot of us have spent alot of time and money building our current Eisenhower Dollar Registry Sets and don't want to see them ripped apart. In addition we now will have the seperate set with the additional Ty 1 & TY2 coins. Although the current basic set will now accept all 3 types it gives you the option of just having the least expensive TY 3 coin and you can still have a 100% COMPLETE Set!!!! In the varities set you would also have to purchase the much more expensive TY1 & TY 2 coins as well and this can add up to some MAJOR bucks in MS65 or MS66. This is why 2 seperate sets are needed and not just a single set where you have to have all 3 1972 coins to be 100% COMPLETE.

Some people will choose to keep their current basic set & be 100% complete using only the TY3 coin. Others may use a Ty 1 or Ty 2 if they choose. No-one will be denied the chance to have a complete set because they can't afford the more expensive coins. And this is the way it should be,,,,,,everyone now has the chance to participate at the level in which they so CHOOSE!!!!!!!

PCGS has made the right decision & for that I THANK them!!!!!

Just my opinion,,,,,,

GrandAm

jcping · July 23, 2003 10:42AM

> PCGS has made the right decision & for that I THANK them!!!!!

I believe the best way to solve the different opinions is to have a poll to vote.
Can anyone create a poll for us to vote before it is too late.

I would like to see three opinions
1) One set includes all coins (three types of 72-P and two types of 76-P)
2) keep the Basic set as is and add varieties set to include the three types of 72-P
3) Only one type of 76-P in Basic set and add varieties set to include the three types of 72-P, and two types of 76-P

Before we only put our opinions in. Anyone saw the same opinion had been posted would not raise his/her voice. With a poll to vote is the best solution.

Can anyone help?

khayse · July 23, 2003 11:08AM

I think the important thing is that PCGS got the important parts right.

Both 1976 types are in the basic set and any type of 72 will be taken in the basic set.

Now the fine tuning...I don't have a strong preference for one versus two sets.
To me it makes sense to have the basic set include a type 1 as well as a type 3 1972 P.
They are intentional, different types that anyone can afford, much like the 76 types.
(If you have a MS64 type 3 you can easily afford a MS64 type 1, if you have a MS65 type
3 then an MS65 type 1 is not THAT much more expensive).

To me the question revolves around whether to have a seperate set for the type 2 or have it in the basic
set. The cheapest type 2 on supercoin's website is $49. Not what I'd call out of reach for the average
collector. Eventually I'll want an MS65 example. If I get bumped down in the ranking because I don't yet
have that MS65 example and someone else already does it's no big deal. My plans are long-term.
So I have a slight preference for 1 set with everything in it.

If there are two sets with the type 2 being the only difference I won't be bothered (though I think it's
wasteful).

If there are two sets with the difference between them being the variety set has a type 1 and a type 2
(1972) that's OK too.

In scenarios where the basic set changes people with retired sets could go down in rankings. Such is
the risk of selling your set.

-KHayse

ElectricEye · July 23, 2003 11:08AM

<< <i>Ike Registry Sets About to be Decimated!!!! >>

Really? One out of ten sets will be destroyed?

dbldie55 · July 23, 2003 4:22PM

This is getting funny. PCGS sent out these requests to a few idividuals(those in the registry!). They claimed the results pointed them in the direction they will take(Why would they lie?). Now we have someone saying we should have a poll! What were the requests sent to the registry participants if it was not a poll? Who do you think answered the questions in the first place? Thank god I have no interest in such a series, some of the collectors of the series seem to need serious medical help.

supercoin · July 23, 2003 6:23PM

Thank god I have no interest in such a series, some of the collectors of the series seem to need serious medical help.

Uh-huh. You have SO little interest in the series, yet you take the time to post some negative BS just about any time an Ike thread comes up?

Perhaps you might want to seek some of that medical help yourself.

segoja · July 24, 2003 8:03AM

DDie is just jealous that he doesn't have a nice set of Ikes.

I believe there's medical precedence for jealousness.

segoja · July 24, 2003 8:08AM

Agree with Tad's weighting and rational for the 72 revereses.

Mitch,

If I was out to thwart the new owner of the lone MS66 Type I (There is still some conjecture if one of the remaining 72's is a type I making it equal in rarity to the Type II), I would be an even bigger beneficiary on the 76-D Type I in 67.

Furthermore.....

I was trying to be objective and use the "normal" high grade for a coin (meaning if one or two coins were in the highest grade category, then I bumped down to the next lowest grade for rarity). If we went by the rarity of the highest graded, then coins like a 72-S and 74-S, which we all agree are easy to make in high grade the way I have defined it, would automatically become much rarer than the Type III 72-P in 66. This would make no sense.

supercoin · July 24, 2003 8:09AM

For those of you (like me) who didn't get the updated e-mail from BJ, here it is...

--------

We've received a lot of mail since yesterday regarding the composition of the Basic Eisenhower Dollar set. David Hall has reviewed your comments and has agreed to allow any of the 1972 types for the 1972 slot and not remove the Type 1 1976 and 1976-D from the Basic set.

I have already added the two PCGS numbers (87409 and 97409) to the Basic set and you are now free to add the Type 1, Type 2, OR Type 3 to the 1972 slot.

Please note that the overwhelming majority who responded to the survey I sent out several weeks ago, requested that we add a variety set. The variety set will be added after I return from two conventions on August 4th. In the meantime, please feel free to review the weighting that is posted on the News page if you have not already done so.

--------

It sounds like a separate variety set is a done deal. I predict eventually PCGS will catch up with the rest of the world and not consider the main 1972 types as varieties. Probably about another 20 years if previous progress getting to recognize them at all is any indication.

But at least they fixed the crazy stuff so that's good news.

segoja · July 24, 2003 8:10AM

Let me throw out one more thought on the real variety set.

Let's add the 3 "D" mint silver planchets (74,76 and 77). Morgans have branch mint proofs, why not these varieities as well!!!!

braddick · July 24, 2003 12:53PM

<< <i>Let me throw out one more thought on the real variety set.

Let's add the 3 "D" mint silver planchets (74,76 and 77). Morgans have branch mint proofs, why not these varieities as well!!!! >>

That suggestion is evil!
It is like going in and bayonetting the wounded.

segoja · July 24, 2003 1:26PM

Pat,

Slow down!!!! It will take a few years before PCGS acts on that one!

These are the real Ike varieities anyway!

braddick · July 24, 2003 2:48PM

dollardude · August 26, 2003 12:20PM

I'm new to the forums, but have eleven registry sets, now including this new ridiculous Ike varieties set. I don't know why I added the varieties set, but I did. I pushed for one set, since there was a difference of two whole coins! The reason for doing stupid things like this is usually political or economic, not common sense. In this case, I have to believe the reason is mostly economic, i.e., more sets and more chances to slab more 1972-P Ikes.

supercoin · August 26, 2003 2:04PM

I don't agree with the decision, but... I don't buy your theory. If it was economic they would have made only one set. Then everybody would "have" to buy all three types, and more certification would follow.

I think they did it in an attempt to avoid angering existing registry set owners.

Shortsighted move in my opinion, as the "non varieties" set will continue to look more and more dated. All the varieties are in the lousy Red Book, of all places. Who wants to be lagging behind the ultimate newbie book?

DRG · August 27, 2003 12:29AM

I can not fathom why there are 2 sets with both being relatively short and only 2 coins difference between the two.

Why not now seperate the SBA$ set into 2 sets. One with the Wide Rim 1979P and one without it. It would make just as much sense.

Mistercoinman · August 27, 2003 9:21AM

I don't understand what the big deal is, you still own the same coins as before. The registry (I thought) was created to compare one set to the other and thats' what creates the interest in it. You are all acting like a bunch of glory hogs, if any of you have forgotten it's a hobby not surgery. We are all interested in the joy of collecting but this is taking it to another level. One set or two who cares!!!!!!!

dollardude · August 27, 2003 11:43AM

That's right. The decision has been made, so let's just support it and have fun! I have a 1972-P Type 2 PCGS MS63 on the way, so I just need a Type 1 to have another complete set! Rick at A.W. Coins of Cornelius, Oregon is my Ike dealer. He's one of the few Ike dealers that has these new types designated on the holders. I have also bought from Supercoin, which I noticed above. I recommend them also

. If anyone has a Type 1 in MS64 for sale, let me know please.

DRG · August 28, 2003 5:58AM

First of all, we are having fun. I enjoy the hobby and that is why I do it.

Second, it does not make sense to have such a short series cut into 2 sets for the sake of 2 more coins. As I have pointed out several times, the SBA set has the exact same issue (one variety coin). PCGS chose the opposite route with that series. All I am suggesting is that they should treat both series the same.

This forum is about discussion of the Registry. Your suggestion that we just not talk about what we see as a glaring mistake seems out of place on this forum set up to do exactly what we are doing.

Lastly, GLORY??? What GLORY? I do not even know what you mean. All I am doing is pointing out what I believe to be intuitively obvious. I am not receiving any glory regardless of the outcome of this discussion.

I do believe that the Type 1 & Type 2 coins should receive the "glory" they deserve by being part of the ONE Ike Registry set and not be relegated to a second variety set.

Edited to add; I almost forgot, take a look at the Sac$ Registry set. Two recognized varieties (the Millen. Sac & the Goodacre) both in the ONE Registry set. There is no variety set for the Sacs or for the SBA's, why for the Ike's? It just doesn't make any sense.

Ike Registry Sets About to be Decimated!!!! Help

Comments