20th Cent. Type, w variations, Circulation Strikes (1900-1999

Currin

I have a question for the {20th Century Type Set, with Type Variations, No Gold - Circulation Strikes (1900-1999)} collectors. At my last look , there were 27 of us registered. My question, what do circulation strikes mean to you? I have been actively working on my 20th Century MS set since ’97 which was long before the registry even existed. The reason I ask there question, there is a coin required in this set that I do not understand why it is there. What coin is that you ask?

It is the SMS required coin. These Special Mint State coins were never intended for circulation. They are presentation pieces not circulation coins. My assertion that they are more kin to unpolished proofs than circulation coins. They are manufactured with similar processes as the MS coins, but that’s where it ends. To understand the description title of the set, I guess the registry views these SMS coins as variations of the circulating Jefferson Nickel. Is that really true? They were produced under the commemorative umbrella. Right? Is the new Buffalo Dollar a variation of the Buffalo nickel? Ummm?

If we include these coins (94, 97, Kennedy) , then should not include the 65,66, 67 SMS coins? Are they not a truer variations of circulation coins? I have never seem in any other numismatic publications that any of these SMS coins are included in a true circulation (MS) set. Does this bug any of the other 27 of you as much as it does me?

I would rather see these SMS coins be replaced with the Jefferson Nickel with FS, 1966-1999. This coin does appear in many publication as a variation coin for the 20th Century Type Set. A point of reference, check the February 1998 issue of The Numismatist page 168. Most publications view this nickel as a minor type (variation) similar to the near date SBA, which is include our set! My vote is to drop the SMS coin and replace it with a true variation of our choice, can I get 13 more votes?

Steve27

I had started and then terminated a 20th Century Type w variations registry set, because of other nonsensical rules. For example why is date important in a type set (i.e. shouldn't any Morgan dollar or Barber half qualify regardless of date). And could someone explain to PCGS that the 20th century ran from 1901 to 2000 and not 1900-1999. My point is, good luck in getting them to change, they don't seem to listen.

WWBillman

Currin,

SMS "Special Mint Set" Not State

This has been a thorn in a lot of sides for a long time and is one of the primary reasons I never registered my set. There is no logical way to explain it.

CarlWohlforth

I guess the thinking is that the SMS coins are not the typical cameo proofs so, if they are not proof, they are circulating strike. I always think of the SMS coins as special coins and personally consider them proofs. The '94 and '97 SMS coins are very attractive and have a matte proof like finish.

There was a lot of discussion about the dates. I am a firm supporter of the facts of math. Counting is the most basic mathamatical ability. It is obvious to people who can count that the 20'th Century goes from 1901 to 2000. PCGS wanted the set to inlcude coins from 1900-1999. I said fine, just call it a 1900s type set

I would like to include any date Barber, IHC, Lib Nic and Morgan in the set. It makes some sense as those coins were minted in the 20'th Century. I want them included because the best cameo proofs are from the late 1890s.

Steve27

Do you think we sould set up a poll, to see if registry set people would support these changes, and then present the results to David Hall?

Currin

Let’s focus back on the SMS (special mint set) coin being included in a circulation set. The coin is also included in the 20th Century Type Set, With Type Variations, No Gold (1900-1999). Now, I can buy into the coin being there because this set contains both proof coins, MS coins and everything between. But why in the circulating coin set?

It appear the interest is not that great in this topic judging from the lack of relies. I would like the sets to make sense, at least to the collectors that have them. If someone that collects this set can tell me how this makes sense, I would feel much better (HD, where are you on this topic?). I not sure why PCGS would lobby one way or another. What would they have to gain requiring a SMS coin to be included in a circulating coin set? Is there something that I do not understand here?

Bill, thanks for clarifying the meaning of SMS. The 65, 66, 67 coin were from Special Mint Sets (a proof substitute set if I recall, another point taken), but the 94, 97 Jeffersons were from Coin & Currency Sets. So, should they called “CCS”? The matte finish Kennedy is a Commemorative coin, period. Let’s save this one for another thread!

Currin

ttt

Typetone

Currin:

Here's the deal. Originally, we just had one 20th century type set. Some members wanted a modern only (1950 to date) set. PCGS agreed. I was one of the ones who helped recommend the coins for it. Since modern coins are less expensive, we felt that it would be appropriate to include bullion, commemoratives, and minor varieties including SMS pieces. PCGS adopted most, but not all of the recommendations. Curiously, they put in the 94,97 SMS pieces, but not the 65-67 SMS type which we also suggested.

Later many members stated they wanted separate cs and proof sets. Some wanted separate gold sets. At about the same time David Hall got involved in setting up the composition and weights for all the sets. His decision was to create the array we have now. Specifically, in redesigning the 20th century sets he decided to remove gold and some of the minor varieties. Many people complained that it wasn't fair to remove the minor varieties and gold as they had already purchased them for the original sets. Well, he kept gold separate, but added back minor varieties for the "with variations" versions. Now the 94,97 SMS pieces were never in the 20th century set, but only in the modern sets. But, I think David was trying to put all the regular issue modern pieces in the 20th century set as well (though not commems and bullion). Thus the SMS pieces got in the 20th century with varieties cs set. PCGS I think considers the SMS pieces to be more cs than proof. Even here the policy was not totally consistent. For example, we got the AH Kennedy in the modern set, but it never got in the 20th century proof set. The AH did get in the combined 20th century set though.

Anyway, it was kind of messy getting the sets put together. Everyone wanted something different. I think at some point, PCGS just got tired of all the changes and just left everything alone, realizing there were some inconsistencies. Many of us had already purchased the SMS pieces for the modern set, and so were OK with it in.

Anyway PCGS went on to modifying all the other sets with a promise at some point to return to type sets. And, that's where things are. However, regarding the SMS, PCGS does not consider them proofs, so if they stay anywhere it will be in the cs and combined sets.

Finally, whether the 20th Century is 1900 to 1999 or 1901 to 2000 was debated ad nauseum. Don't start on that again. Technical accuracy was sacrificed for the principal of having dates which begin with "19"

Hope that gives you the history anyway.

Greg

Currin

Greg
Thanks for the history. I lived through it, so I remember it very well. I think you have been a member of the forum about 18 days longer than me. I was one of the first to register the “Modern Type Set” as it was called back then. I think my debut was at 4th place! This set contained 57 type coins, if my memory serves me correctly. It was a fantastic set, but being a business strike purist, I too wanted to see the CS and PROOFs collectors separated. As a matter of fact, there were a couple of us that remained purist even with that set being mixed. I still have the 3 proofs that were required for that set.

I have the SMS coin for the circulation set, so I am not concern that I would have to purchase one. I purchased mine from Bowers in 1997. Just because I have one do not make it OK to be in the set. The problem is that it just do not belong in a set titled circulating coins. When you look at the set as a whole, it should not be there. I can think of at least two other 20th century varieties that are excluded that makes more sense than SMSs.

Greg, I did not get from you if personally feel in should be excluded. The only purpose that I see it serves is that it inflates everyone’s grade average for a circulating coin set!

RIC

Typetone

Currin:

My view is that the 94,97 SMS type is very minor. I think it has a place in a modern type set, but is not really needed in the 20th century set. As you said, there are several other excluded minor types. Having said that, it is not an issue I am too concerned about fighting over.

Now, should the SMS pieces be in the cs or proof version? I view the SMS pieces as a hybrid. Probably more proof than cs though. If I were doing the set, I would not put them in either the cs or proof versions, but maybe only in the combined set. I do not believe PCGS sees it like that however. The more important issue to me is why we don't have 65 -67 SMS representation in the modern and 20th century type sets. I view those early SMS type pieces as historically more important. When PCGS revisits the type sets, that is something I would like to push for.

Greg

Cocoinut

I hadn't really given it much thought, with all the various type sets that exist. It wasn't a matter of having to buy the 3 1990's SMS coins, since I owned them before I ever heard of the Registry, but it does seem that to be consistent that the 1965-1967 SMS coins should also be included. I honestly believe that they are more akin to proofs than CS, and really should be included in proof type sets rather than CS sets. All of the SMS are merely different types of finish or manufacture, not differences in design.

I agree with Currin that the Jefferson nickels with and without the FS initials have more of a claim to variety status, the same as the Lincoln cent with and without the VDB.

I had put my set on the back burner when the types sets were reconfigured, and have pretty much ignored it since then. Practically all of the coins I'm lacking are post-1975, and I can't get very excited about them.

Currin

From the responses so far, no one has disagreed and suggested to leave the SMSs in the circulating set. Or made a valid argument why they should. Any positive responses? RIC