Home PCGS Set Registry Forum

Why would someone register a with varieties set, and not a basic set?

Just curious. Anyone who has done so want to speak up? For example, I never look at the Lincoln Cents with varieties, and I forget there are some pretty nice sets there but not listed under basic.

Comments

  • I have some proof Jeffeson varieties I think are important. So I listed my set as W/ Varieties. I sort of felt it was cheating to also list the set as a basic set. However the friendly Jeff gang here invited me to do so and I now have two, almost identical sets.
  • TWQGTWQG Posts: 3,145 ✭✭
    I've done that with my 20th century MS type set because I felt that to list the same coins in the basic set made no sense.
  • SteveSteve Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭
    Specifically regarding Lincoln cents, I believe there are some varieties that every Lincoln collector wants. They are the 1922 no "D" strong reverse, the 1955 DD, the 1972 DD, the 1983,1984 and 1995 DD. Also many collect the 1944 D/S and the small and large date 1960 & 1970 coins. In proofs, most collect the small and large date 1960 & 1970, the two types of mintmarks on the 1979 & 1981 and the 1990 no "S".

    I, for one, would like to see the above dates included in the basic set because I believe most Lincoln cent collectors can eventually get these coins. There are literally hundreds of other so called varieties that some people collect. Some are very rare. Those coins, the ones NOT in the major price guides should be in a separate varieties registry in my opinion. Steveimage
  • Well, I for one actually do not care to own a 1922 no D or a double die Lincoln for I consider them as error coins not meant to be produced. Yes, I do think they are really cool coins but not part of the set. The 09 vdbs and 1960/1970 small/large dates were totally meant to be produced that way, and certainly are part of the set. (Why the basic registry set 1959-2003 has no small/large dates, I just do not understand.) Anyway, if I had more money maybe I would want to collect varieties (and would probably go all out with all of them, major or minor), but for now I have no interest in them.
  • In my case, I had more of an interest in the varieties. Because of the weightings, I was able to surpass all of the existing collections in my registry set. Thats just how the weighting works. I must however compliment the owners on remarkable sets that they put together.
  • "There are literally hundreds of other so called varieties that some people collect. Some are very rare. Those coins, the ones NOT in the major price guides should be in a separate varieties registry in my opinion."

    That gets my vote image

    &, oh yeah, what those other guys said image

    p.s. I wonder when someone with registered sets will become the first to be 100% complete in BOTH the 09-58 & 59-Date sets - Basic, and then the Varieties? Rich, looks like you're the front runner image

    p.p.s. I personally beleive PCGS should have a complete registry set for the Lincoln's - 09-Date. This will be amore true reflection of the total collection AND will definitely help to increase interest in the Memorial portion of the set.
  • SteveSteve Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭
    haletj,
    It is interesting to me that you believe a coin like the 1960 SD/LD is a regular coin and NOT an error coin. Obviously, the 1909SVDB was meant to be produced that way and is part of the basic set. The 1960 SD/LD was NOT meant to be produced that way. The small date die was replaced by the large date die early in the year. Accidently, apparently one of the small date hubs got mixed with a large date hub to create the error die. I cannot see this coin as anything but an error coin. It is rare, but needs a loope to really see it. JMHO. Steve
  • SteveSteve Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭
    Just a quick follow-up to my above post. While the 1960 SD/LD is an error coin, each of the 1960 large date and small date cents are production coins. That is, the mint did intend to put the large date version into production after it stopped making the small date version. Steveimage
  • StoogeStooge Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Redcents, I have thought for a long time, and I think that Wondercoin mentioned this in an earlier post, that PCGS should incorporate both the early and modern sets for those that actually collect both sets.

    There are a few sets that this could work for, and I'm sure that you could use W & W/O varieties. The Washington Quarter: 1932-1998, The Roosevelt dime 1948-Date, and Lincoln cent 1909-Date.

    The lucky collectors of the Jefferson Nickel, (By the way I went to Jefferson High) have a 1938-Date set and its great to see all of the coins together. It really makes those aware or the modern sets.

    Just a thought,
    Paul.

    Later, Paul.
  • Sorry Steve, I didn't mean the 1960 SD/LD variety which I'm not even sure I know what it is. I think I have heard of it once before. I just meant the small date coin and the large date coin. Those should be in a basic set for sure. Anyway, thanks for the knowledge about the SD/LD!

    I agree, a 1909-current set would be cool! So would be a 1934-1958 set AND a 1909-1933 set. I would consider getting all my early dates in pcgs holders as a registered set, but coins after 1933 I still like raw! As for quarters, how about 1932-current!
  • Stooge:

    100% agree. image

    Here is more discussion of same/similar topic link
  • marcmoishmarcmoish Posts: 6,209 ✭✭✭✭✭
    There is this guy Tony Cloud somethin, I reckon he's a Merc guy - he may have some answers for yaimage



    Marc
  • fcloudfcloud Posts: 12,133 ✭✭✭✭
    Marc,

    Now that's funny. I have been avoiding this thread on purpose. I may or may not comment later.

    Tony

    President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay

Sign In or Register to comment.