Eliasburg Collection and the Registry

WalkerGuy

I'm wondering how others feel about the Eliasburg coins being added to the Registry so that "the all time finest can be recognized" That is pretty close to the PCGS collectors club note I just read.
In many cases the grade is "estimated" I guess because it is in brand X holder at the current time, again a quote - the estimated part I mean. I wonder if my NGC coins can be also estimated so the all time finest can really be listed too.
I have a real problem with the estimating thing. If it is is the PCGS holder fine, otherwise why put it up? Different rules for different folks ???
The other issue is putting up coins from a collector who has not authorized the coins to be there. I am the current and all time finest Walker collector - Registry here - short set and late dates. I believe that there may be a set out there, as good as mine, at least by grade , and it is know to a major dealer. Should that dealer put it up without the permission of the owner, so the registry can really reflect the all time finest?
Real curious to see how others feel about this.
Dick

dollardude

In some cases, collections contain estimated grades because the coins were obtained before there were grading services. I like the idea of adding the Eliasberg set, as this was a unique set and a unique individual.

David Hall has said that PCGS' registry policy of only allowing PCGS coins will remain because the grading standards of other services are "different", and you can't compare apples to oranges.

I think you have to own and physically be in possession of a coin to register it with PCGS. In this case, I don't think it matters what anyone thinks -- you have to obey the rules.

BTW, congrats on your walker set! I love these!

tradedollarnut

At first I had a real problem with the estimated grades for coins that Eliasberg actually had, but I now accept that part of it. They're going off of pretty extensive auction lot viewing notes. I think it's important to show the Eliasberg set in all its glory.

But..... I really am undecided about the process for giving him credit for a mint state coin when he had a proof. I just don't think that's right. Yes, that's the way the old time collectors used to collect - a single example of the Philly mint and a proof was preferred because it was "better". In fact, I wouldn't mind the option of having a proof in my MS sets sometimes - when only a 'ratty' MS coin is available and a nice, glittering proof example would fill the hole. But the fact is that if the proofs and MS coins are different, then Eliasberg didn't have the MS coins and so should he really get an estimated coin put in that MS set?

Perhaps the sets should be shown in a combined proof and MS fashion that actually reflects how they were assembled?

And then there's that 3 cent pattern......

CarsonCityGold

I am STRONGLY opposed to including sets such as Eliasberg, Bass, Etc. in the registry. First and foremost is the fact that these sets were not together at the time the registry was formed (and most were not PCGS slabbed at the time). Would these owners have participated if they had been? Who knows? Am I allowed to include a coin that I owned prior to the registry being formed? Of cource not - how absurd! Give these great sets the praise and respect they deserve somewhere else!! If the set wasn't together at the time the registry formed and the owner didn't register them - THEN DON"T INCLUDE THEM!

CarsonCityGold

I am STRONGLY opposed to including sets such as Eliasberg, Bass, Etc. in the registry. First and foremost is the fact that these sets were not together at the time the registry was formed (and most were not PCGS slabbed at the time). Would these owners have participated if they had been? Who knows? Am I allowed to include a coin that I owned prior to the registry being formed? Of cource not - how absurd! Give these great sets the praise and respect they deserve somewhere else!! If the set wasn't together at the time the registry formed and the owner didn't register them - THEN DON"T INCLUDE THEM!

Keyrock

My problem as TDN mentioned is the MS vs PR co-mingled series. I do feel it should be one or the other. Regarding the estimated grade I think its more along the line of "was it a 65, a 64 or a 67 etc.." I would be more concerned if it was a gap of AU53 to MS62. Debating a few points, which may translate to a few 1/100ths is not overly concerning to me.

To this day people talk about the Eliasberg, Garret, Bass etal collections and they should have some recognition. I would be wrong to think my large cent collection was better than Newcomb's just because it wasn't listed. The reality is the coins and the collections did exist, so why not document the history of the coin collection and give recognition where it is due.

Just my 2cents

Rich

DAM

I've stated my opinion many times on this topic. Like many others I believe the efforts of Eliasberg and other great collectors of the past should (and must) be remembered for their great collections. It's the history of our hobby. The problem I have is allowing these sets/collections to participate (compete) against our sets, without adhering to the same rules.

Using Eliasberg as an example, one thing that really bugs me is knowing some of his coins are in NGC holders. It's not the fact his coins were graded by NGC, rather, no one else can enter NGC coins. Are the estimated grades the same as the NGC grades? I've never taken the time to research this, but I'd like to know. Maybe that will be my winter project. If they are, that would sure say a lot about NGC grading, wouldn't it. I wonder if they would cross the first time too. Hmmm.

As I said, Eliasberg's and other great collections from the past, should be recognized. Just not along side today's sets. Give them a different header in the All-Time Finest Set listing, give them HOF status, and re-level the playing field for the rest of us.

Typetone

I do not think they should be included. Not all the coins were PCGS holdered. Even if the estimated grades are accurate, the rules seem to require PCGS holders only. Sure Eliasburg died before the registry or PCGS grading. However, his heirs could have had everything PCGS holdered, and they apparently choose not to in many cases. Also, who authorized the set be listed? Did his heirs? If not, it shouldn't be in. It might be a great collection. However, there are many great collections that are not in the registry.

Why not list it in a separate area for reference and information purposes.

BTW, even if DH saw all the coins, that is not the same as a grade. DH himself states that he does not have the authority to determine grades. That authority belongs to the graders alone.

Greg

tradedollarnut

I think they'll do a good job on the grades.

I would urge PCGS to create a "mixed" set for series that have both proof and circulation strikes and put Eliasberg in that section when appropriate. It's the most accurate thing to do and it's the fair thing to do. And as a side benefit, it may attract more Registry participants - those who aren't inclined to collect only MS or PF coins in a series.

Keyrock

Possibly with the Barber series and others where a HUGE chunk of MS coins are missing, he gets an honorable mention in the series summary, but in those instances he is "disqualified" from having his set entered.

tgilliams

The Sets should be shown, but not included in the Rankings. Or will PCGS let us Estimate grades on our raw coins and have them included on the Registry. Also, many of his coins were graded by NGC and are included on PCGS Registry. Guess PCGS will have to let NGC coins included too.

relayer

From the PCGS eCollector:

"Louis Eliasberg assembled one of the finest U.S. coin sets of all-time. His is probably the most famous of all collections. Our intent in putting up the grades for the Eliasberg sets is to share our knowledge of his coins' actual grades with the Set Registry participants, and to make the "Finest of all-time" listings truly accurate.

The "estimated grades" are far more than simple guesses. David Hall was at the Eliasberg sales, as were PCGS founder John Dannreuther and PCGS founder and former Director of Grading, Gordon Wrubel. They each took extensive notes on the coins. The "estimated grades" for the Eliasberg coins we list in the Set Registry are a compilation of the grading notes of the three PCGS founders. Many Eliasberg coins continue to come to PCGS for grading. This gives our experts an opportunity to compare their estimates with subsequent actual PCGS grades for the coins. In nearly every case the estimates prove to be conservative; the estimates always either equal the subsequent PCGS grades, or in some cases, the subsequent PCGS grades are higher than the estimates. They are never lower because the estimates are conservative.

We also add sets to the all-time finest list that were graded by PCGS but weren't registered before they were sold. A prime example is the great gold coins in the Harry Bass collection, which were graded by PCGS, but sold at auction before the Registry existed.

Some Registry participants have questioned this practice. However, the vast majority of the Registry participants are delighted to have the opportunity to compare their coins to the great collections of the past. And it just wouldn't be right to call a gold coin set (for example) the "Finest of All-Time" without comparing it to the great coins in the Eliasberg and Bass collections. "

Typetone

Frankly, I do not view the Eliasberg sets as that great. The Eliasberg collection was great because it was complete. In any specific series, there seem to be much better sets. Why not just list it informationally in the complete sets area. It really doesn't fit in the current PCGS set registry regime.

Greg

RegistryCoin

Agreed. These sets deserve to be MENTIONED in the series' introductory paragraph, but definately not LISTED in the registry "as if" they are comparable. They are not.

CarsonCityGold

Having these sets listed somewhere else to compare to is one thing. Having to compete against sets that weren't in existance at the time the registry started is another. I don't have a problem with the grades as they are probably very, very close. These sets should be listed COMPLETELY separate from any set that was entered according to the guidelines. What about all the other great sets from the past?? How many more will be logged in that no longer exist? I don't think that the "vast majority" want to compete against ghosts that didn't have to play by the rules. Give them the respect and recognition in a separate catagory. How about a poll/vote from the members to get a true feeling of how the majority wants these sets to be listed? Not that it would make any difference because we all know the Golden Rule: He who controls the gold makes the rules!

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Frankly I do not view the Eliasberg sets as that great

Typetone - You evidently did not see the Eliasberg collection.EVERYONE that saw his coins realized this was the greatest collections of coins ever assembled.Everyone from Mark Salzburg to David Hall to Jay Parrino

What I feel is that the proofs should be graded for what they would grade and not only 65.

Stewart

tradedollarnut

What I feel is that the proofs should be graded for what they would grade and not only 65.

Stewart: I think you misunderstand. The proofs are graded for what they are in the proof set. In the circulation strike set, wherever Eliasberg had a proof but no circ strike he is given credit for the highest MS grade readily available at the time.

I don't know how they'll handle a situation [like in the seated dollars] where occasionally Eliasberg had a circulation strike Philly coin instead of a proof. Will he be given credit for the proof grade that would have been available at the time? What if that proof date is pretty rare and might not have been available? Not sure....

DAM

<< <i>Some Registry participants have questioned this practice. However, the vast majority of the Registry participants are delighted to have the opportunity to compare their coins to the great collections of the past. >>



Hmmm! I don't get that feeling reading this thread. It's easy to say "... Registry participants are delighted...". I don't believe the majority feels this way. If PCGS really wants the opinion of the membership, I suggest asking us via email, like they did when the Registry was being put together. Or simply take a poll.

List the (pre-PCGS/estimated graded/other grading service holders) sets seperately, or allow open the Registry up to the rules these sets follow.

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Bruce - Actually wehave a misunderstanding.I was specifically referring to the Barber series.I was not clear in my statement.What many forum members don't realize is that most of the pre 1916 coins were assembled by the Clapp father and son team.Eliasberg bought the post 1916 coins to achieve completion and did not painstakingly "collect" coins like the Clapps.

stewart

Typetone

Stewart:

Don't you agree that the greatness of the Eliasberg collection is it's completeness? I'm not sure that the Eliasberg coins in any particular series rank against the best specialized sets. For example, I doubt that the Eliasberg IHC collection holds a candle to yours. Am I wrong?

Greg

Lakesammman

There should be a "grandfathered" section to include sets with estimated grades but don't think they should be listed as the PCGS greatest sets.

I can assure you that Stewarts set is the finest of all time, irrespective of the current rankings/plastic grades. The Eliasberg collection of IHC's was mundane at best and isn't listed in the registry.

toothpuller

So Lakes you would say that Stewart's IHC set is better than the higher ranked pre-Registry set put together by Dr. A. Epstein? Since Epstein's was all PCGS graded it has a very valid claim to #1.

As an interesting aside, I believe the Ally set is one coin away [1877 MS66RD pop 6] from passing up Stewart in the current rankings.

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Lakesamman,Toothpuller,Typetone

Eliasberg had an originally purchased 12 piece pattern set purchased from the mint.I have never seen a better 12 piece set.His Indian cents have toned to red/brown otherwise they were all gems.Virtually all his coins copper,silver,and gold were all purchased directly from the mint.The quality was phenomenal !!!Any Barber set today is bound to have Eliasberg coins in it.
His early coins could not be matched.

And his 84 and 85 Trade dollar are in Trade Dollar Nuts collection.That should tell you something about quality

Stewart

Typetone

Stewart:

Of course his quality was good. I'm just saying that his specific series sub-sets are not as good as the best specialized sets today. Therefore, there is no real reason to list him with a rank in the all time best specialized series sets. Just list in set in the complete collections area as a reference for all to see. Bass gold may be another story!!

Greg