Eliasberg Sets

Typetone

Good evening David:

I would like to express my opinion with respect to including the Eliasberg collection in all the individual registry "All Time Finest Sets". Some of us who are competing in the specialized sets are starting to get frustrated that we aren't getting the top spots due to the Eliasberg entries. The issue is that neither Eliasberg nor his heirs had many of the coins in PCGS holders. And, in some cases, Eliasberg didn't even own the coins listed in the registries. So, we are competing either against raw coins, or against phantom coins. Of course, we can't use our own raw, phantom, or NGC graded coins.

This is also degrading the Eliasberg achievement, by making it into a collection that it wasn't meant to be. The point of the Eliasberg collection was to be complete, not to be the finest in specialized areas.

I respect what you are trying to accomplish, which is to show the collection in its fullest. However, why not just list the actual coins and estimated grades on the appropriate pages, without placing them in the ranks.

There is a poll on the set registry board on this issue, and the results are overwhelming.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cheers

Greg

homerunhall

Greg,

Here's what I posted earlier in response to about the same question/comment...

I think we should definitely reconsider the use of "assumed grades." I'll have BJ send out a survey and if everyone agrees, we'll stop doing it. Just realize you will then have no way of comparing your set to the Eliasberg set.

I think the "estimated grades' need to stay. The only way we could continue the Registry and not be able to list the great collections of the past would be to eliminate the "All Time Finest" list part. We certainly couldn't call a $20 Liberty set, for example, the "All-Time Finest" without comparing it to the Browning, Bass, and Eliasberg sets. That would be plain deceptive and just not right. Now if everyone wants to ban the great sets of the past, I guess we could do that and have a section called, "Finest sets put together and registered since 2000." But we certainly couldn't have an "All Time Finest" section.

We'll send out a survey about the "assumed grades" and we'll stop using them if it gives everyone such a big heartburn.

I have one last comment. Louis Eliasberg and many of the great collectors of the past in general had relatively mixed quality sets. Most collectors didn't look at coins the way we do today...the big exception of course is JM and John Clapp, those two make me believe in time travel. Any serious collector of ttoday will eventually pass Eliasberg. For example, both the Stewart Blay and Law collection of Barber dimes are better than Eliasberg's. Both the Dr. Steven Duckor and Dr. Thain Price Barber half sets are better than Eliasberg's, and Dr. Peter Shireman is about to catch and pass Eliasberg. And TDN Trade dollars are certainly nicer than Eliasberg's or anybody else's. I don't see why someone wouldn't want to have Eliasberg's coins listed so they could then pass him. I would imagine passing Eliasberg would add value to your set, as in "Better than Eliasberg."

Anyway, we'll leave the Estimated grades in and rethink the use of the assumed grades.

David