Dansco Type Set transitional set - PLEASE PLEASE help and offer opinions.

PutTogether

I've decided to shift focus, and get really serious on the ol Dansco Type set. Which is inspiring, exciting, and depressing, cause finishing a Peace Dollar set sure would have been a lot easier, but lord knows I don't have the focus to do both at once. ANYWAY.......

I've decided to make the dansco a "transitional" set. To show design changes during a year. (for example, using an 1883 with cents nickel in the 1883-1912 hole, to show the change from the 1883 no cents. Or using an 1867 with and without rays for the two shield nickel holes.) I'm going to use an 1857 flying eagle and an 1857 Braided Hair to show how the whole coin changed that year, instead of a small design. The trouble I'm running into is groupings of three coins where it changed twice. Here are two examples

for the 1864-1909 bronze IHC, would you use a 64 copper nickel and a 64 bronze to show THAT change, or would you do a 1909 bronze IHC to illustrate the change that year from IHC to lincoln (09 VDB is the next hole)

What about buffs?

Would you use 1913 type one and two, or would you do a 1938 for the second one and get a 1938 jeff for the next hole?

the capped bust, lettered edge, reeded edge, and liberty seated half present the same problem (the reeded edge overlaps both)

I guess my question is, would you prefer to look at a set that highlighed the minor changes in a single year, or the drastic ones.......or a mix thereof? And if a mix, which should I do where?

(can you better see how it is all at once exciting AND depressing?)

RGL

Interesting question ... I would collect all the major types, but for the album, show the most dramatic changes ...

PutTogether

I'm hoping Baley chimes in.

ealandg

I like dramatic changes within the same year - new versions - 1795 $, 1807 1/2 $, 1921 $, etc.

berylcoin

The major design changes are obvious regardless of date. Using the "minor change" dates, such as the 1913 type one and two nickels, highlights the fact that these more subtle changes were made all-at-once and for a reason rather than piecemeal as a gradual evolution of the design. Just my two cents. In reality the set will probably be just as fun, impressive, and cohesive either way.

BC

relayer

You can do whatever you want of course, but I prefer major design changes

Blade

You're screwed on your shield nickels too. I like transitions in type sets, so I have the 1883 shield, 1883 N/C Lib and 1883 w/cents Lib. If you lock on the 1867 with and without rays, you lose the 1883 "3 coins in a year" phenomenon.

My coins are all slabbed, so I am not locked into someone else's definition of the set. I can collect all transitions if so desired.

Good luck!

PutTogether

well, so far everyone seems to be split just like me. damn.

Baley

hey PutTogether,

I like your idea; where you have to choose, I'd combine the transition with a "first year-last year" method, for example, with the nickels, 1866 shield, 1883 shield, 1883 NC Liberty, 1912 Liberty, 1913 T1 Buffalo, 1938 Buffalo, 1938 Jefferson.

Of course, nothing stops you from having the 1867 no rays and with rays, or a 1913 T2 Buff, outside of the album

Libertad

What a dilemma. The obvious answer to your question is a tough one, since you seem to me
to want to do it both ways -- Start a second type set, with the transitional and the within-type subtypes
and you don't have to chose/can change your mind. Double the Joy of your hobby.


Then give yourself permission to enjoy uncompleted sets!

PutTogether

make an excellent point baley.