Back to the issue of "Isn't this registry abuse", obviously it was or the wording to the set would not have been changed by PCGS. BTW, Bruce and anyone else who will be bidding on coins out of this set feel free to PM me so I don't bid up any of the coins you want, as long as you do the same for me. Lets unite, not fight -------------------BigE
JFS, conceivably, may not own a computer, although this is probably not the case, but worthy of a brief thought. Also, as discussed many, many times on the reg. forum, a collector may have decided that a presence may cause an increase in the prices paid, or the total lack of availability of a particular coin. Since he hasn't posted, either is worthy of a thought , and any speculation otherwise seems a bit brash.
> The set above is not "for sale" in my opinion...I can't call up Greg at Heritage and buy it right now.
Then what the heck is this: > The JFS Collection is represented by Heritage Numismatic Auctions. For information about this set, email Heritage's President
What does "represent" mean? Are we supposed to call Greg up and talk about the set? How it was collected, which coins have color, where the collector obtained each coin?
No, we're supposed to call him up to make an offer. In one form or another the set is for sale and this is an advertisement.
We all know why these are being registered....for the sole purpose of being sold, you may ask Heritage to tone down that fact but the damage is done! We all know why this set was registered.
You also wrote:
The collector, who assembled the set, is justifiably proud of his accomplishment and just like many of you, wants to display his set for all to see and enjoy.
What? This wasn't the fact as he was building it, now he wants to display it? He could have kept the coins hidden while we saw him climb the registery ladder. Or he (or Heritage) can keep the coins secret now even though we know it's the #1 set. But this is not the case as potential buyers need to know what the grades are.
I don't want to belittle the fact that it was a great accomplishment, just the fact that I thought the registery was not to be used in this manner (registering a set for the sole purpose of selling & no matter how you cut it that is what is now being done).....guess I, & others were wrong.
I still think the concensus should be that a set needs to be in the registery for a minimum amount of time before it qualifies for the ATF list. This was agreed to by most, I believe, when Wondercoin posted his client's set for sale. I still don't like the idea of placing a set just to sell, #1 or #100, it just doesn't feel like the rules are being followed...letter of the law vs. intent of the law.....but you're the judge & jury on this so I guess it's OK.
Let me understand what this collector did, he either purchased out right high quality coins graded by PCGS, crossed over coins or made his/her coins raw over some extended period of time. This sounds very much like what all you other collectors do. He then asked Heritage to register them here so he could lay claim to an all time finest set, at least for now and give every one here the chance to see them. He has also decided to sell them through a Heritage auction. Once again what several of you have done here. The one rule that was violated is that they were offered for sale on the registry listing sight, an oversight by Heritage and not the collector.
So a collector who has worked hard at putting together a set who has doing noting out of the ordinary that most of you haven't done except not to list it until shortly before he decides to sell it, is being castigated for this. Some of you guys are so full of self righteousness when its convenient for you. I don't see where this collector even closely approached any of things I have seen some of you do. I think its time to take a look in the mirror and get real. And, you wonder why some of us chuckle when we read these threads. You sound like a bunch of spoiled college fraternity yahoos.
Gang. There are a lot of things that one can do with $1mm+. I think it is safe to say that this collector's heart was in his collection from it's conception, and will be there until way past it's sale. (Been there done that/jmho.)
<< <i>Let me understand what this collector did, he either purchased out right high quality coins graded by PCGS, crossed over coins or made his/her coins raw over some extended period of time. This sounds very much like what all you other collectors do. He then asked Heritage to register them here so he could lay claim to an all time finest set, at least for now and give every one here the chance to see them. He has also decided to sell them through a Heritage auction. Once again what several of you have done here. The one rule that was violated is that they were offered for sale on the registry listing sight, an oversight by Heritage and not the collector.
So a collector who has worked hard at putting together a set who has doing noting out of the ordinary that most of you haven't done except not to list it until shortly before he decides to sell it, is being castigated for this. Some of you guys are so full of self righteousness when its convenient for you. I don't see where this collector even closely approached any of things I have seen some of you do. I think its time to take a look in the mirror and get real. And, you wonder why some of us chuckle when we read these threads. You sound like a bunch of spoiled college fraternity yahoos. >>
IrishMike...... I think that just about says it all.
Well now... I now "get" the initials... I believe I have met this person, 1 of 2 (or 3) in the industry, that I have ever met. I believe, from the initials that this person made a cross country trip, and included a visit to me when I was just starting my 144 pc set. It was complete, but WAY off the final product. I could tell he was "impressed" ostensibly, but had "other" ideas in mind. I can't say anything but congratulations. I hope we get a chance to discuss "What a strange trip it's been" upon your next visit. Again, congratulations! I know, (if this is you, and it probably is...) that you have spent many years, a lot of your spare time, and spare brain-space studying these coins. I hadn't heard of the jump from 50 to 144, but it is not a surprise. Steve H.
My post did question Greg's heart and dedication and I admit that I don't know him. Only as Greg@ Heritage.... I did not try to trash his integrity, only question his motivation. Just felt a little betrayed in that he hid this from others. It is his right. It does come off as a sales pitch being a newly registered set, NUMBER#1, and represented by Heritage, especially to those that don't know him personally or have not dealt with him. I questioned the circumstances: "Then again, it is a "SLAB" collection that was put together based mainly on "GRADE" and the "$$$" motivation???". I apologize for it seeming offensive. This is the USA and capitalism rules! An honest question from someone that doesn't know all the background. It appears as a quick in and out of a top registry set. Some veterans assume the less experienced (me), know more about the individuals than I do. Just because I question one's motivation, doesn't mean I disagree with it.
I just want to clarify, I'm not questioning anything about the collector, fantastic set, great job. I'm not questioning registering the set when it's complete (not my style but that's no matter). I'm not questioning having a dealer register your set for you (for whatever reason).
I assume everyone's beef, including mine, is that it looks like it was only registered to help sell it. And that's the risk you run by not listing it until the set it done.
<< <i>I assume everyone's beef, including mine, is that it looks like it was only registered to help sell it. >>
Sounds like a big case of the envies, to me. The collector has the set. A dealer lists it. So what? If it helps promote the set, good for him/her. It is still number one until someone betters it.
Wah wah... someone listed a set/coin at the last minute and knocked me out of the top spot. Now I can't get the Registry certificate.
Wah wah... someone sells coins on this site that aren't "Registry Quality".
Wah wah... someone other than a "click" dealer is offering coins here.
Wah wah... a dealer listed a Registry Set for a collector.
This thread was about a rule clarification. The hobby is Coin Collecting, not pouting. Although it seems they go hand in hand sometimes. Get over it. The set exhists, regardless of who owns it. In this case a collector does. IMO, if registering the set helps promote the set, so what! The set still exhists and has been registered according to the Registry rules.
How many have had a Registry Set and sold, using the Registry to promote the set? Many! This is, perhaps, just one more in a long line.
The president of the largest auction firm in the industry has taken upon himself personally to make sure that an important consignor gets every possible benefit of his company's efforts and expertise to maximize the value of the consignment. That is why I have personally given Heritage virtually all of my auction business this year (and PM me to discuss just how successful it has been, including several board members' holdings I have handled through Heritage earlier this year) and plan to give them a sizeable portion more in the months and years ahead.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Mitch, you're the second Dealer who has given Heritage accolades when it comes to properly promoting and aggresively selling submitter's coins. I would think your endorsement is sound and would give pause to anyone in the market to sell a collection, giving Heritage due consideration for their business.
For what it's worth: I'm a believer that ANY and ALL coins with PCGS inserts may be entered into a Registry regardless of intent or speculation. If you have possession of the PCGS coin it is for you to do with it as you see fit- no matter what you may choose to do tomorrow.
I doubt the individual had any intention of registering the set until Heritage did for the purpose of the sale. That is wrong and hurts the Registry Program, in my view.
Pat: As you know, giving credit where credit is due is what is often lacking on these message boards. I personally pool large auction consignments several times a year to achieve the maximum %'s possible on a consigment as well as the best possible net on the overall coins. Again, every board member/collector who has consigned a collection of coins with me so far this year has been very pleased with the overall results (and I selected Heritage for those consignments). So, Heritage has earned the credit.
Back to this comment though -
"I'm a believer that ANY and ALL coins with PCGS inserts may be entered into a Registry regardless of intent or speculation. If you have possession of the PCGS coin it is for you to do with it as you see fit- no matter what you may choose to do tomorrow."
I totally agree with your premise. This thread PROVES to me that requiring a "jury of ones registry peers" to determine the INTENT of the registry lister in listing a collection is a slippery slope neither the Registry nor BJ and PCGS should be going down. This is a perfect case to highlight that - here you have a collector of many years who has assembled the greatest "seven figure" PCGS 144 pc. Silver Commem collection ever, but, failed to list his collection in the Registry before consigning it to auction. Luckily (I suspect), the auction company caught that oversight and with the permission of the owner of these coins (another safe assumption on my part) made sure this incredible collection got the recognition it deserved before being sold off. This is a "no brainer" yet, you see many collectors here having a problem with this.
Yet, on the other hand, if a small collector decided to sell his collection on ebay and (1) day before his ebay sale, the collector found the Reigstry, listed his collection on the Registry and referred to his #53 ranked collection in the ebay listing - no one would have a problem with it. And, why would anyone?
Bottom line - As Pat said "intent" and "speculation" have NOTHING to do with the Registry. If the owner or the owner's agent of coins wants them in the Registry for whatever reason (e.g. to impress a girlfriend, to assist in the upcoming sale of the coins, to prove to ones Mother one has accomplished something grand in life, etc., etc.), that is all that should matter I believe.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Mitch we actually agree on something . I might add that one of the purposes of the registry is to showcase great collections. Have some of you forgotten that? Its not all about competition, who has a better eye, who has more money, etc. We've all seen collectors here get caught up in that and having overextended themselves quickly have to sell them off. This registry is not the end all be all of many collectors, you don't have to be a serious collector to list your set, it is afterall optional.
I think a lot of this heartburn is natural and while I see valid reasons on both sides of the aisle, it is another classic rift between the haves and the have-nots. If you have the money, you can have the honor of the number one set. If you don't have the money, you go real slow and maybe in 20,30 years, if you only buy the best, you can have the finest set. Instant gratification or long term maybe - a natural difference we see all over society, not just in coin collecting. And I'm faulting nobody here; have or have-nots.
But lets take it a step further, it's really the CURRENT Finest list that should make a difference. I personally think it should sit above the ALL-TIME Finest list because that is what's happening now. On the Current list, the little collector has a chance to shine with the big boys. The Current list is what gets the awards (except the HOF collections). If you want to compete, you're competing against those on the Current list, unless you like chasing ghosts because if it isn't listed in the Current List, it isn't a set anymore. The bottom line is, the All-Time list really doesn't count for us collectors.
Sure, maybe just as a measure, but if folks use it to sell or showcase their collection, or any other purpose, let it be. Here today, gone tomorrow. So the All-Time collection WAS a collection - IT IS NO MORE. It doesn't count anymore. It's those folks in the Current List that are on top of the game, still competing, and hopefully, like me, having fun! Hang in there, Dave
The new set bumped my 50 piece set by .01...I just hope I can win a coin and regain me rightful (smile) spot on top back..Cool set and glad its for sale... Bruce Scher
dldallen, Boy it's tough to think of battling "only" for current finest as a have-not.
DAM, > Sounds like a big case of the envies, to me You're entitled to think that just as some of us are entitled to think that it looks like this set was registered only to help sell it. > The set exhists, regardless of who owns it If the dealer already owns it, then the set doesn't exist. > The set still exhists and has been registered according to the Registry rules. Yes, because PCGS "clarified" the rules by which I mean to say that they've said the rues don't matter and anything goes.
Anyone want to be my "agent" and then be allowed to list my coins in their set. All we have to do is put 10X sale prices (since I really fo not want to sell them) and then it is legal to list my coins in your set. Wonder what someone would pay to be my agent?
From reading the postings there are two issues. (1) That JLS registered the set through a dealer. So what?
Warren Mills (Rare Coins of New Hampshire), who worked with me on my Standing Liberty Quarters collection, wanted to register the set so he could get bragging rights for the collection. I didn't want to be bothered with it, so I let him do it. So what?
Likewise, JLS didn't want to register his set, but Heritage did -- for the publicity. So what?
That brings us to issue #2: That Heritage registered the set simultaneously with going to sell it. Well, let's see, if Heritage had registered it for him a year before going to sell it, that would presumably have been okay ... Six months before? Okay ... Three months before? Okay.
A month before hand? A week? A day? Where do the envious draw the line?
And actually, reading the five pages of this thread, envy is the common theme of the critical comments. Rather than giving JLS credit for building a spectacular set of commemoratives, they're tearing him down for having the brains to earn (and save) the ton of money which is needed to build a great collection like that ... and for having the taste and persistence needed to assemble a great set like that.
They sound as if they wish they could do what JLS did, but instead of admiring the guy for doing what they couldn't, they tear him down.
There was a recent thread on the Dark-Side about the difference between the Dark-Side and Registry Set worlds. The consensus was that the Dark-Siders were friendlier and more supportive of one another. The Registry Set world is a bunch of nattering, jealous, envious competitors eager to tear one another down. And wow, this thread exemplifies it.
Can the critics who were surpassed (by miles) by Mr. JLS at least have the courtesy to acknowledge what a great collection he built?
I do. The guy's commem collection leaves mine in the dust and I congratulate Mr. JLS for the accomplishment. It's an inspiration to me. And my hat is also off to Ms. Sperber who helped him build that wonderful set, often going toe-to-toe (and besting me) in the process.
Best wishes to Mr. JLS, Ms. Sperber, the other doers on these boards, and, yes, the envious as well ... I wish you all well ...
Just Having Fun!
Jefferson nickels, Standing Libs, and US-Philippines rock
<< <i>DAM, > Sounds like a big case of the envies, to me You're entitled to think that just as some of us are entitled to think that it looks like this set was registered only to help sell it. > The set exhists, regardless of who owns it If the dealer already owns it, then the set doesn't exist. > The set still exhists and has been registered according to the Registry rules. Yes, because PCGS "clarified" the rules by which I mean to say that they've said the rules don't matter and anything goes.
-KHayse >>
KHayse,
> The set exhists, regardless of who owns it.< If the dealer already owns it, then the set doesn't exist.
You make absolutely no sense with that statement. That goes to the heart of the problem.
> The set still exhists and has been registered according to the Registry rules.< Yes, because PCGS "clarified" the rules by which I mean to say that they've said the rules don't matter and anything goes.
Great interpertation of what PCGS said. Again this is partly where the problem lies... envy, jealousy.
Your replies to my comments go to the heart of my point, which is, it sounds like a bunch of sour grapes. The fact is"the set exhists" and a collector owns it. Furthermore, even if a dealer owned it, "the set would still exhist". If a dealer did own it, then the issue would be whether it should be allowed to be listed in the PCGS Registry (not whether it exhisted), which IMO should be allowed. Must we turn a blind eye to a better set because of something so petty?
Anyone who has a Registry set that has less than pop one coins for every coin, in some cases, has the potential of being overtaken by another set. In addition, there are coins in other TPG holders, and raw coins, that could be better. Not many perhaps, but just one or two would make my point.
For those coming to the party late who may not realize it, the set description was edited by BJ to remove the advertising pitch for the upcoming Heritage auction - which was the whole point of the question.
Just came across this thread, and was amazed at all the attention it garnered, and for what ??
All I want to say is what a spectacular Registry Set and congratulations to JLS for building it and also congratulations to JLS for having entrusted his prized collection to Heritage, the undisputed number one, auction company.
I was going to comment yesterday but I thought the thread may die so I refrained. It did not so I'll throw my 2 cents out there as well. A set is a set no matter who owns it, and as such it should be allowed to be listed. It does not matter what is in their heart or what their rationale is as this is subjective. The set in question is a wonderful set . In my opinion when the registry is used as a tool for advertising it lessens the importance of the registry to its members. When PCGS allows sets to be listed in this manner they are trading on their good name and unfortunately they can not trade to get it back. People will come and go and the set will stay at the ATF and most will forget the whole incident. Although this is not the only example. Joe
I have seen other sets listed and they didn't get bashed. There was a set of Fivaz Mercury Dimes listed by B&M (a division of CU at that time). I don't remember any complaints. Now they were not number one, so maybe that had something to do with it.
This thread was/is a great read though!
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Maybe the PCGS Registry should have a web page exclusively set up for viewing complete Registry sets that are for sale, as they now have the buy, sell, trade page for individual coins. There are some people who do buy complete sets and a lot of set owners are happier when their hard to assemble sets are sold to one person, intact. Auction companys would lose out, but fellow Registry collectors would benefit. I recently sold my proof barber halve set intact and feel better that it will stay mostly intact after the set has left my possession. I can't think of any reason that this would harm PCGS's reputation or financial picture. If I am wrong, please tell me why. I am thinking that it would only benefit other registry participants financially.
My thought on PCGS's reputation is this. I feel the registry was created as a marketing tool so people would buy/slab more coins in their holders and make them more money. At the same time a place was provided free of charge to discuss numismatics and list your sets and have them viewed. The friendly competition is fun. As sets that are owned by people with no thoughts of registering them are brought to auction houses and their owners are told you will get more bang for the buck if we list it a disservice is done to those building sets and using the registry as a place to share pride of ownership. In my opinion this discourages collectors from trying to attain a high registry ranking and indirectly impacts the price of PCGS slabs. I realize this is taking it to an extream but if they are in for a penny they are in for a pound.
At least the PCGS Registry differentiates between Current Finest and All Time Finest. The NGC Registry is littered with sets 'already sold' and 'soon to be sold' that clog up the place.
Comments
Then what the heck is this:
> The JFS Collection is represented by Heritage Numismatic Auctions. For information about this set, email Heritage's President
What does "represent" mean? Are we supposed to call Greg up and talk about the set? How it was collected, which coins have
color, where the collector obtained each coin?
No, we're supposed to call him up to make an offer. In one form or another the set is for sale and this is an advertisement.
-KHayse
We all know why these are being registered....for the sole purpose of being sold, you may ask Heritage to tone down that fact but the damage is done! We all know why this set was registered.
You also wrote:
The collector, who assembled the set, is justifiably proud of his accomplishment and just like many of you, wants to display his set for all to see and enjoy.
What? This wasn't the fact as he was building it, now he wants to display it? He could have kept the coins hidden while we saw him climb the registery ladder. Or he (or Heritage) can keep the coins secret now even though we know it's the #1 set.
But this is not the case as potential buyers need to know what the grades are.
I don't want to belittle the fact that it was a great accomplishment, just the fact that I thought the registery was not to be used in this manner (registering a set for the sole purpose of selling & no matter how you cut it that is what is now being done).....guess I, & others were wrong.
I still think the concensus should be that a set needs to be in the registery for a minimum amount of time before it qualifies for the ATF list. This was agreed to by most, I believe, when Wondercoin posted his client's set for sale.
I still don't like the idea of placing a set just to sell, #1 or #100, it just doesn't feel like the rules are being followed...letter of the law vs. intent of the law.....but you're the judge & jury on this so I guess it's OK.
So a collector who has worked hard at putting together a set who has doing noting out of the ordinary that most of you haven't done except not to list it until shortly before he decides to sell it, is being castigated for this. Some of you guys are so full of self righteousness when its convenient for you. I don't see where this collector even closely approached any of things I have seen some of you do. I think its time to take a look in the mirror and get real. And, you wonder why some of us chuckle when we read these threads. You sound like a bunch of spoiled college fraternity yahoos.
After reading the replies from everyone, and ponder over the evidence, it is still a fantastic set.
Then again, it is a "SLAB" collection that was put together based mainly on "GRADE" and the "$$$" motivation???
Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to lack the heart and dedication of a COLLECTOR!
There are many other sets that represent the hobby/passion better than this one......
Bob
<< <i>Let me understand what this collector did, he either purchased out right high quality coins graded by PCGS, crossed over coins or made his/her coins raw over some extended period of time. This sounds very much like what all you other collectors do. He then asked Heritage to register them here so he could lay claim to an all time finest set, at least for now and give every one here the chance to see them. He has also decided to sell them through a Heritage auction. Once again what several of you have done here. The one rule that was violated is that they were offered for sale on the registry listing sight, an oversight by Heritage and not the collector.
So a collector who has worked hard at putting together a set who has doing noting out of the ordinary that most of you haven't done except not to list it until shortly before he decides to sell it, is being castigated for this. Some of you guys are so full of self righteousness when its convenient for you. I don't see where this collector even closely approached any of things I have seen some of you do. I think its time to take a look in the mirror and get real. And, you wonder why some of us chuckle when we read these threads. You sound like a bunch of spoiled college fraternity yahoos. >>
Heck it happens to me all the time...
Check out my great coins on eBay.
Again, congratulations! I know, (if this is you, and it probably is...) that you have spent many years, a lot of your spare time,
and spare brain-space studying these coins. I hadn't heard of the jump from 50 to 144, but it is not a surprise.
Steve H.
I did not try to trash his integrity, only question his motivation. Just felt a little betrayed in that he hid this from others. It is his right.
It does come off as a sales pitch being a newly registered set, NUMBER#1, and represented by Heritage, especially to those that don't know
him personally or have not dealt with him.
I questioned the circumstances: "Then again, it is a "SLAB" collection that was put together based mainly on "GRADE" and the "$$$" motivation???". I apologize for it seeming offensive. This is the USA and capitalism rules! An honest question from someone that doesn't know all the background. It appears as a quick in and out of a top registry set.
Some veterans assume the less experienced (me), know more about the individuals than I do.
Just because I question one's motivation, doesn't mean I disagree with it.
Bob
Now buy some of my coins will ya?!
I want to be motivated to make some more...
registering the set when it's complete (not my style but that's no matter). I'm not questioning having a dealer register your
set for you (for whatever reason).
I assume everyone's beef, including mine, is that it looks like it was only registered to help sell it. And that's the risk you run by
not listing it until the set it done.
-Khayse
I assume everyone's beef, including mine, is that it looks like it was only registered to help sell it.
Intent.....the intent in registering this set was to sell it.....
I'll say it again, this must be OK because BJ said so.....
<< <i>yep, end of story >>
I agree it should be... but I bet it's not.
peacockcoins
<< <i>I assume everyone's beef, including mine, is that it looks like it was only registered to help sell it. >>
Sounds like a big case of the envies, to me. The collector has the set. A dealer lists it. So what? If it helps promote the set, good for him/her. It is still number one until someone betters it.
Wah wah... someone listed a set/coin at the last minute and knocked me out of the top spot. Now I can't get the Registry certificate.
Wah wah... someone sells coins on this site that aren't "Registry Quality".
Wah wah... someone other than a "click" dealer is offering coins here.
Wah wah... a dealer listed a Registry Set for a collector.
This thread was about a rule clarification. The hobby is Coin Collecting, not pouting. Although it seems they go hand in hand sometimes. Get over it. The set exhists, regardless of who owns it. In this case a collector does. IMO, if registering the set helps promote the set, so what! The set still exhists and has been registered according to the Registry rules.
How many have had a Registry Set and sold, using the Registry to promote the set? Many! This is, perhaps, just one more in a long line.
The president of the largest auction firm in the industry has taken upon himself personally to make sure that an important consignor gets every possible benefit of his company's efforts and expertise to maximize the value of the consignment. That is why I have personally given Heritage virtually all of my auction business this year (and PM me to discuss just how successful it has been, including several board members' holdings I have handled through Heritage earlier this year) and plan to give them a sizeable portion more in the months and years ahead.
Wondercoin
myEbay
DPOTD 3
For what it's worth: I'm a believer that ANY and ALL coins with PCGS inserts may be entered into a Registry regardless of intent or speculation. If you have possession of the PCGS coin it is for you to do with it as you see fit- no matter what you may choose to do tomorrow.
peacockcoins
RR
Back to this comment though -
"I'm a believer that ANY and ALL coins with PCGS inserts may be entered into a Registry regardless of intent or speculation. If you have possession of the PCGS coin it is for you to do with it as you see fit- no matter what you may choose to do tomorrow."
I totally agree with your premise. This thread PROVES to me that requiring a "jury of ones registry peers" to determine the INTENT of the registry lister in listing a collection is a slippery slope neither the Registry nor BJ and PCGS should be going down. This is a perfect case to highlight that - here you have a collector of many years who has assembled the greatest "seven figure" PCGS 144 pc. Silver Commem collection ever, but, failed to list his collection in the Registry before consigning it to auction. Luckily (I suspect), the auction company caught that oversight and with the permission of the owner of these coins (another safe assumption on my part) made sure this incredible collection got the recognition it deserved before being sold off. This is a "no brainer" yet, you see many collectors here having a problem with this.
Yet, on the other hand, if a small collector decided to sell his collection on ebay and (1) day before his ebay sale, the collector found the Reigstry, listed his collection on the Registry and referred to his #53 ranked collection in the ebay listing - no one would have a problem with it. And, why would anyone?
Bottom line - As Pat said "intent" and "speculation" have NOTHING to do with the Registry. If the owner or the owner's agent of coins wants them in the Registry for whatever reason (e.g. to impress a girlfriend, to assist in the upcoming sale of the coins, to prove to ones Mother one has accomplished something grand in life, etc., etc.), that is all that should matter I believe.
Wondercoin
You are absolutely, 100% wrong. I know firsthand he intended to register it when he considered it complete.
Why do people insist on making unsubstantiated wild speculations with no basis in fact?
But lets take it a step further, it's really the CURRENT Finest list that should make a difference. I personally think it should sit above the ALL-TIME Finest list because that is what's happening now. On the Current list, the little collector has a chance to shine with the big boys. The Current list is what gets the awards (except the HOF collections). If you want to compete, you're competing against those on the Current list, unless you like chasing ghosts because if it isn't listed in the Current List, it isn't a set anymore. The bottom line is, the All-Time list really doesn't count for us collectors.
Sure, maybe just as a measure, but if folks use it to sell or showcase their collection, or any other purpose, let it be. Here today, gone tomorrow. So the All-Time collection WAS a collection - IT IS NO MORE. It doesn't count anymore. It's those folks in the Current List that are on top of the game, still competing, and hopefully, like me, having fun! Hang in there, Dave
Edited to fix some S&G!
Wondercoin
Bruce Scher
Boy it's tough to think of battling "only" for current finest as a have-not.
DAM,
> Sounds like a big case of the envies, to me
You're entitled to think that just as some of us are entitled to think that it looks like this set was registered only to help sell it.
> The set exhists, regardless of who owns it
If the dealer already owns it, then the set doesn't exist.
> The set still exhists and has been registered according to the Registry rules.
Yes, because PCGS "clarified" the rules by which I mean to say that they've said the rues don't matter and anything goes.
-KHayse
I also had a hand building the number #1 MS gold set which is being parted.
Let's see you top that one idiot.
Learn how to spell!
Enough Said!
From reading the postings there are two issues. (1) That JLS registered the set through a dealer. So what?
Warren Mills (Rare Coins of New Hampshire), who worked with me on my Standing Liberty Quarters collection, wanted to register the set so he could get bragging rights for the collection. I didn't want to be bothered with it, so I let him do it. So what?
Likewise, JLS didn't want to register his set, but Heritage did -- for the publicity. So what?
That brings us to issue #2: That Heritage registered the set simultaneously with going to sell it. Well, let's see, if Heritage had registered it for him a year before going to sell it, that would presumably have been okay ... Six months before? Okay ... Three months before? Okay.
A month before hand? A week? A day? Where do the envious draw the line?
And actually, reading the five pages of this thread, envy is the common theme of the critical comments. Rather than giving JLS credit for building a spectacular set of commemoratives, they're tearing him down for having the brains to earn (and save) the ton of money which is needed to build a great collection like that ... and for having the taste and persistence needed to assemble a great set like that.
They sound as if they wish they could do what JLS did, but instead of admiring the guy for doing what they couldn't, they tear him down.
There was a recent thread on the Dark-Side about the difference between the Dark-Side and Registry Set worlds. The consensus was that the Dark-Siders were friendlier and more supportive of one another. The Registry Set world is a bunch of nattering, jealous, envious competitors eager to tear one another down. And wow, this thread exemplifies it.
Can the critics who were surpassed (by miles) by Mr. JLS at least have the courtesy to acknowledge what a great collection he built?
I do. The guy's commem collection leaves mine in the dust and I congratulate Mr. JLS for the accomplishment. It's an inspiration to me. And my hat is also off to Ms. Sperber who helped him build that wonderful set, often going toe-to-toe (and besting me) in the process.
Best wishes to Mr. JLS, Ms. Sperber, the other doers on these boards, and, yes, the envious as well ... I wish you all well ...
Just Having Fun!
Still,I think you should learn how to spell...
<< <i>DAM,
> Sounds like a big case of the envies, to me
You're entitled to think that just as some of us are entitled to think that it looks like this set was registered only to help sell it.
> The set exhists, regardless of who owns it
If the dealer already owns it, then the set doesn't exist.
> The set still exhists and has been registered according to the Registry rules.
Yes, because PCGS "clarified" the rules by which I mean to say that they've said the rules don't matter and anything goes.
-KHayse >>
KHayse,
> The set exhists, regardless of who owns it.<
If the dealer already owns it, then the set doesn't exist.
You make absolutely no sense with that statement. That goes to the heart of the problem.
> The set still exhists and has been registered according to the Registry rules.<
Yes, because PCGS "clarified" the rules by which I mean to say that they've said the rules don't matter and anything goes.
Great interpertation of what PCGS said. Again this is partly where the problem lies... envy, jealousy.
Your replies to my comments go to the heart of my point, which is, it sounds like a bunch of sour grapes. The fact is"the set exhists" and a collector owns it. Furthermore, even if a dealer owned it, "the set would still exhist". If a dealer did own it, then the issue would be whether it should be allowed to be listed in the PCGS Registry (not whether it exhisted), which IMO should be allowed. Must we turn a blind eye to a better set because of something so petty?
Anyone who has a Registry set that has less than pop one coins for every coin, in some cases, has the potential of being overtaken by another set. In addition, there are coins in other TPG holders, and raw coins, that could be better. Not many perhaps, but just one or two would make my point.
Justhavingfun gets it.
Russ, NCNE
All I want to say is what a spectacular Registry Set and congratulations to JLS for building it and also congratulations to JLS for having entrusted his prized collection to Heritage, the undisputed number one, auction company.
A set is a set no matter who owns it, and as such it should be allowed to be listed. It does not matter what is in their heart or what their rationale is as this is subjective. The set in question is a wonderful set .
In my opinion when the registry is used as a tool for advertising it lessens the importance of the registry to its members. When PCGS allows sets to be listed in this manner they are trading on their good name and unfortunately they can not trade to get it back.
People will come and go and the set will stay at the ATF and most will forget the whole incident. Although this is not the only example. Joe
<< <i>Isn't this registry abuse? >>
(even if it is used for advertising) NO!
I have seen other sets listed and they didn't get bashed. There was a set of Fivaz Mercury Dimes listed by B&M (a division of CU at that time). I don't remember any complaints. Now they were not number one, so maybe that had something to do with it.
This thread was/is a great read though!
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
ZERBE
<< <i><< Isn't this registry abuse? >>
(even if it is used for advertising) NO! >>
Obviously, it was under the PCGS guidelines. Otherwise BJ would not have edited out the pitch for the upcoming Heritage auction.
Russ, NCNE
Bet she did keep the post!
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
As sets that are owned by people with no thoughts of registering them are brought to auction houses and their owners are told you will get more bang for the buck if we list it a disservice is done to those building sets and using the registry as a place to share pride of ownership.
In my opinion this discourages collectors from trying to attain a high registry ranking and indirectly impacts the price of PCGS slabs. I realize this is taking it to an extream but if they are in for a penny they are in for a pound.