Lincoln Proof Sets - Variety vs. Basic Set

ellewood

For the past couple of weeks, I have been pondering why the heck I have even registered myself in the "variety sets" for the Lincoln Cent Proof Series. Does anyone else find themselves in the same boat??? I am sweating it out about upgrading my 1979 & 1981-S TY II's from 68 DCAM's to 69 DCAM's....when what I should really be worried about is the fact that I will NEVER be able to afford (or even FIND) a 1990 No "S" proof. The 1971-S DD proof is also pushing the $600-$800 range in a PR67.....SO WHAT AM I DOING???? It's tough knowing that I will NEVER (and it's safe to say that) complete the variety set.

Anyone else feel the same way out there????? Love to hear your thoughts.....(and thanks for listening to me vent)

merz2

ellwood
I feel the same way.

Steve

Toby,
Here's my feelings about the 1959-current Lincoln Cent proof registries. My personal feeling is that we don't need both a basic and a variety registry for this group of proofs. I believe the 1960 small date, the 1965 thru 1967 SMS, the 1970 small date, the 1979 and 1981 type 2 AND the 1990 no S should be in the basic set. The 1960 Large date/small date and Small date/large date combo's and the 1971 doubled die, while accepted varieties, are NOT MAJOR varieties as proofs and should not be required in the registry. The 1990 no S is a MAJOR error coin in the proof series and should be included. I look at all the price listings like Coin Values, Heritage, Numismatic News Coin Trends and they all report on the coins I show above and don't report on the three varieties I would not include. The 1960 & 1970 small dates and the 1979 & 1981 type 2 mint marks are fairly inexpensive too. So is the three SMS coins. No reason they couldn't be collected by everyone in one basic set. That being the case, the only tough, expensive coin is the 1990 no S. It should be the "goal" of every Lincoln cent proof memorial cent collector to get one eventually. Sure it costs money. It will cost more money in the future, but it is a dream toward a complete collection. I have mine so it may sound self serving, but that is what I think the challenge should be in this registry "game". Not going from PR68 to PR69. By the way, my registry has both the 1979 and 1981 type 2's in PR 68. I very happy with that. Again, all this is just my opinion. Good luck. Steve

ellewood

congrats on having the 90 no "s" in your pocket....but you will NEVER convince me that a coin will that low of a pop belongs in the "basic" set. That is nuts. Thanks for your input! Your proof collection is awesome!!!

Steve

Toby,
You have a super proof collection. Congratulations!
Steve

phosphat

Hello, just thought that I would add something to this thread.

I have been collecting Lincolns since I was 10 years old and have loved the whole series. I started on my Proof Lincolns (1950 to date and 1959 to date with varieties) sets [CLif's Proofs] only about 4 years ago with the challenge (brought on by economic necessities) that I would find raw and make the grade for the toughest coins, and buy the cheaper ones. This is a daunting task but well worth the challenge. I made my 1990 no S last year (in 69DCAM) and you should have seen me dance! This is why there should be a Varieties Set in my opinion. The basic set is fine and I think properly established - after all the mint did not intend to make large and small dates, or leave the S off.

I will tell you the toughest part is learning what to look for to get the good stuff. I still don't have the touch to see the difference between a 69 and a 70 - it may be a matter of the alignment of the planets for all I know. What I do know is it is a lot of fun discussing this at the shows.

Good collecting - and good luck!
CLif

My Lincoln Proof Set

wondercoin

Toby: "I feel your pain". I am also now "seriously" collecting both sets and I will eventually need to pick up a 90 NO S to finish up the variety set. To make matters "worse", I also need to buy the PR70's (I know a decision you elected not to do). IMHO, the key is ones time horizon- I have 3-5+ years set aside to improve this collection. Given enough time, anything is possible. Of course, if I needed to buy all the coins tomorrow, I would not be interested.

Wondercoin

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Don't worry guys...I consigned two raw 1990 No S proof sets to the Heritage ANA auction.No Reserves

Stewart

merz2

Stewart
Say you didn't.The wife would kill me if I even bid on one,because I know what it will take to get one.

Steve

<< <i> The basic set is fine and I think properly established - after all the mint did not intend to make large and small dates, or leave the S off. >>



Cliff, you have a truly GREAT set. Congratulations!

Just one point about your above quote. The US Mint DID intend to make the small dates and the changed "s" on the type 2's of 1979 & 1981. They actually redid the die at the date or the mint mark. It was a real minor design change but the hobby picked up on it. Many design changes are so minor that no one notices. An error coin, as opposed to a variety coin is where the mint did NOT INTEND to change the design. Such coins include in the Lincoln series, the 1990 no S proof, the 1955 doubled die and all other doubled dies and the 1922 plain. There is a difference between whether the US Mint intended the design change or didn't intend the design change, but many in the hobby treat both as the same kind of varieties. Steve

ellewood

Stewart....what do you expect them to go for? Ballpark????

Typetone

Ellewood:

I understand your point. I am not too interested in varieties, though I like the small date pieces. So, I would say that it depends on your interests. If you like variety collecting, stick with the game and the pain. You will have the coins you want when finished. If you don't really collect varieties then forget it. There is plenty of competition and interest in the basic set. If I decided to reregister my set, I would do basic only, but still own at least the 1960 small date. I don't really care about the SMS pieces and don't expect to buy them. I would rather put my money into 1950 to 1958 pieces (which I really like) than 1959 to date varieties.

Greg

perfectstrike

There should be more added to the varieties set. There are two other doubled dies that PCGS doesn't recognize in the series. The 1971 has two varieties recognized by PCGS, both should be required. The 1970 LG/SM is as visible on the date as the 1971 FS032 and more so than the FS033. I guess PCGS is against it because it's not a class 2 doubled die. At least one of the 1961-1964 doubled dies might also be considered even though none are major varieties. Until the doctor bills and house repair bills are paid off I can only dream about the 1990 noS, unless I happen to stumble on one myself.

perfectstrike

phosphat

Steve,



<< <i>RE: 'An error coin, as opposed to a variety coin is where the mint did NOT INTEND to change the design. Such coins include in the Lincoln series, the 1990 no S proof, the 1955 doubled die and all other doubled dies and the 1922 plain. There is a difference between whether the US Mint intended the design change or didn't intend the design change, but many in the hobby treat both as the same kind of varieties.' >>




Thanks for the corrections - indeed when I was writing my point about varieties vs basic set I really got it wrong about including as errors the large and small date varieties (and by implication the clear S/ filled S varities) [I know better, just was going too fast]. The mint did and does make alterations to the dies that we pick up on (keeps us on our toes).

I think the basic sets should comprise the most abundant example of the year and the variety sets contain all the major varieties and some of the errors. I don't think it too unreasonable to include in the variety set errors such as double dies (including large/small and small/large dates), and no S varieties. I would not include cracked dies and other minor errors such as weak ears or filled dies.

CLif