Pattern Registry Sets - Any suggestions?

MrEureka

If you collect or would consider someday collecting patterns, what would you collect? Would you want to see a Registry Set for anything in particular?

RYK

I think it would be a very difficult theme to have a Registry. So many issues, so many R7 and R8 coins. As an outsider, I would have no clue where to begin.

tradedollarnut

I want to see the Redbook Gobrecht set - which is a combination of recognized circulation issues and pattern issues..... but I'd like to see it all in one place!

oreville

Mr Eureka:

I would suggest denominational type sets, e.g. 1c, 3c, 5c, 1/2 10c, 20c, 25c, etc. as one way of dividing patterns into smaller sets.

Then I would further break those sets into smaller sets based on the various metals.

Finally, I would attempt to break the sets into major designs as needed.

Also possible die trials of the exact same regular coin designs as additional set(s).

kranky

I don't think patterns really match up well with the Registry Set concept. The only thing I can think of is something to do with the Standard Silver ones, but what's the point of one Registry Set devoted to patterns? The alternative is to generate a number of contrived sets just to have multiple sets available in the Registry, like:
- Year prior to a series' first issue from regular dies and planchet composition
- Never-issued design, aluminum planchets, restrikes
- Design used on different denomination than regular issue

Patterns are a fascinating area of numismatics, and I wish I could pursue them, but I don't think they work for a Registry Set.

JrGMan2004

While Patterns are currently way beyond my means...... I hope in the coming years to be able to... and I would like to complete the set of Morgan Dimes... in both Copper and Silver...

cosmicdebris

Karl Goetz Patterns

Catch22

If the goal was to make the registry appeal to the largest number of people, I would break the patterns down by denomination and then by Rarity Rating. For example, you could have a pattern set of R-3 Cents, R-4 Cents or a combination of R-2 through R-4 Cents. Perhaps R-2 through R-5 as one registry and R-6 through Unique as another registry.

If you were to combine all patterns and leave it at that, you wouldn't have more than a handful that would ever consider participating. Any way you slice it, you are appealing to a very small group of numismatists.

Julian

There are several people that already collect certain areas. 2c, 3c, 5c, FE c, Barber designs, Morgan designs, etc.

I remember that Mr. E and HRH had discussed this idea before. My idea would be for the collector to map out his set for registry inclusion and have it pass by a board of experts. It may just be that simple.

I do have to admit that I am the last person to be a registry expert. I believe that some coins are worth more than others for point values. That may be the trickiest part, but I am pretty sure that a few experts can work it out.

I would be happy to serve on a board of experts for patterns, and even some other series, as well.

MrEureka

I would be happy to serve on a board of experts for patterns

PM sent.

oreville

To keep things simple, I would keep the denominational sets unweighted and treat the different sets as "mini type sets."

Yes, grade would count but not necessarily rarity. Otherwise, it gets too involved.

Lakesammman

Good suggestions. I think a registry set of small cent patterns would be great, the 12 piece set of 1858. None of them are rare enough to preclude a number of people from completing the set. Other variations could be done (FE, IHC, various metals, etc) but the 12 piece set seems most "natural".

RKKay

My computer will only let me scroll down a few lines, so if I repeat what anyone has already said, I'm sorry. I feel the sets need to be more specialized to even the playing field beyond 1c, 3c, etc. For example, 1858 cents, aluminum cents, FE cents, 1881-1882 Lib Nickels, 1883 Lib Nickels, 1877 (or Morgan) halves, The Big Four, etc.

BaronVonBaugh

Definitely the 1858 transitional pattern cents!

RKKay

Oops.

boiler78

Of course the obvious answer for me would be Morgan patterns but thats probably not the most practical place to start.

I think a logical starting point would be the 1858 small cent transitional patterns followed by the Liberty and Shield nickels.

The "big four"
Amazonian sets individually by composition
Washlady sets individually by composition
Schoolgirl dollars (2 coin set not counting lead)
Shield Earring sets individually by composition

I think PCGS should consider weighting every Judd number currently in their data base using the rarity ratings assigned by either the uspatterns website or the new Judd book and apply bonus points for cam/dcam/rb/red just like they do on every other series. Once the weighting has been completed the creation of subsets should be much easier.

Ultimately it would be nice to be able to register a denominational pattern typeset where a member could use any pattern that fit the denomination description in their set.

Of course the possibilities are almost endless but IMO these would be among the most popular.

Then there are always year sets.

If there is anything I can do to help please let me know.

Mark

JrGMan2004

The set I want to do ----------------------->

boiler78

By George I think the kids on to something!

RKKay

Boiler would have the best registry set. He is the 21st century Garrett.

oreville

If you all take a look at the Territorials and California Fractionals Registry sets, PCGS came up with some very intelligent groupings that actually aided many in collecting fractionals.

Possibly another look might help some of you come up with even more ideas.

shylock

What Lakesammman, Boiler78, RKay and BaronVonBaugh said! The Flying Eagle/Indian cent transitionals would be a very practical place to start. Maybe PCGS could use them as a "test set" to work out the kinks.

Mark

I am currently away from my Judd books, but as I recall for the 1858 cent patterns, there often are slightly different varieties for the same coins--5 leaves vrs 6 leaves, pointed bust versus rounded bust, high date versus low date. Personally, I hope that if CU does establish an 1858 cent registry, that all the varieties can be used for a particular coin and that not all the varieties are required in the registry. As far as the weighting goes, I guess I'd like to see the weights set for the most common of the varieties. In other words, make the set similar to the 50 coin commemorative set wherein regardless of whether the collector includes a 1920 or 1921 Pilgrim commemorative, the coin essentially receives the weight offered the more common 1920 Pilgrim half.

Does anyone else have thoughts/comments?

Mark

boiler78

Mark- PCGS doesn't currently recognize the 1858 small cent varieties so that wouldn't be an issue. A bigger issue might be the inclusion of the regular issue business strike SL in the set rather than the much more expensive proof. Rick Snow suggests that SL business strikes with the low leaf reverse were included in at least some of the 12 piece sets.

Rick- I am hardly the next Garrett and I blush at the thought of being mentioned in the same sentence.
I am currently struggling to duplicate a small fraction of the Garrett collection.

IrishMike

Not an area I am very familiar with at all, but why not have one by metals, copper, silver, aluminum, gold etc and or by denomination. This would keep pattern collectors busy for a long long time.

wondercoin

If you collect or would consider someday collecting patterns, what would you collect? Would you want to see a Registry Set for anything in particular?

I collect pattern nickels - all kinds. Other than a marketing tool for pattern dealers, I see no reason to have pattern registry sets. I, for one, as a serious pattern collector have no interest in it whatsoever.
Last I checked MORE THAN 1/2 THE COINS in the global pattern nickel set have never had a single specimen graded by either PCGS or NGC! I believe PCGS has consistently utilized a rule when it comes to scarce variety coins that (5) coins need to be graded by PCGS before a coin can be included in the Registry. If the same rule was applied to pattern nickels, MORE THAN 1/2 THE COLLECTION would not be even included in the Registry (probably ever)! Think about that - having a registry where more than 1/2 the coins in the collection are unobtainable. Again, PCGS has consistently required (5) coins be in the pop report on a particular coin before it can be considered for inclusion in a Registry set. Why should patterns be the exception to the rule? I see no reason for it.

If pattern dealers lobby hard enough, I suspect they may make headway on the quest, but, I personally hope it is many years away. Incidently, my position on this subject has been constant for several years now.

If I am not in the majority, I understand. But, Andy asked a question of the pattern collectors here (which I once read on his website he estimated at a mere couple hundred serious collectors in total) and I wanted to set out my honest opinion on the subject as a serious collector in the field.

Wondercoin

MrEureka

Other than a marketing tool for pattern dealers, I see no reason to have pattern registry sets.

The best reason is not obvious. If you are new to patterns and take a first look at the Judd book, or even at USPatterns.com, it is not easy to figure out which coins would/could/should be collected together. It's arranged chronologically, which is not the way patterns are generally colllected. To understand how confusing and uninviting that is, consider what the Red Book would be like if it was arranged chronologically instead of by type. Or for that matter, what if Whitman folders weren't sold for sets, but by date range. (Album #42 would be for cover all coins struck in 1864 to 1867, etc.)

Creating Registry Sets essentially reorganizes the Judd book into obvious, focused, highly collectable sets. There are many complicating factors, as all of you that know patterns can easily see, but the job can be done. And for all it's worth, as the project comes together I'm getting very excited about what the Registry Sets can do for pattern collecting.

Finally, as for the "Rule of 5", I'll strongly recommend to PCGS that they abandon the rule for patterns. I trust the reasons are obvious to all.

Dennis88

What about off metal strikes from a certain demonation and period, like 1850-1880 double eagles.....

Just an idea,

Dennis

wondercoin

"Finally, as for the "Rule of 5", I'll strongly recommend to PCGS that they abandon the rule for patterns. I trust the reasons are obvious to all."

Andy: First, let me say that I will spend no time either pressing for a pattern Registry, or fighting against one - there are benefits and burdens on both sides. To me, patterns are sort of like the surfing hobby of the 1960's. The dream of commercializing patterns, so that most collectors on the bourse floor have some in their collection ten or twenty years from now is sort of like commercializing surfing - the thought of those virgin beaches becoming chock full of new surfers - there is certainly good and bad in that in the original surfers eyes.

Anyway, I hope PCGS does not BREAK their "5 coin rule" for patterns. Abandoning it across the board for all series of coins is fair, but, to create special exceptions to rules to create Registries for pattern coins - well, let's just say I hope it doesn't happen all too quickly.

I admit - it is fun when the circus comes to town, but, I'd rather the tigers remain in the jungle, where they belong, and never captured in the first place. But, of course, virtually no one could see a tiger then.

Just my 2 cents.

Wondercoin

P.S. Your concern about the reference books is fair - so fix the books

boiler78

Mitch
If you don't want to play the pattern registry game with your collection thats fine but why would you want to deny those of us who do the opportunity to participate? As a pattern collector I am anxious to see the registry develop and I see more collectors pushing for it than dealers.

As far as the "rule of 5" is concerned, I don't think that is cast in stone at PCGS. Can you say Bingles?


"Other than a marketing tool for pattern dealers, I see no reason to have pattern registry sets." Mitch-couldn't the same statement be made about modern registry sets?

Mark

IrishMike

<< <i>Mitch
If you don't want to play the pattern registry game with your collection thats fine but why would you want to deny those of us who do the opportunity to participate? As a pattern collector I am anxious to see the registry develop and I see more collectors pushing for it than dealers.

As far as the "rule of 5" is concerned, I don't think that is cast in stone at PCGS. Can you say Bingles?


"Other than a marketing tool for pattern dealers, I see no reason to have pattern registry sets." Mitch-couldn't the same statement be made about modern registry sets?

Mark >>



Not if you make your living selling modern registry set coins.

tradedollarnut

The solution seems obvious: You have both a 'basic' set [mainstream, relatively high pop coins] and a 'variety' set [all the coins - high pop and low pop].

For instance, for the Gobrechts:

Basic Set: As listed in the Redbook. J-58, J-60 first original, J-60 second original, J-84, J-104

Variety Set: every Judd number. All the star combinations, edge combinations and metal combinations possible - whether 5 graded or not.

dbldie55

<< <i>Other than a marketing tool for pattern dealers, I see no reason to have pattern registry sets. >>



It seemed to be a good reason to create the registry forum.

wondercoin

Mark: Deny others the right? Didn't I make it clear that I would neither lobby for or against patterns with PCGS?

I think you might agree that I am not the only pattern collector out there that has no interest in a registry for patterns. Perhaps the only one in the handful or two commenting here at this time.

And, if your point is patterns should have the right to be marketed/ telemarketed the same way modern coins are - well, of course they have that right. Just like one day I envision, some rare moderns will be museum pieces of the highest order.

But, again, I gave my opinion on the subject and, if it is the minority opinion among pattern collectors, I accept that. I am happy to discuss the issues in a civil manner here, but, have no interest in getting into a "quarrel" with fellow pattern collectors.

Wondercoin

MrEureka

Your concern about the reference books is fair - so fix the books

I'll push for some related changes to Judd - nothing major - but I'm not writing a new book. To accomplish the same thing in print that I can do with the Registry Sets, I'd need a new numbering system, substantial redundancy (for coins that fit in multiple sets), and a place to put the very small number of coins that just don't seem to fit in any set. The closer you look at the problems, the more problematic it gets. Trust me on that. I've been trying to solve this problem for more than five years.

wondercoin

Andy: I had not considered the registry as a possible aid to the text books. I personally appreciate all the work/research you have and are putting into patterns.

TDN: Your suggestion makes a great deal of sense.

Wondercoin

boiler78

Mitch- I am not trying to pick a fight. I am just trying to understand you opposition to the pattern registry. It all seems pretty simple to me. PCGS has created hundreds of registry sets with more coming everyday. I have no interest in 99.9% of those sets so I choose not to participate in those registrys. You don't see a need for a pattern registry and thats fine too. Don't play nuff said.

Mark

wondercoin

"I am just trying to understand you opposition to the pattern registry"

Mark: I have always felt the "Rule of 5" was fair as applied to all the other registry sets, both classic and modern. Again, if such a rule was also applied to patterns - more than 1/2 the coins in my pattern series of choice would be excluded from the Registry. I simply did not support making a single exception to this rule for pattern coins - BUT, I have an open mind and am listening to what others, like yourself, have to say on the subject.

Wondercoin

Lakesammman

The best reason is not obvious. If you are new to patterns and take a first look at the Judd book, or even at USPatterns.com, it is not easy to figure out which coins would/could/should be collected together. It's arranged chronologically, which is not the way patterns are generally colllected. To understand how confusing and uninviting that is, consider what the Red Book would be like if it was arranged chronologically instead of by type. Or for that matter, what if Whitman folders weren't sold for sets, but by date range. (Album #42 would be for cover all coins struck in 1864 to 1867, etc.)

Amen to that. You've succinctly put into words what was only a visceral uneasiness for me. Like Mitch said, thanks for all the time and effort you've put into this. For someone who likes patterns but doesn't really know where to go with it (beyond small cents), I really look forward to seeing what "you" come up with.

RKKay

<< <i>Mark: Deny others the right? Didn't I make it clear that I would neither lobby for or against patterns with PCGS? >>



Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. Mitch. That is a crock, as not only have you slammed pattern registries from day one, on these boards, which I'm sure people at PCGS have never viewed, but such an adamant position belies your true avaricious motives, which we all are aware of. Tell me how much it would cost to put together an 1858 pattern cent collection in PR 63. How muc is one of your MS69 Illinois state quarters?

tradedollarnut

The so called Rule of Five only has been applied to varieties - not mintages. There are many coins with less than 5 graded on the Registry.

For instance: the 1870-S half dime, the 1873-CC NA dime, the 1853-O NA half, the 1870-S dollar, the 1885 trade dollar, the 1933 $20 gold, etc etc etc

wondercoin

Rick: An MS69 ILL. would be a great deal of money no doubt - and perhaps one day PCGS might even grade a single coin.

Have a nice day.

Wondercoin

RKKay

<< <i>An MS69 ILL. would be a great deal of money no doubt - and perhaps one day PCGS might even grade a single coin. >>



Maybe if I ask you about some of the other PORs on your website, you'll immediately remove them as well, before responding? I don't know of any pattern dealers who would list a PR 67 Schoolgirl POR on their website, or for that matter, any coin that is as yet unkknown.

wondercoin

Rick: I do not list an IL MS69 on any of my websites - you have made an error on that I suspect. I am out the rest of the day.

Wondercoin

Lakesammman

Assisting collectors with building Registry sets and a strong buyer and seller of these sets. Please also visit my websites at www.wondercoins.com, www.wondercoin.com and www.pcgswholesale.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.

Uh, except registry PATTERN sets......they're not worth doing??

Edit: Typo correct.

JrGMan2004

I haven't read much past the first 25 posts or so, so this may have been suggested... but how about just a Display registry? Enter what ever pattern coins you have... then the coins are weighted by Rarity Rating, and then bonuses for grades, and designations, and then the Weighted GPA averaged out for your set, and then your set is ranked from there? Yeah, it means that a person with fewer coins that are higher graded and higher rarity will rank higher than a collection with 100 patterns that are more common and lower graded... but, it would still make it a mix-and-match, collect whatever fits your fancy...

MrEureka

The solution seems obvious

It is, as long as you only look at Gobrechts.

tradedollarnut

So.... what's your point?

MrEureka

So.... what's your point?

Nothing. Oh, BTW, I'm going to include that pop one aluminum J-59a in the Gobrecht set.

tradedollarnut

As an overt bribe to prevent that from happening, I'll let loose with one more suggestion:

I always thought a pattern type set would be neat. Especially an off metal set of Regular Die Trial Pieces [yeah, I know - not pure patterns].

MrEureka

I always thought a pattern type set would be neat. Especially an off metal set of Regular Die Trial Pieces

In theory. The "problem" with that is that the most common die trials by far are 1868 and 1869's in aluminum. So you might as well just build an 1868 or 1869 solid date set. Or buy one in the original case.



Edited to say that of course there will be other types of type sets. Just probably not regular dies trial pieces.