Should the 64-Present Jefferson set end and start a new one?

clackamas

With the 100% design change for 2005 and a 39 year run I think it is time to retire the 65-present Jefferson set. It is already longer than the 38-64 set by 13 years. If a new design does not end a set what will? Will this be a 1964-2056 set? I say we end it with 2003 being the last year (last year of the mostly intact design) and start a 2004-present set.

Jefferson guys, what do you think?

mademan

I agree !!!- I am having a time buying the coins that were in the set when I started last year. Now I have to try to buy fine , nice old Jeffersons and at the same time try to determine if the current price for a Peace Medal, or Keel boat or Bison is a good price or will they get cheaper latter. I am ready give up on my 1938-present set as it becomes the Albatross I love to hate. MM

NIckelCollector

I think the answer to this question may depend on whether you collect Jefferson nickels or full step nickels.

In my opinion if the 2006 design does not have "full steps" then I agree the set should end in 2003.

fcloud

It is only a simple design change. It is still a Jefferson nickel, so I guess the set will continue just as the bicentenial coins did not stop their sets.

clackamas

<< <i>It is only a simple design change. It is still a Jefferson nickel, so I guess the set will continue just as the bicentenial coins did not stop their sets. >>



It is more like the buffalo than the old jefferson. And the design change is not small, with this logic all sets that simply changed metal should be joined.

FullStepJeffs

Some of you already know my thoughts on this, but for those that dont, here it is...

I think it is sad that the 65-03 Set still hasn't received any love from PCGS or many other collectors... the PCGS price guide isn't even close on most dates and grades for this series, let alone, the late dates. Some collectors seem to think the mint should make high relief coins again, even though I believe that's a pipe dream... and I've never actually seen a high relief US coin made out of nickel. Has anyone else?

The fact that many of us now have 4 or more new coins to find for 2005 and include in the set, as well as the next potentially 25 or more years of 2006 and beyond (I'm sure Frank/Nickel Collector already knows the 2006 will have some semblence of steps on the reverse), makes me think that sooner, rather than later, more and more collectors will possibly leave this series.

Also, I think Mr Hall has made a potentially difficult decision for many of us... Do we end the fight looking for these coins or continue on? The fact that as long as the 65 - 03 Set continues, it means that none of us in that series will ever be able to have the coins pedigreed, because the set must be 100% complete in order to do it (as long as they keep adding coins to the set, it cant be 100% complete). I'm thinking Clackamas agrees with me on this when I say this after he probably found out that PCGS wont put his name on his 68-D because the coin is still in an open series, even though his 68 Mint Set is completed (which the pedigree should be given due to the rarity of his coin).

I just wonder how much money Ray (ballpark $100K+), JHF (ballpark $100K+), or Frank (I'll let you answer that one Frank) have in this series... I for one have $17+K in it already... Most of the big boys probably think that's chump change, but for a guy making enlisted pay in the Air Force, it could be quite a nest egg if I departed (don't get happy yet The Man 511). I have started thinking what to do with the money once my set sells, which has taken the last 4+ years of my life finding. A few years before I was only interested in the early dates of Jeffersons, but found I didnt have the capital to even get close to the top guys. So, I bought Tim Schmitz backup coins and have been building and in the top 6 ever since).

Therefore, if I've completely confused you... I say it this way... I am very sad that PCGS has included the 2004, 2005, and potentially 2006 Jeffersons and beyond into this set. FYI... if 2006 coins are included... I'm done and selling will commence. Don't get me wrong though, I have thoroughly enjoyed the hunt through all the 1,000's of Jeffersons looking for the one or two coins that were gems.

Many will disagree with this statement, but 1965 to somewhere in the 1990's coins are, IMHO, much rarer than the earlier coins in the series for condition and grade. Why? Because earlier coins were saved in mass by the early roll collectors and the PAK club. After the roll craze ended, very few people saved rolls of BU coins and with the fact that the mint lowered pressure, used old master hubs for many years and by Gawd, they were just nickels... nobody cared about them. Even mint sets I've looked at have very few top dawgs in them.

Okay, I've said more than I should... Mr Hall... you can fix this... I think you're the only one who can.

BTW, I will still love these coins no matter what the rest of the hobby thinks!

End of Rant (even though it was all over the place)!


Steve

haletj

1938-1964 and 1965-2003 are both absurd. IT IS ONE SET 1938-2003. Now there are major design changes so I guess it is up to the individual collector as to whether 2004- should be part of the Jeff set or a new set.

fcloud

<< <i>It is more like the buffalo than the old jefferson. And the design change is not small, with this logic all sets that simply changed metal should be joined. >>



As much as I like the change, it is still a Jefferson Nickel. The Virginia senators and congressman will not allow the removal of Jefferson from the nickel. I think they think they own it or something.

I can see a point where the set should break off but it is still a continuous run from 1938 to date. I think the only reason it breaks off at 1964 is because that is where Whitman books did the break. With the registry there is no holes in books to fill.

Should type one Buffalo Nickels be only in their own set? That was a design change. Or how about a 1921 and 1922 High Relief Peace Dollars. 1938 and reverse of 38 1939 Jeffersons? These designs are different. Should the war nickels be removed from the set? They are made of a different composition...

Back in the days when I collected sets, I had a complete set of Jeffersons from 1938 to the date in which I sold them. I like Jeffersons, but it is still a Jefferson with changes.






>>>I know what does this dumb dime collector know anyway

FullStepJeffs

I understand what your saying fcloud, but maybe I wasn't as specific as I should have been... here's the point I was trying to make (sorry... anger sometimes makes me quite scatterbrained)

I have never said, the new nickels shouldnt be part of the over all Jefferson Nickel series... and I hope that no one else is saying that either. My point is... the 38 to 64 Set was ended as the early set and can be pedigreed (and I think the main reason the set was ended was because most of the other current series changed metal content, not because of the Whitman folder...) the 65 to 03 or at the most to 05 should be the middle set... and the 06 forward should be the third. To say... hey, lets just keep all the Jefferson Nickels from 65 to gawd knows whenever and have at least 6 major varieties: 1. 65-03... 2. Peace... 3. Keel... 4. Buffalo... 5. Western Waters and 6. Everything after 2006 (which will probably be for the next 50 years)... is IMHO... any way I can look at it... time to sell this registry set and look to other possibilities.

Edited to add... And I'm primarily talking about the Registry Set world... the possibility that I wont need to continue buying more and more years of coins and can finally upgade bigtime and/or the potential for pedigree-ing these coins or not being able to at all... thats all I'm talking about.

Min-rant complete.

Steve

fcloud

Steve,



<< <i>the 38 to 64 Set was ended as the early set and can be pedigreed >>



From my understaning with the people at PCGS, they won't pedigree moderns, so even if the broke off the set, you still can't get a pedigree (unless they have different rule for different clients). When I asked about a pedigree at a show, they made it very clear they won't (don't) do modern coins.

Of course I have seen some moderns done, so maybe you're okay with them.

cladking

<< <i>



The fact that many of us now have 4 or more new coins to find for 2005 and include in the set, as well as the next potentially 25 or more years of 2006 and beyond (I'm sure Frank/Nickel Collector already knows the 2006 will have some semblence of steps on the reverse), makes me think that sooner, rather than later, more and more collectors will possibly leave this series. >>



It would seem that there will be increasing numbers of collectors for the later date coins. Not
only are more and more beginners starting sets from circulation but old timers are starting to
realize that the set didn't end at 1964. There are probably six or eight of the '38 to '64 sets
than there are of the '65 to '03. It's those who are picking up the coins in circulation who are
likely to turn out to be the greatest fact. There are many thousands adding the later dates to
existing collections but there may be many millions who will eventually desire the entire set. All
these people will find that the later dates are not only scarcer in FS but often scarcer in unc, AU,
XF and VF.

It is quite possible that each change which is made will result in more interest rather than less.
It's also likely that the cost of production will cause it to stop being made before too many years
have passed.


<< <i>
Many will disagree with this statement, but 1965 to somewhere in the 1990's coins are, IMHO, much rarer than the earlier coins in the series for condition and grade. Why? Because earlier coins were saved in mass by the early roll collectors and the PAK club. After the roll craze ended, very few people saved rolls of BU coins and with the fact that the mint lowered pressure, used old master hubs for many years and by Gawd, they were just nickels... nobody cared about them. Even mint sets I've looked at have very few top dawgs in them.
>>



There have been some people saving these coins but they're so difficult to find that there can be
no large hordes. There was no market for them (except FS) so high grade examples didn't freely
trade. Even if somebody could find people to help in the search it would have been costly and
would have required huge courage to sink a lot of time, money, and effort into something that ev-
eryone agreed was junk. These markets were virtually nonexistent until the mid '80's. At that time
I found I could sell the best 2% of mint set coins for about $1 each. It's hard to believe anyone
would work for that sort of money even if the mint sets were free. Rolls are not a viable source of
gems for most dates and these later rolls are too difficult to find even if they were.

DennisH

Yes... and the 'new' set should start with the 2004 coins.

NIckelCollector

The fact that many of us now have 4 or more new coins to find for 2005 and include in the set, as well as the next potentially 25 or more years of 2006 and beyond (I'm sure Frank/Nickel Collector already knows the 2006 will have some semblence of steps on the reverse), makes me think that sooner, rather than later, more and more collectors will possibly leave this series.

If the mint returns to the original Felix Schlag reverse design in 2006, in my opinion these coins will probably not have a full step designation. I would then prefer for the full step set to end in 2003.

I believe with the design changes more interest is being generated and will ultimately result in more collectors entering this series. Hopefully this means prices will continue to increase.

FullStepJeffs

<< <i>

<< <i>



The fact that many of us now have 4 or more new coins to find for 2005 and include in the set, as well as the next potentially 25 or more years of 2006 and beyond (I'm sure Frank/Nickel Collector already knows the 2006 will have some semblence of steps on the reverse), makes me think that sooner, rather than later, more and more collectors will possibly leave this series. >>



It would seem that there will be increasing numbers of collectors for the later date coins. Not
only are more and more beginners starting sets from circulation but old timers are starting to
realize that the set didn't end at 1964. There are probably six or eight of the '38 to '64 sets
than there are of the '65 to '03. It's those who are picking up the coins in circulation who are
likely to turn out to be the greatest fact. There are many thousands adding the later dates to
existing collections but there may be many millions who will eventually desire the entire set. All
these people will find that the later dates are not only scarcer in FS but often scarcer in unc, AU,
XF and VF.

It is quite possible that each change which is made will result in more interest rather than less.
It's also likely that the cost of production will cause it to stop being made before too many years
have passed.


<< <i>


Cladking... and all others... again... ALL I'm talking about is the 65 to Present Registry Set. I'm not trying to say people will walk away from the nickels as a whole, just why I'm not planning to keep going with a Registry Set that wont ever end in my life time. I have no doubt that the changes to the nickel will bring more people into the series, I just want the 65 to Present Set to end... for pedigree purposes and $ for potential future upgrades instead of future years.

I've never said I would walk away from the Jefferson Series, just the 65 to present Registry Set if it continues past 05... I have way too many coins in boxes to ever do that. It's the only coin I collect... period. I would probably go after some form of early proofs, but not for registry purposes... some of the other Registry guys already have that pretty much locked up.

And Cladking... thanks for reitterating that these coins weren't saved... I've heard that from you before... maybe others might finally read it and realize it... but, one of the first steps to finally realizing how conditionally rare these coins might possibly be is to get the registry set closed... I think that would potentially have a great impact on the value of some of these sets... at least I hope it will... maybe then the dealers out there will finally look through all the early coins they have for those PCGS Full Step and/or MS67 examples they probably wont ever find. I'm still waiting for someone to bust a PCGS MS67 (Non-full step) 1965, 1966 or 1967 Non-SMS coin... And, find a 69-D in MS65FS (PCGS)... anybody wanna guess what any of those might go for?

Steve

FullStepJeffs

<< <i>If the mint returns to the original Felix Schlag reverse design in 2006, in my opinion these coins will probably not have a full step designation. I would then prefer for the full step set to end in 2003. >>




Frank,

The 2006, from what I understand, will not have the original Schlag obverse or reverse... tried to find the article showing a picture of the potential replacement (variety nickels had it but it's not there that I can find), but I'm thinking if they use that reverse I've seen before, I think it will be very easy to see the steps and the designation will continue, but both the obverse and reverse will have changed completely. The 2006 is supposedly going to keep the 2005 obverse and have a different reverse. Sorry Frank, figured you already heard that... Jason (variety nickels) chime in here will ya?

Steve

GRANDAM

FullStepJeffs makes sense. (3) sets as far as PCGS is concerned.

1938-64

1965-2003

2004-Date

Works for me.

GrandAm

Schmitz7

I actually think the 2004 coins will be the oddballs. They don't fit the 1938-2003 set, different reverse, nor do they fit the 2005-future set either.

Compa

1938-64

1965-2006

Why?

Because that is when the cent and nickel will both be eliminated from circulation due to the collapse of the US economy and rampant inflation. (the dime gets eliminated in 2007). All of this is due to either extreme gas prices or terrorist attacks that make 9-11 look like a fire drill.

Or maybe they will put Bush on the nickel as the first sitting US president to be depicted on US coinage (why they would want to I have no idea!).

Bottom Line: I really think we need to wait at least a few years before making these divisions just so we can see what the real options will be!

FullStepJeffs

<< <i>1938-64

1965-2006

Why?

Because that is when the cent and nickel will both be eliminated from circulation due to the collapse of the US economy and rampant inflation. (the dime gets eliminated in 2007). All of this is due to either extreme gas prices or terrorist attacks that make 9-11 look like a fire drill.

Or maybe they will put Bush on the nickel as the first sitting US president to be depicted on US coinage (why they would want to I have no idea!).

Bottom Line: I really think we need to wait at least a few years before making these divisions just so we can see what the real options will be! >>




So, what your saying is... the proverbial sky is falling chicken little scenario?

FullStepJeffs

And for those of you still on the fence... I wonder why PCGS made a seperate set for the statehood quarters... arent they the same scenario? Why weren't they kept with the 65-98 Set? Basically, IMHO, this is the same thing... by keeping the 04, 05, and 06 and beyond with the original set of 65 to 03, PCGS thinks the quarters should be seperate, but not the nickels...

I'm not a collector of quarters, but the real question is... how much does the average PCGS MS67 Statehood quater cost? $30 - 50? and how does that compute with the price for an MS67FS coin? I got no hate for the quarter lovers out there, so dont kill me with this... I just wonder why it was good for one, but not the other.

Steve

dbldie55

This is tough. The state quarters were easy as they were a two sided change that was known to be for 10 years and comprise 100 coins (MS set).

The 2004 Nickels have the same obverse, so they belong in the early set just like the two types of 1883 Liberty Nickels belong in one set. This year is a totally new nickel, and if this obverse is to remain in the future, I can see a new set for 2005-. If the design changes again in 2006 (on both sides), do we have a 1 year set (2005), a 2 year set (2004-2005) and 2006-, or put one or both the 2004/2005 in with the 2006. At this time, I can see the set ending in 2004 (with strong arguements for ending with 2003).

cladking

<< <i>This is tough. The state quarters were easy as they were a two sided change that was known to be for 10 years and comprise 100 coins (MS set).

The 2004 Nickels have the same obverse, so they belong in the early set just like the two types of 1883 Liberty Nickels belong in one set. This year is a totally new nickel, and if this obverse is to remain in the future, I can see a new set for 2005-. If the design changes again in 2006 (on both sides), do we have a 1 year set (2005), a 2 year set (2004-2005) and 2006-, or put one or both the 2004/2005 in with the 2006. At this time, I can see the set ending in 2004 (with strong arguements for ending with 2003). >>



I agree.

For simplicity it would be nice to see a 40 year set with the same obverse for '65 to '04
and another set with the same obverse for 2005 and later.

Good arguments can be made to split it up in other ways but it does seem it should be split.

cladking

I asked this question of HomerunHall on the Q&A forum so perhaps he's already thought about it.

clackamas

<< <i>I asked this question of HomerunHall on the Q&A forum so perhaps he's already thought about it. >>



So did I but got no response

fcloud

I think one of the best ways to get the nickel sets divided is to do what it looks like you started to do.



<< <i>I asked this question of HomerunHall on the Q&A forum so perhaps he's already thought about it. >>



The Mercury Dime collectors kept asking for short sets, and after a while, we have them. The squeaky wheel theory.

Good luck on your quest.

From what I have read, it looks like the old obverse is coming back. Anyone heard anything different?

FullStepJeffs

I contacted Mr Hall a few weeks ago, but he said they coins would remain in the current series...

FYI... I completely agree that the 2004 should probably be included with the 65 to 03 set since it has the same obverse... I believe the 2005 should be included with the 2006 and beyond since it's supposed to have the same obverse for the future.

Therefore, a reasonable Registry Set would be the 38 to 64, the 65 to 04, and the 05 to beyond. They could still have the full step and non-full step versions and could have the complete sets as well.

Something else I thought of... that I havent heard anyone else state yet... from what I've seen on PCGS, the Registry Sets seem to be somewhat fluid, ie. every now and then they have changed what the sets have consisted of. A few years ago, before the weighting system, PCGS really didnt care about the step quality and didnt give a bonus for full step coins. Then one day, poof... they turned the entire set into a weighted series without a non-full step set at all... only last year, the non-full step set came back without the weighting. They add sets and reformulate sets somewhat frequently. Therefore, anybody ever thought the possibility existed that after a few years of all of us building this set and including the new coins, that PCGS will then change the set (of course after we all purchase the 2006 coins), thereby giving many of us 6 or more coins into the new set? Just something to think about.

Lilhuff... I completely agree with your thought about the change in sets for the Statehood Quarter... they should be in a seperate set. However, and please tell me I'm wrong... anybody... but once the 2006 nickels come into play, isnt there a Congressional law which states that the series will run for at least 25 years before a change occurs, unless directed by Congress? Just wondering...

Also, FCloud said the moderns aren't being pedigreed... two observations on this thought... I looked at the Rules and Benefits page for the Registry. The information within the pages never says they wont pedigree moderns, it says the Registry Set must be 100% complete... which, if they end the set at 2004, it will have the capability to be 100% complete for anyone. Secondly, amazing how many moderns I've seen with a Pedigree (including Bensons coins, which weren't even in a Registry Set at all), which is what FCloud said as well.

Finally, I still think it's very interesting that most of the big boys of the late date set haven't piped in yet... Ray/JHF (Frank has... Thank You Frank)... calling Ray/JHF... tell us your thoughts please. Again, if the consensus from the rest of you is... leave it alone and lets collect these until we die... then so be it. I dont agree, but I'll shut up, color, and probably start looking for a buyer. I would think that since all three (Ray/JHF/Frank) all have complete sets, they may not care either way, but I have to ask.

BTW... if you can't tell I'm somewhat passionate about this set and these coins... I guess I haven't ranted long enuf...

End of another rant...

Steve

BNE

I think the series should end with last year. New obverse combined with new reverses = new coin.

We have different Liberty serieses every time she changes her head gear, or decides to sit down. We don't have a single "Liberty" series.

The series is long enough. Start a new "Jefferson" series.

rayovac

I would be in favor of ending the late date CS jefferson set at 2003.

Ray Overby

FullStepJeffs

Thanks Ray for your input.

Steve

Justhavingfun

Thank you, Clackamas for starting this interesting thread.

I agree with the people who say that the division into two sets in 1964 -- at least for the nickels -- was artificial.

For the coins that were silver before 1965 and base metal afterwards, i.e., the dimes, quarters, and halves, there really are two sets; pre-1965 and from '65 forward. So for them, starting a new set in 1965 makes sense.

But for the Jefferson nickels, where there's total continuity in 1964/'65, the division into two sets is a joke.

The only such division that's real for the Jefferson nickels is the War Time Nickel Set. During World War II there WAS a change in metal and a minor change in design(the mint marks). So a War Time Nickel set is indeed different and has its own rich, interesting lore.

Now, tell me where's the interesting lore about the division of the Jefferson nickels into two sets, the second beginning in '65? There ain't none -- because there ain't no rhyme or reason for it. But NGC and PCGS will never erase the two sets and merge 'em into one, so why get upset about something you can't change?

The second issue on this thread is where should the Jefferson nickel series end?

The people on this thread who make the case for 2003 make a strong case. So do the people who make the case for 2004. To me, it should end at one or the other, and I don't much care which. But in 2005, you have a different front and a different back, and how can you consider it the same series? Doesn't make sense to me.

Enjoy!


Just Having Fun

cladking

The reason for the division of the Jefferson set at 1964 is artificial. Dropping
the mint marks, proof sets, and mint sets are hardly causes to split a set. Even adding
the designer's initials the next year is no reason to split a set. Mintages fluctuated
wildly across this time and collector's attitude toward new coin changed dramatically
then.

It is really this last that causes the artificial split; before 1965 collectors thought they
could make money and help provide coins for future collectors by saving current coin.
After this most people not only quit saving current coin but also quit collecting it. Most
believed these later coins were mere junk and would always be available. Besides it
is always more interesting to seek coins that are older so collectors simply ended their
collections at 1964 and searched for upgrades or varieties of the earlier coins.

Eventually this split will be mostly forgotten and the set will likely be considered '38-'03
but this may not occur for a couple more generations. Certainly older collectors will
remember that everything in collecting and coins was stood on its head in 1965.

dbldie55

I see the '05s are now listed as optional for the 65-date set. I guess we know where they will fall (at least for now).

FullStepJeffs

Okay, thats the All Time #1, #2, #3, and #5 plus a number of others off the list all for the hopefully new "Middle Date" Series pretty much stating the same thing... Anybody know if #4 is on this forum?

Secondly, I know a number of you asked Mr Hall his opinion... anybody know when he actually answers his Q & A Forum and did anybody ask him to come to this post to reply? Just wondering... if not, I will...

I appreciate Brian starting this thread... it's nice to know I'm not the only one thinking this Registry Set should end.

Steve