How do you define a "set"?

RYK

How do you define a "set" (with respect to coins, of course)?

Is it defined by the album makers, the regsitry, the Red Book, specialty authors?

Does it have to include all of the dates and mintmarks or can it just be the dates?

Can you exclude the stoppers and still be complete?

Can you have, for example, 10 seated quarters or Frankies of various dates, types, and mintmarks and call it a set?

Is there a critical number of coins for a set to be legit (ie. are 1908-S and 1909-S IHCs a "set" of S.F. IHCs)?

roadrunner

A set is usually at least 2 coins. Could be construed to be 1 also.

The shortest set I ever collected would have had 4 coins in it.
I had found 3 of them.

roadrunner

flaminio

<< <i>Can you exclude the stoppers and still be complete? >>

A set can have pretty much any definition the set-maker ascribes to it. It can be any length, from one coin to thousands. That said, it is my opinion that excluding "stoppers" is the height of wussidom. I've never been a fan of so-called "short sets" -- there's another word for a short set: "incomplete".

There's no shame in incompleteness. There are very few people in the world with the time, resources, and wherewithall to complete every set they attempt. My type set will almost certainly never be completed, as I will likely never obtain a 1796 quarter or 1796-7 half in a condition I find pleasing at a price I'm willing to pay. But that doesn't take away the enjoyment of putting it together at all.

Barberman55

I would think a set meant, all the dates and mint marks for a given series, in a given range, all having around the same grade. Of course, your set doesn't have to include every single year and mint mark for every single year in the series. For example, alot of people, myself included, have completed sets of Washington quarters. My set contained only the 90% silver years of 1932-1964, and the set only contained business strike coins in MS condition. On the other hand, a date set would contain only the Philadelphia issued dates, for a given series.

Shamika

A set is a collection that has a consistant theme through out.

Type set, date set, toning set, grading set, etc.

RYK

Here is my definition of a set:

A grouping of 5 or more coins linked by type, history, or numismatic theme that is more desirable as a grouping than are the individual coins alone.

nwcs

A set is a random grouping of coins for me.

roadrunner

grouping of 5 or more coins linked by type, history, or numismatic theme that is more desirable as a grouping than are the individual coins alone.

I once tried to assemble a gem silver mint set of all 1867 San Francisco issues. There are only 4 of them. No silver dollar.

There are also plenty of people who might call groups of original issue PDS commems as a set. Only 3 coins there.

roadrunner

RYK

I once tried to assemble a gem silver mint set of all 1867 San Francisco issues. There are only 4 of them...

I cannot disagree with you. This is my personal definition. My basis for choosing five as the minimum number of coins for a set are:
1. The number of coins in the proof set of the 50's and 60's.
2. The number of years in the Civil War (and therefore the number of coins in a "Civil War set").
3. The number of coins you can fit into an NGC multi-coin holder.
4. The number of mints that struck an 1857 half eagle (P, C, D, O, S).

Harmonic convergence or just arbitrary? Your choice. There are certainly exceptions for every rule, and I will allow one for the silver gem SF set of 1867.

Baley

Here is my definition of a set: A grouping of 5 or more coins linked by type, history, or numismatic theme that is more desirable as a grouping than are the individual coins alone.

I'm working on my set of 1805 quarters by Browning die variety and die state.

Another definition would be a set as defined by a reference book (I'm doing draped halves by Redbook (major) variety, as well as by Overton) or a set as defined by an album like a Dansco or a Whitman, I've also used these brand albums for series sets by date/mm, with or without proofs. They don't include special "varieties" in the set for these later date coins, and neither do I.

A collector can define a set any way they choose, but by reference book or album is a conventional way, and as broad, narrow, or focused as the collector wishes..

Julian

Collectors can define their own sets.

A collection can be nickels that were made in even years, for instance.

However, if you wish to collect according to a Registry set, then you have to meet the definition of that set.

There are no wrong collections.

The collectors enthusiasm remains the most important part of any collections.

Jdurg

I define a 'set' as a complete run of a specific coin from it's first year of use to its final year of use. In order to complete the 'set', one must have a sample of every coin that was intended to be minted by the U.S. Mint. This means one coin from every mint for every year, as well as the proof coins. Errors and die varieties are not included as they were not 'intentional' productions by the mint. Varieties like big date/small date, however, would be included as those are intentional varities and not simple 'laziness' varieties. (Like an 8 over 7 variety, etc. etc.)

JrGMan2004

A set is a specific goal or set of goals that I set out to accomplish...

MadMarty

three of a kind!

Cratylus

I tend to differentiate between a set and a series.

To me, a set is any group of coins that a collector wishes to obtain. It might be a group of quarters (date and mint mark) from their birth year. It might be a collection of proofs from a particular historical period (such as the Civil War). It might be a set of every type produced by the mint since its inception. The point is that the set is defined by the particular collector who is doing the assembling.

A series, on the other hand, is a complete date and mint mark run of the same type, such as Barber Halves or Standing Liberty Quarters. In my opinion, this would not include die varieties or marriages, overdates, recognized errors, etc.

291fifth

Collectors who have any sense define "set" the way THEY see fit. I have little use for album makers who fail to include the Fugio Cent in their large cent or type set albums while always including coins like the 1937-D Three-legged Buffalo nickel of the 1922-D No D Cent in their respective albums.

RYK

If I say that I want to acquire a group of 10 seated quarters in AU-58 of various dates, is that a set of AU-58 seated quarters?

What about five AU-58 SF seated quarters from the Civil War years (1861-S through 1865-S)?

coinkat

a set can be what you want... however, a complete set has some limitations and even that could be debated until a very hot place freezes over...

edited to add: I guess there is no reason one could not have a complete set that would be a subset of a larger set. Confused yet? Think about a Morgan set of New Orleans Morgan Dollars or even San Francisco mint Franklin Halfs.

relayer

A group of coins sharing a common theme

tradedollarnut

I can think of some pretty nice 'sets' that only have two items!


ps - the CC seated dollars number 4.

RYK

I can think of some pretty nice 'sets' that only have two items!

I will spare you the PM from Russ. I knew I was going to get it from someone. Thank goodness my wife and kids were not in the room.