Hey pattern registry folks, where are you?? TDN??

Lakesammman

There are about 15 registry sets with roughly 88 categories - where the heck are you?? List those suckers! We know you're out there.

TDN - got any Gobrechts?? Would look good under the Legend name....

tradedollarnut

The two available sets just don't fit what I'm trying to do. I based my set on the Redbook, which lists 5 major coins. One [J-60a] isn't even listable in either available set.

The 3 regular issue coins I have are listed here: Seated Dollar Proof Set

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

I believe Mr. Eureka listed too many sets that are too difficult to complete.
Perhaps you can get the Pattern Man to list his coins ?

Stewart

wondercoin

Lakes - I plan on registering my pattern sets shortly. I thought Andy came up with some sensational pattern Registries - well thought out. I wasn't a fan of pattern registries, but, Andy's effort has really changed my opinion on the subject.

Just one question perhaps you or Andy can answer - if there is a Unique pattern or even one where two coins are known, but both coins are impounded in a musuem and impossible for the public to then own - would it make sense to not have slots in the registry for such coins? In other words, if a collector has -0- chance to ever buy a particular pattern, would it be better to exclude those coins from the Registry numbers and calculations - simply make note of the patterns that are impossible to presently own but not count them towards the completeness of such sets? Thoughts?

Wondercoin

MrEureka

if there is a Unique pattern or even one where two coins are known, but both coins are impounded in a musuem and impossible for the public to then own - would it make sense to not have slots in the registry for such coins? In other words, if a collector has -0- chance to ever buy a particular pattern, would it be better to exclude those coins from the Registry numbers and calculations - simply make note of the patterns that are impossible to presently own but not count them towards the completeness of such sets?

First, let me say that I'm sure there are some mistakes in the sets. There are also some differences between my original suggestions and the actual implementation. Therefore, I'm speaking for myself, not necessarily for PCGS or the way the sets appear.

That said, here are my thoughts on what should and should not be included int he sets:

If a coin is listed in Judd but I suspect it does not really exist, I would choose to exclude it from the set. It can always be added later, and I'm not a fan of wild goose chases.

If a coin does exist but is unknown in private hands, I'd prefer to note that but leave the coin in the set and in the calculations. I envision the day when museum collections are registered, even if they're not graded by PCGS. I think it would be fun for a collector to see that his set is more complete than the Smithsonian's, for example.

If PCGS assigns a new Judd number to a newly discovered pattern, I would choose not to include it in the set until the Judd authors decide upon an official Judd number.

wondercoin

Andy: Your view has merit. But, understand, that the concept of "Registry" often inspires collectors to step in to a particular series with the dream of actually COMPLETING that series. Indeed, how many times have I even seen collectors working feverishly towards completing a collection only to decide to sell off the collection shortly after completing it - many. By including IMPOSSIBLE coins in these sets, from my personal contact with various collectors, many simply desire to pass on even considering the pattern Registry as an impossible journey. I am not trying to question your logic here - just suggesting a factor why many more collectors may not be gravitating towards this wonderful area of numismatics and the Registry that goes along with it.

Wondercoin

MrEureka

By including IMPOSSIBLE coins in these sets, from my personal contact with various collectors, many simply desire to pass on even considering the pattern Registry as an impossible journey.

Mitch - If a collector really cares about being able to complete a set, let them choose one of the many pattern sets that can be completed.

wondercoin

Andy - Doesn't that exclude most (near all?) of the "complete" pattern set choices, as well as many of the specialty sets as well? Other than a quick perusal of the sets, I have not "done the work" to answer this question, so please correct me if I am wrong.

Wondercoin

MrEureka

Doesn't that exclude most (near all?) of the "complete" pattern set choices, as well as many of the specialty sets as well?

Yes, but there are also many specialty sets that can be completed.

wondercoin

Well, in any event, I certainly look forward to registering a couple sets myself once I pull all my serial numbers together.

Wondercoin

lloydmincy

I envision the day when museum collections are registered.

What fun is that to the collectors? Who cares about the museums!!!

Cameonut

<< <i>But, understand, that the concept of "Registry" often inspires collectors to step in to a particular series with the dream of actually COMPLETING that series >>





I also remember reading that there must be a total population of at least 5 for a coin to be considered for inclusion in a PCGS Registry. Even a pop 5 would be considered impossible for most.

wondercoin

"I also remember reading that there must be a total population of at least 5 for a coin to be considered for inclusion in a PCGS Registry. Even a pop 5 would be considered impossible for most."

You raise a very good point. It has been a rule of the Registry that for a coin to be included there must be 5 coins graded in any grade. Here, with the patterns, that could knock out a large % of all the coins in these sets! It is also why my suggestion to only count a coin where -1- coin exists may make sense, notwithstanding the reality that Museum collections may one day be competiing against Registry collectors.

Considering that the other registry sets require -5- coins to be included in the Registry, I hope Andy reconsiders my suggestion that there must be at least -1- coin slabbed by PCGS for a certain coin to be included in the Registry.

Wondercoin

oreville

Wondercoin/CameoNut: I am not following you regarding this -1- or -5- pop thing.

I have some PCGS patterns that are pop 1 in all grades and it was accepted in the PCGS registry listing.

wondercoin

Oreville: Throughout the variety set Registries, a coin needs to have (5) specimens graded (in any grade) for the coin to qualify in the Registry. For example, the 1958 DDO Lincoln cent is not in the Registry since less than 5 specimens have been graded in any grade. I suggested that a pattern be considered in the Registry where (1) or more coins are graded at PCGS (like the coins you entered). However, raw Unique pattern coins, which may be owned by the Smithsonian for example and completely unavailable to the collecting public would not be a required coin in the pattern registry under my suggestion. This way, a collector would be able to complete a collection based upon the actual coins presently available in PCGS holders. What do you think Oreville?

Wondercoin

oreville

wondercoin:

I see your point. I need to think about that one.

But regarding this, I do have a question. What is the entire PCGS poulation count in all grades of the 1798 small 8 dime. I cannot seem to find my PCGS pop book?

wondercoin

Oreville: I believe it is (11), including (1) Gem Unc.

Wondercoin

oreville

wondercoin: Are you saying that had there been less than -5- 1798 small 8 dimes it would not have been listed in the PCGS registry system?

NGC, by the way has only -2-.

wondercoin

If that was a variety set coin, that is what I am saying.

Wondercoin

oreville

Ok, wondercoin I'll bite; what is the difference between a variety set coin and a variety coin such as a 1798 small 8?

wondercoin

Oreville: Nothing to "bite" about. Simple question here - should pattern coins with -0- known specimens at PCGS be included in the completeness factor of a pattern registry set? Andy has explained that they should. I thought that might chill Registry participation.

Wondercoin

oreville

wondercoin: My first reaction is to create a "museum" registry set of raw coins that have never been slabbed by PCGS.

Furthermore, I believe that such coins/patterns should be "optional" coins with a star like some varieties I have seen before and placed at the bottom of the registry set list of coins/patterns just so each collector can see what is "possible" to obtain.

My comment about the "bite" referred to my still not understanding the difference between a variety coin and a variety set coin.

Lakesammman

Orevile:

There are coins that are considered part of the regular series, others that are varieties. For varieties in the non-pattern registries, the rule of thumb is that 5 or more need to be certified by PCGS to be added to the variety set. So, a coin that is only in the variety set is a variety set coin.

Would tend to agree with Wondercoin - if there isn't a certain pattern certified by PCGS, or if the existence is questionable, it probably shouldn't be in the registry.

Wondercoin - there are 3 pattern sets with 100% completion - the 1858 small cent short set.

tradedollarnut

You don't build a Registry around something as fluid as whether or not a specimen has been graded by a certain service. Isn't that one of the points of the Registry - to encourage more to be graded at PCGS????

However, I agree that people might not participate as much if they can't complete a set.... in fact, that's why my set isn't up because I consider it complete yet it would look woefully incomplete in the two available sets. Perhaps more subsets is the answer?

wondercoin

"Wondercoin - there are 3 pattern sets with 100% completion - the 1858 small cent short set. "

Those (3) sets all look spectacular. And, perhaps TDN is correct - simply more subsets may be the answer to address the "problem" that collectors presently have very few choices of pattern sets they can pick with an eye towards completion.

Wondercoin