In numismatics, what constitutes a complete set?

RYK

What is your definition of a complete set?

As a casual collector of $3's, but one who has no hopes of collecting the full date run, which of the following can be considered a "set"?

A. A complete date and MM set of all $3's including proofs and circulation strikes.

B. A complete date and MM set of circulation strikes only.

C. A PCGS "box of 20" including assorted AU circulation strike coins.

D. A single coin from each of the four mints that produced a $3 (P, D, O, and S).

E. A single coin from each of the Civil War dates (1861-1865), the so-called Civil War subset.

F. A single coin from 1854 and a single coin from 1855-1889, representing the two different types of $3's.

G. A date run from 1880-1889, including six dates with circulation strikes of 1000 or less.

H. The four SF issues from 1855, 1856, 1857, and 1860.

I. The six dates in the 1880's with circulation strike mintages of 1000 or less, the so-called "low-mintage subset": 1880, 1881, 1883, 1884, 1885, and 1886.

J. One coin from each decade, 4 coins total.

K. A single coin.

LanLord

Complete set: You own every coin ever minted.

coinlieutenant

All of the above...

fc

you should own an example of a 3 for each year/mint in circ condition.

proofs are not included.

tradedollarnut

Whatever you want it to be. For example:

The
gobrecht series is near impossible to complete if you include all the varieties [such as reeded/flat rim]. Neither of the two sets listed in the Registry can reaonably be completed. So I chose to stop my set at the 5 dates/varieties listed in the Red Book. In my mind, my set is complete and I have no desire to add to it.

longtimecollector

When I started out on my seated half set, I was going for a date/mint set..... Then I picked up on the WB varieties which GREATLY expanded the # of coins needed...... As I am getting down to having less and less coins needed for "completion", I find myself collecting by every identifiable head/reverse die (mint mark & date placement mostly)........ I'm sure that eventually, it'll lead to collecting by identifiable die marriages...... I draw the line at collecting by die state !!!!!! (Yeah, right !)

Jaywalker

When I hear complete "set," I take it to mean a collection of all business-strike dates, MMs, and major intentional varieties. So that would be item B.

For example, this would include the Type 1 and Type 2 SLQs and Buffaloes, and the obverse and reverse mintmark WLHs, but not the three-legged Buff (an error) or the 95-P proof Morgan (a proof-only issue).

Of course, you can make your set any way you want it to be, and it's still a set. Except I don't think you can call one coin a set. I think it has to be at least two.

nwcs

A definition of a complete set for me is when you define criteria of a set and then accomplish it. It has nothing to do with series, dates, types, or whatever.

RYK

I will answer my own question.

I think A and B are complete sets and significant numismatic achievements.

D, E, G, H, and I are also sets, but considerably lesser achievements, some more daunting than others.

I have trouble with C. Though this might be a goal for me in the future (I am about 60% the way there) and does not seem like much of an achievement). You could go to FUN or ANA and put one of these "sets" together in one day, if you so desired.

F also seems a bit weak and contrived to me. While technically it is a $3 type set, it does not seem to be any more challenging than owning a single coin, choice K, which is not a set, IMO.

J is somewhere between owning a coin and a two-coin type set and another set with a more unified theme (ie. Civil War date set or SF coin set). A bit contrived, but still more challenging than a single coin.

pharmer

In my area of interest, I know of collectors who, rightly so, want a complete collection of Lincoln rpm's, and I am committed to gumming up the works by finding new onesJRocco is doing his part, see his thread today on his new discovery

ms71

To make a "complete" set, you'll need to talk somebody out of the 1870-S currently resident at the ANA museum.

flaminio

"Completeness" depends entirely on how the set is defined. You set the parameters of the set up front, and then completeness is determined from there. For example, if you were going for a date/MM set of $3s, you would necessarily need to include 1870-S, and therefore your set would never be complete. However, if you were going for just a date set, then a plain old 1870 fills the bill (but good luck on the 1875-76). You could always narrow it to a date set, circulation strikes only; thus making completeness a more realizable goal.

So, to answer your question: "All of the above", assuming that the sets were predefined to be what you've stated.

Conder101

All but C. Any of the others could conceivably be considered a complete set, but C as written seems to just be a random grouping. If C was more strictly defined (specificlywhat is in the box of 20) then it might qualify.