Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

For SG $20 collectors, has or will the '33 be considered necessary for a complete set?

I say "yes" because I certainly don't have to worry about it, and I want to see the big boys squirm. image

Comments

  • ziggy29ziggy29 Posts: 18,668 ✭✭✭
    I think most people will not "require" it as long as it remains legally unique. If these ten being held are eventually liberated (and if more possibly come out of hiding), then I think it would be required just as much as a '27-D.
  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,814 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Only if you want a complete set of Saints.

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
    "Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire

  • flaminioflaminio Posts: 5,664 ✭✭✭
    For a complete set, it is required. However, there is no shame in incompleteness.
  • robertprrobertpr Posts: 6,862 ✭✭✭
    I agree with ziggy. If the ten that are in custody now come to market eventually, and I think that they will, then it will become a "required" coin for the set. I also agree with his premise that if the ten in custody come to market, it will open the floodgates for all the others that are in "hiding" and it may surprise some people how many are out there.
  • TarmacTarmac Posts: 394
    No. Not under the current conditions. Now if the 10 are 'liberated' then it's another story. For those who feel they 'need' it to complete their set when there are but 1 legal available...they probably were not hugged enough as a child. image

  • IGWTIGWT Posts: 4,975
    -- "Maybe if I take a gov offical out for lunch at ths show I can buy the group! I could easily find homes for all of them." --

    You might want to treat Joan Langbord to lunch, too, just to hedge your bet. image And, if neither side wants to deal, maybe you can pull the ol' switcheroo at the show with one of these.
  • topstuftopstuf Posts: 14,803 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Of course it is. I can't see why people just can't order thousands of saints from Switzerland and enjoy searching through them.
    image

    Course, I suppose the ultimate test is if the Whitman boards have a hole for one.
  • No. Ironically, it's liike the first (1849) double eagle.

    MBT
  • MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 24,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's up to the Registry Gods, isn't it?
    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
  • IGWTIGWT Posts: 4,975
    -- "It's up to the Registry Gods, isn't it?" --


    You mean the same folks who decided what coins are necessary to form a pattern set? image
  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,814 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If you don't have the 1933, you can NOT have a complete set. This was a real business strike coin. You don't need the 1913 Liberty nickel to have a complete set or the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars for a complete set since these were never real coins. They were fantasy fabrications of the "midnight minters" and not official issues of the US mint.

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
    "Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire

  • michaelmichael Posts: 9,524 ✭✭✭
    yes!! as now one is legal

    if some big boys are building sets they should have bought it when it was sold by stacks in auction
  • jpkinlajpkinla Posts: 822 ✭✭✭
    Guess I will have to do without one......

    image
  • saintgurusaintguru Posts: 7,727 ✭✭✭
    No. What's complete is all legal tender. End of discussion. image
    image
  • IGWTIGWT Posts: 4,975
    “No. What's complete is all legal tender. End of discussion.”

    If “legal tender” is the standard for completeness, it will come as news to those who are building Trade Dollar sets. image
  • flaminioflaminio Posts: 5,664 ✭✭✭


    << <i>If “legal tender” is the standard for completeness, it will come as news to those who are building Trade Dollar sets. image >>

    Trade dollars (except for perhaps the '85) have been legal tender since 1965.

    There is one legal tender 1933 Saint. That makes any set without it incomplete. However, as I wrote above, there is no shame in incompleteness. saintguru's collection remains impressive, despite its lack of a 1933.
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,198 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>If you don't have the 1933, you can NOT have a complete set. This was a real business strike coin. You don't need the 1913 Liberty nickel to have a complete set or the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars for a complete set since these were never real coins. They were fantasy fabrications of the "midnight minters" and not official issues of the US mint. >>



    Actually, the 1884's were legitimate creations of the US Mint.... ten were saved and the balance melted.
  • TheRavenTheRaven Posts: 4,148 ✭✭✭✭
    I agree with those who say if the 10 they are going to display are eventually released again to the public then they are required for the set.....

    Currently it is not really required, but if I had the cash and the ability I would have it in my complete set.....
    Collection under construction: VG Barber Quarters & Halves
  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 9,644 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If the mint puts a rep at the ANA display, they better be prepared to get in a lot of lively discussion image

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file