Why does the complete U.S. Type set end in 1964?

tjkillian

I'm curious as why they ended the U.S. Type set in 1964? Don't type set collectors collect the newer stuff as well? I'm trying to get one every different coin by the federal government, including post 1964.

Tom

CarlWohlforth

My guess is tradition. I think sometime way back, say in 1965, type collectors said "we'll stop here with this silver stuff".

I am like you and am collecting all US types.

Flash

Since I don't plan to register my set I combined the regular U.S. Type set with the Modern U.S. Type set to come up with a complete one.

Dog97

Because the types are broken down into 2 sets, the "Classics" and the "Moderns." Please don't me to explain why some moderns are also classics.

keithdagen

The Type set stops at 1964 because of the change from silver to clad coins. If you go buy a Dansco album, it is the same thing. "Traditional" coin collectors do not consider the clad coinage collectible, but that attitude is slowly changing.

Best thing to do is have a Complete (or Copper, Nickel, Silver) set and a Modern Set. There is some overlapping between the two, but it's a good way to collect both areas. If you get a coin for your set that falls between 1900 and 1964, both sets will grow instead of just one.

Keith

Keyrock

I think primarily due to the change from silver to clad. The albums help to reinforce that idea. I know the walking liberty short set is twenty coins that fit into one Dansco album and, by chance, a certified coin storage box.

ModMan

Dog97- For many reasons to numerous to write on this thread- 'Modern coins' began in 1932, not 1964.

The reason the sets are broken in 1964 is because that was the defining year American lost her innocence.

Our Country reflected this new mindset in many ways after the death of our then President, one of them being the change to our coinage.

blato1

Personally, I don't collect anything that is post-1964. For me, it is a combination of the move to clad coinage and the high mintages that turns me off of the post-1964 stuff. I prefer collecting coins that have some intrinsic value beyond a high MS grade. I realize that many pre-1965 coins also lack this, but it is a generally accepted breaking point, at least for the silver series.

By having two type sets, PCGS does not make "traditional" collectors like me acquire lots of modern coins that I don't really want. I really appreciate this, and would have probably not registered my type set if I had to obtain a lot of modern stuff.

Please note that I am not disrespecting those of you who collect the modern stuff. This is our hobby, and we each can collect whatever interests us. I was just providing my point of view on your question.

keithdagen

blato1,

I would love to see a Basic Type set for coins up to 1964. Right now, you have to buy dozens of Seated Coins, which weights them heavily in the set. It seems like 1/3 of the coins in the set are required because a designer snuck an arrow somewhere on the coin or forgot to add stars to the design from year to year. Having a basic set that doesn't require every single variety would really appeal to even the modern collectors.

Keith

blato1

Keith,

I could go for a basic type set as well. There is precedent for this within the Set Registry. In the California Small Denomination Gold area, PCGS has set up a registry for a basic 6-coin "mini" type set as well as a more elaborate "complete" type set.

Within the "world" of type collectors, debates are always flaring up about what really constitutes a separate type. For example, the PCGS "Complete" US Type Set does not recognize the V.D.B. Lincoln Cent as a type, but I know collectors who do.

In my opinion, having various options for type set registry can only add to the fun. In fact, I have been lobbying with PCGS to get Colonial and major Territorial type sets added in a "mini" format as they have done with the California Gold.

blato1

keithdagen

blato1,

PCGS said they will do a Basic Set, it's now a matter of waiting. We petitioned them and used the 12 coin US Gold Type set that is a specialty set under the Gold category. You mention the VDB Lincoln. It is a segregated Type for the Modern Type 1900-forward set, as is the 1944-1946 Shell Casing composition of the Lincoln cent as well.

Keith

tjkillian

I would consider a "type" coin as any coin issued for regular circulation by the federal goverment dated in 1793 and later on any coin specfically designed with a particular attribute, i.e. stars/no stars, with cents/ without cents, etc. Slight variations that were not intentional, 1886 type I and type II indians, 1960 small date/large date, etc. Mini-sets are ok, but let's not get rid of the complete type sets. By the way, get rid of the 1792 Half Disme, not issued for regular circulation.

Tom

keithdagen

Tom,

The "basic" idea was an idea to get a set together that would lure newer collectors back to the old coins. The Complete set can be frustrating when you have to buy lots of coins that have very subtle differences. The premise is a single Seated Dime of your choice replaces No Stars, No Drapery, Legend, etc... We patterned it after the 12 coin Basic Gold, and I really think that it will be a hit.

Agree 100% on the 1792 Half Disme, and not really sure on whether the Gobrecht dollar or the 1907 Wire & Rolled Edge $10 Indians belong either.

Keith

gary

Kieth what would the basic type set look like should pcgs do one?what can you compare it to? thanks gary

blato1

Tom and Keith,

I have to disagree with you both on the 1792 Half Disme. Notwithstanding the Red Book, there is a longstanding (and perhaps a bit controversial) tradition in numismatics that considers the 1792 Half Disme to be the first regular mint issue intended for circulation.

In his annual address on November 6, 1792, Pres. George Washington said, "...there has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dimes, the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them." Furthermore, some 1,500 1792 Half Dismes were minted of which about 300 survive today. The vast majority of these are significantly worn and were obviously used in circulation.

It may be a difficult piece to acquire, but I believe the facts clearly show that, unlike the other 1792 issues, the half disme was consciously released for circulation.

keithdagen

blato1,

Thanks for the info. Will consider that when I gripe out having to buy one.

Gary,

To give you a feel for what the set "might" consist of, look at dimes from 1796 to 1964. The complete set requires 13 pieces, 2 Draped Bust, 2 Capped Bust, 6 Seated, 1 Barber, 1 Mercury, and 1 Roosevelt. The set we proposed would contain 6 dimes, 1 Draped Bust, 1 Capped Bust, 1 Seated, 1 Barber, 1 Mercury, and 1 Roosevelt. Collectors could choose the type of coin within the major class. To make it easier, we categorized Draped coins and Flowing Hair together where both types exist for a denomination. This set, as proposed, would not require the financial burden of the Complete Set, but would still be challenging to complete.

Keith

Flash

The Mint didn't stop minting coins in 1964. Nope.. they're still making them! Still creating new types, new varieties, new things to collect. To me there is no such separation of "modern" and "classic" coins. They're all coins! And I collect coins. So, my collecting doesn't stop at 1964 because the Mint didn't stop making them in 1964. As a matter of fact, they've been producing clad coins for 37 years now. How long will it take before people realize that post 1964 coins can be collectable? Just because the have no real intrinsic value doesn't make them non-collectable, does it? I don't think so. I like coins no matter what they're made out of.