Variety Coins ... Would this work?
solid
Posts: 2,975
Easily, the most controversial change to the registry involves
the requirement of certain variety coins to sets.
All else being equal, not many argue against the fact that a set
which includes varieties is superior to one that doesn't. The
real argument is that many people feel their set should not be
considered incomplete because they choose not to add varieties.
This is very easy to understand, since the primary goal of most
serious collectors is to assemble a complete set of whatever it
is they collect. It would be very disheartening to see your set
listed as being only 95% complete, because you lack some (optional)
variety coins.
On the other hand, a collector that includes varieties should be
rewarded for their efforts. With that in mind, consider the
following:
Let's say we have a hypothetical set of 100 coins. The various
coins are weighted from 1-10, based on their difficulty, value,
or other criteria. There are also 10 optional variety coins that
can be collected, and they also are weighted 1-10.
Regardless of the weightings of the individual coins, if you have a
complete set of MS67's across the board, you will get 67.00 total set
points. It's only when you have coins of various grades that weights
really come into play.
What I'm proposing is that a set of the 100 standard coins would
be considered 100% complete. If you add one of the varieties, then
your set would be 101% complete. Two varieties and your at 102%
complete, etc., all the way up to a possible 110% complete in the
case of our hypothetical 100-coin set.
Now, what does this do to set ratings...
Add one variety grading MS67 and you would get 67.67 total set points
(weighted grade average of 67 x 101% complete). That seems to give
a reasonable bonus. If you achieve a 110-coin set, all grading MS67,
your set would then get 73.70 points. Again, that seems reasonable
to me. The varieties are typically expensive, and if you get all 10
grading MS67, it should be worth 6.70 bonus points.
It gets trickier.
A 100-coin set of MS66's across the board will have 66.00 total set
points. If they add one variety grading MS66, they would have 66.66
total set points. Once they add a second variety grading MS66, they
have a total of 67.32 set points, and will pass the person with a
100-coin complete set of MS67's.
Is this fair, or is it too much of a bonus? The varieties are going to
be expensive, especially in high grades like this. They are also going
to be weighted heavily, so it wouldn't be as easy to overtake higher-graded
sets using low grade varieties.
Maybe varieties should only get 1/2 or 1/4 credit.
Maybe you should only get the bonus points when your main set is 100%
complete.
This is not a perfect system, obviously. But perhaps it is better than
requiring varieties in order to have a complete set, while still
rewarding the sets that do include varieties.
Any thoughts?
Stupid idea? 
Brilliant? 
Ken
the requirement of certain variety coins to sets.
All else being equal, not many argue against the fact that a set
which includes varieties is superior to one that doesn't. The
real argument is that many people feel their set should not be
considered incomplete because they choose not to add varieties.
This is very easy to understand, since the primary goal of most
serious collectors is to assemble a complete set of whatever it
is they collect. It would be very disheartening to see your set
listed as being only 95% complete, because you lack some (optional)
variety coins.
On the other hand, a collector that includes varieties should be
rewarded for their efforts. With that in mind, consider the
following:
Let's say we have a hypothetical set of 100 coins. The various
coins are weighted from 1-10, based on their difficulty, value,
or other criteria. There are also 10 optional variety coins that
can be collected, and they also are weighted 1-10.
Regardless of the weightings of the individual coins, if you have a
complete set of MS67's across the board, you will get 67.00 total set
points. It's only when you have coins of various grades that weights
really come into play.
What I'm proposing is that a set of the 100 standard coins would
be considered 100% complete. If you add one of the varieties, then
your set would be 101% complete. Two varieties and your at 102%
complete, etc., all the way up to a possible 110% complete in the
case of our hypothetical 100-coin set.
Now, what does this do to set ratings...
Add one variety grading MS67 and you would get 67.67 total set points
(weighted grade average of 67 x 101% complete). That seems to give
a reasonable bonus. If you achieve a 110-coin set, all grading MS67,
your set would then get 73.70 points. Again, that seems reasonable
to me. The varieties are typically expensive, and if you get all 10
grading MS67, it should be worth 6.70 bonus points.
It gets trickier.
A 100-coin set of MS66's across the board will have 66.00 total set
points. If they add one variety grading MS66, they would have 66.66
total set points. Once they add a second variety grading MS66, they
have a total of 67.32 set points, and will pass the person with a
100-coin complete set of MS67's.
Is this fair, or is it too much of a bonus? The varieties are going to
be expensive, especially in high grades like this. They are also going
to be weighted heavily, so it wouldn't be as easy to overtake higher-graded
sets using low grade varieties.
Maybe varieties should only get 1/2 or 1/4 credit.
Maybe you should only get the bonus points when your main set is 100%
complete.
This is not a perfect system, obviously. But perhaps it is better than
requiring varieties in order to have a complete set, while still
rewarding the sets that do include varieties.
Any thoughts?
Stupid idea? Brilliant? Ken
0
Comments
(The Liberty Nickel set should not include the 1913, but should give me hefty bonus points if my main set is 100% complete). Since none of the 1913 nickels are listed as CAM or DCAM, do they count 2 grades less than what the holder says??
Thanks,
Tim Schmitz
Your suggestion is SOLID. It's exactly the same as I propose in an explanation on my thread "My response to the PCGS Registry Survey", but your explanation is much more lucid and I must say extremely well articulated. It is SOLID. Hopefully everyone will understand and see the logic, if not the wisdom, behind it.
Mansco
Please: Don't confuse VARIETIES with ERRORS! and error (like that mule Sacawagea) is NOT a variety and thus would NOT be required in a set of Sacawagea's. The Goodacre IS a Variety though and should be a required coin.
peacockcoins
This is where I coming from. I collect Trade Dollars. 75 and 76 have a host of extremely distinguishable Type I and Type II obverse and reverse varieties. I can visually spot a variety at 3 feet. A good example, 75-CC Type I/II is 40 times more rare (I'm not talking about weightings here) than the Type I/I. Currentkly PCGS does not identify these varieties on the holders yet they are an integral part of the series. It would be good to get an extended recognition for these coins.
keoj
How many varieties will the Morgan set require? Tell me who will make that decision.
One of the other problems with varieties is there is not a known population for them. Yes, in the Mercury series there were some die issues the resulted in the 1942/1 coins from both Philadelphia and Denver. Anyone care to address how many were created? No one knows for sure.
People have used the Red Book as one means, but I would also ask this question. Does the Smithsonian present varieties in their coin collection?
The proponents of each side will probably not be swayed by opposing opinions, so the point is moot to a degree.
The bottom line is this, adding varieties creates an artifical (my term) key to the series. This results in the smaller collector being shut out even further.
One last suggestion, how about only activating the varieties as counting and being required if you are in the top 5 or 10 (some number) of that particular series. This would address the "GREAT" collections, yet also let a little guy not feel that set completion is impossible.