OF COURSE THE KEY VARIETIES SHOULD BE PART OF THE SET
wondercoin
Posts: 16,953 ✭✭✭✭✭
In my opinion, the key varieties should be part of any Registry set, AS REQUIRED COINS. In many cases, the varieties are the "heart and soul" of the set! I understand that collectors on a budget do not welcome the notion of having to buy a few more coins and that is really the driving force behind opposing the inclusion of such varieties best I can tell. But, let's be honest-the Registry is supposed to reward GREAT SETS OF COINS, not great collectors. Setting up Registry sets to accomplish that goal (with the inclusion of important varieties) is the key, not to win a popularity contest with collectors by excluding otherwise appropriate coins from a set.
Let's look at Lincoln Cents. I collected them from the time I was 5 or 6 year old and my "mission in life" there for a while was to own a 1909SVDB, A 1955 DOUBLED DIE LINCOLN AND A 22 PLAIN in as high a grade as I could afford (around VG at the time). The last super high end PCGS-MS65RD 1955DD I saw traded at nearly $60,000 at the Long Beach auction. Perhaps only -1-regular issue Lincoln in the entire collection can even come close to challenging that price in MS65RD grade. Then, I saw a 1922 Plain in 65RB grade as I recall fetch around $80,000+ recently. Talk about Lincolns in demand!! Of course, there is no logical reason to argue these coins shouldn't be included in the Registry set of Mint State Lincolns, other than collectors saying they are "too expensive". But, there can only be one #1 and even if a collector decided to buy either of these coins in MS60 grade, THOSE WOULD BE WONDERFUL ADDITIONS TO THAT COLLECTORS' SET!!
The Jefferson set needs the key varieties added, the Buffalo set needs the key varieties added, the Mercury Dime and SLQ sets need the key varieties added, just as the Wash. Quarter set got the key varieties added.
Of course, there needs to be logic in the selection process. As a kid, I never even heard of the 1958DD Lincoln Cent. It would make little sense to me including the coin. The 1917DD Lincoln is a harder question-I can see the wisdom eithere way. The 1964 SMS coins make little sense to require to me as they only struck around a dozen or so of them in each denomination making them inpossible to acquire by most collectors (I own an SMS quarter and enjoy owning it, but requiring it would appear to me impractical). Registry, by its very nature is somewhat arbitray. But, the driving force should be the desire to create world class sets, including the key coins EVERYBODY REALLY WANTS, even if it will take a few extra years for most collectors to acquire them. In the end, collections may be benefited by having the KEY varieties. Wondercoin.
Let's look at Lincoln Cents. I collected them from the time I was 5 or 6 year old and my "mission in life" there for a while was to own a 1909SVDB, A 1955 DOUBLED DIE LINCOLN AND A 22 PLAIN in as high a grade as I could afford (around VG at the time). The last super high end PCGS-MS65RD 1955DD I saw traded at nearly $60,000 at the Long Beach auction. Perhaps only -1-regular issue Lincoln in the entire collection can even come close to challenging that price in MS65RD grade. Then, I saw a 1922 Plain in 65RB grade as I recall fetch around $80,000+ recently. Talk about Lincolns in demand!! Of course, there is no logical reason to argue these coins shouldn't be included in the Registry set of Mint State Lincolns, other than collectors saying they are "too expensive". But, there can only be one #1 and even if a collector decided to buy either of these coins in MS60 grade, THOSE WOULD BE WONDERFUL ADDITIONS TO THAT COLLECTORS' SET!!
The Jefferson set needs the key varieties added, the Buffalo set needs the key varieties added, the Mercury Dime and SLQ sets need the key varieties added, just as the Wash. Quarter set got the key varieties added.
Of course, there needs to be logic in the selection process. As a kid, I never even heard of the 1958DD Lincoln Cent. It would make little sense to me including the coin. The 1917DD Lincoln is a harder question-I can see the wisdom eithere way. The 1964 SMS coins make little sense to require to me as they only struck around a dozen or so of them in each denomination making them inpossible to acquire by most collectors (I own an SMS quarter and enjoy owning it, but requiring it would appear to me impractical). Registry, by its very nature is somewhat arbitray. But, the driving force should be the desire to create world class sets, including the key coins EVERYBODY REALLY WANTS, even if it will take a few extra years for most collectors to acquire them. In the end, collections may be benefited by having the KEY varieties. Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
0
Comments
You certainly bring up some interesting points, however I must disgree with you on most of them
It appears from the feedback I have seen and heard that most of the collectors here DO NOT want the "varieties" to be included in the Registry set on a mandatory basis.
I have always had an issue with the use of the term varieties with these coins. It is clear that all of them are actually errors. If the Mint did not intentionally strike these coins then they are by definition errors.
The dollar amount people are willing to pay for these coins should have nothing to do with the criteria for inclusion as part of a Registry set. I feel that they should remain optional, or perhaps a Rgistry Set could be created to include these errors along with the circulation stike coins. Using your logic, the mule Sac dollars should be required in the Sac set beacuse of the huge dollars people have spent on them.
Just my humble opinion.
Greg
As it should be.
Be honest, let's take that Buffalo set- Would you really be proud of it and admit (if just to yourself) it was 'complete' without the varieties? I think if you answered "yes" you're only fooling yourself- you're certainly not fooling other Buffalo collectors.
peacockcoins
Please don't confuse VARIETIES with ERRORS!.
Varieties- like the Goodacre Sacawagea, or the Burnished Sac are Varieties and thus should be required coins in that Registry.
The Mule Sac is a Error and would not be a required (or, even an optional coin in my opinion) for set completion.
peacockcoins
Think back to when you were young and were putting together that album set of circulated coins. Did you really tell everyone that your set was complete when there was still a hole for the 1922 Plain Lincoln. No, your set was still missing a coin. Some coins are so well associated with a complete set that they are part of the whole set and should stay that way.
Keith
I strongly disagree that everyone wants varieties. I've never been enamored with errors etc. To me, varieties are interesting and I even pick up a few, but when the Mint sets out to mint (sorry about the redundancy)coins, errors are not officially intended as part of the picture (although I think some are). If someone wants to include a variety in place of the standard coin, that's fine. But to REQUIRE two coins or the non-standard coin for a set to be considered to be complete is ridiculous.
Note< I'm not saying that varieties aren't interesting, challenging, or even collectible. I just have a problem with them be arbitrarily mandated to be part of a set.
The part of the argument I find most illogical is that some varieties are needed to be in for a set to be complete, but others can be excluded. Let's at least be consistent. If you say all varieities are needed, at least there's some logic to the argument. But if a variety is known to exist by more than just a few collectors, but is not readily available, you seem to suggest that it's okay for the coin not to be a necessary inclusion. Who is the official determinant of what's in or out?
As to who determines what's in or out, it should be a universal standard, not just PCGS. Let's say that NGC, in it's registry decides that all doubled dies are needed, whereas PCGS decides that a complete set must include only overdates, but not double dies. And the Red Book says something else. What's the determinant? The only standard that I can come up with is the standard date and mintmark set. Any collector should be able to define what is included in the set. I know there are those that will argue about IKES, etc. But I would argue for the simple logic of each date with the respective mintmarks are the only logical and least controversial approach. Adding varieties should just be more frosting on the cake.
But that's just my opinion. If I were to put together a premium set, I'd probably want the varieites but that doesn't mean that it's not complete if some else didn't want the varieities.
In his survey, David Hall suggested that if it was in the 1980 Redbook, a variety might be included. Is this the best criteria?
I must admit I am not sure one way or another but am anxious to hear everyone's opinions.
Chris
Chris
Just my opinion, but varieties are best left to the error segment of the market.
If I had a set of Buffalo Nickels in MS without a variety, I would sure as he|| be proud of it. So we should include the 1916DD, how many of these have you ever seen? What about the 14/13? It was not known in 1980, but is very popular amoung specialists now. None of my albums have places for the newly included Washington Quarter varieties, I always considered my sets complete, but I guess not now.
I can see the point in either direction, but where do you stop with adding varieties?
I read about a 3leg buf and the 55DD when I was a kid and I finally picked them up decades later. It was well worth the wait even though they are low grade. IMHO if you are going to claim to have the top 5 set. The major varities are a must.
I also think this is may be letting the genie out of the bottle and hopefully all of the minor varities stay as "not required". Even if they don't require the coin, I'll still get it because it completes my set.
errors, no
If the mint didn't make it on purpose (the people RUNNING the MINT, not the guys RUNNING the PRESSES), then it should NOT be included.
Wondercoin makes some good arguments, but these are also from someone who makes a living SELLING coins. The more coins, the more profit (Hope this is not taken the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with what he does, but I believe his views might be biased by this)
I strongly disagree that everyone wants varieties"
Mansco: I never said "everyone wants varieties". In fact, I believe most collectors want them excluded PURELY AS A MONETARY ISSUE (several collectors have told me exactly that). But, the grading companies shouldn't be trying to win "popularity contests" with collectors-they should be trying to formulate world class sets in their best wisdom, so that a collector who (as Braddick suggests) spends 10 or 20 years and finally completes a Registry set of Lincolns HAS THE 1955DD and 1922 PLAIN in the set. And, the Buffalo collection has a "3 legger", etc. Think about it-why would any serious Lincoln collector in their right mind not want to own a 1955DD or a 1922 Plain simply because the grading companies decided to exclude them from the set. And what serious Lincoln collector do you know-did you ever meet- that has no interest in a 1955DD Lincoln or a 1922 Plain!!??
Also, with all due respect, consider how disingenious the comment is that coin sellers would be pushing for inclusion of these type coins merely to "sell more coins". Didn't you guys read when I mentioned that the last gem RB 1922 Plain just fetched $80,000+ and a high end MS65RD 1955DD achieved close to a $60,000 level at public auction. WHAT COULD REGISTRY POSSIBLY DO TO THESE COIN PRICES THAT THE THRILL OF OWNING THESE GREAT RARITIES HASN'T DONE ALREADY? And, how long do you think a dealer keeps in stock nearly any nice 1922 Plain or 55DD Lincoln or 3 legged Buffalo or overdate quarter, etc. he is lucky enough to obtain even without Registry recognition?
If collectors want to insist that completing a nice MS64RD Lincoln Set should only cost "x dollars" and that by adding the 1922 Plain and 1955DD, etc. it becomes "2x dollars", which is unacceptable for the typical collector building a Registry set, then just take that position. But, I believe it is ludicrous to suggest that coins such as 55DD or 22 plain Lincolns are not "required" in a world class MS Lincoln collection. Indeed, if someone wanted to sell me an MS Lincoln collection, probably my first question would be "how does the 1955DD and 22 plain grade out?"
Please don't take my comments personally, but I interpreted your comment to mean everyone wants varieties, maybe you meant everyone should want them???:
"But, the driving force should be the desire to create world class sets, including the key coins EVERYBODY REALLY WANTS, even if it will take a few extra years for most collectors to acquire them. In the end, collections may be benefited by having the KEY varieties."
Personally, I'll get many of the varieties, but my primary focus will always be completing a set via my simple definition.
Talk to you later. If nothing else, this message board will force people to think about coin collecting a bit more seriously which will benefit us all.
Until the next thread,
Mansco
I disagree with the statement that Registry Sets are supposed to reward the great set of coins not the great collectors. How about Registry Sets were created to allow people to share their collection of PCGS coins with others, no matter what grade of coin.
I think we read too much into whose set is better..etc. I enjoy the high quality sets, but I am more interested in checking out the sets of people I know as they add to their collections.
I agree with those who believe a set is comprised of the coins the Mint intended to produce and not the mistakes created, no matter their volume. The varieties can be in the optional portion where they currently reside.
The points made concerning the 1982 Lincolns are well made. And what about the No S dimes from proof sets? Should we now require these? From my perspective, No.
You can still put the varieties in, but why do they have to be part of the set? They are just fine as optional coins. I dont really care about the ranking issues all that much. For me they are more a way to display the quality and completion of a set. Also, you then remove the debate about what varieties are part of a set and what varieties are not. If they are all optional, then they can be viewed together in that section. Again, I would make them a tie breaker if you need to include them in a weighting or valuation scheme.
I think that it appears that the general opinion of variety coins varies from series to series. I haven't yet heard a lot of support for the Washington varieties, but Lincoln collectors are generally for the "classic" ones, much like the Buffalo and SLQ collectors.
Even my album didn't have any slots for "variety" Washingtons. The other albums did.
Keith
While I understand your views and don't think they are wrong in the context of how you are presenting them, your last post brings out a few subtleties that require further distinction. Perhaps upon further discussion and reflection, all of us might have a better feel for where you're coming from.
First, your comment they should be trying to formulate world class sets in their best wisdom, may be a starting point. Should there be a World Class Registry and a Common Joe Registry? Something that differentiates between the two may be the inclusion of these varieties or errors, whichever term they come by, might be a good starting point. Yes, in all fairness to the collectors of these rarities, they should be included in World Class Sets. But borrowing your $140,000 price tag example for just two cents, you are excluding everyone that doesn't have a World Class income or in other terms, the other 98% of the population. There are some "serious collectors" who won't ever have a mortgage in that amount but MUST spend that to have their name in a Registry Set? I could think of cheaper ways to fame but in the context of collecting, do we need to divide the registries between the haves and the have nots? I plan on finishing my sets and spend the rest of my life upgrading both grade and appeal based upon the anticipated growth in my spendable income over the next few decades. But for many folks, trying to compete for coins like that may take several lifetimes, and we only get one. Again, I agree that they belong in a World Class set, but a set can still be World Class with the coins as optional coins. Otherwise, you are penalizing other collectors and removing any incentive for a young collector to pursue a set because the odds are that they will never complete it.
Other comments, Think about it-why would any serious Lincoln collector in their right mind not want to own a 1955DD or a 1922 Plain and And what serious Lincoln collector do you know-did you ever meet- that has no interest in a 1955DD Lincoln or a 1922 Plain!!??
In closing, I agree that it would be ludicrous to not require these varieties in a World Class Set, if there was a World Class Set for those that can pursue the hobby in that fashion. Otherwise, if we want to keep some parity in the sets so that the Common Joe can compete with the Eliasburgs of the world, then we have to keep them optional and the hobby attractive to all. Who knows, maybe in the future when someone offers you a set, you will just ask if it is a World Class or Common Joe Set!
Thanks for listening brother. Dave
I know you don't value or care about my view on this but I'm going to share it anyway and then maybe "crawl back to the big board."
Dldallen touched on what I think is a central point in the discussion and gets to the heart of why PCGS started the registry set program. Was the intention of starting the program to stimulate renewed interest in collecting by giving the "average" or newbie collector a forum to share his collection and generate a friendly competition among collectors? If that is the case then making it a requirement that the set must include some of the very expensive varieties may actually serve to drive people away from the program. It's probably difficult enough challenge to acquire the highest grade date/mint mark coins for most series. The additional requirement that the set include some of the more "difficult" varieties presents a tremendous obstacle to the "average" collector of ever making into the list of top five or ten sets and could dampen his enthusiasm for the registry program.
Maybe the answer (as mentioned by dldallen) is to have two separate registries for series where a considerable number of expensive varieties have been identified, one date/mint mark set and another to include the major (as identified by some authority) varieties. This give the average joe a forum for competition that he as a realist chance of making a fair showing and still provides a place to showcase the super sets.
Just my humble opinion. On second thought I'm not crawling anywhere!
Errors: No
The 1922 plain and the 1955DDO are both errors. The set should include the VDB, Wheat back and Memorial back, but no errors. Have special sets for those folks who collect errors, I only want normal mint issues.
Tom
Or make them optional for that "one" Registry slot, and give them a higher weighting factor.
I have a Lincoln Reg Sets, and a Cherry Pickers Guide. I would hate to see the varieties placed in the Lincoln set. But it doesn't matter I wouldn't buy them anyway for my Reg Set.
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
I think there is evidence that to both sides of the debate, but this shows that not all number one sets from deep pocket collectors recognized the variety as part of the set composition.
I can't speak for Mitch, but I'd venture to guess he probably doesn't even have many of these varieties he is supporting as standards to the Registry in inventory.
It isn't always about profit. I think the Dealers who frequent this forum honestly have the best interest of the Registry at heart- and for the long term.
peacockcoins
Collectors have to start somewhere and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH PICKING UP A VF-35 1922 PLAIN OR 55DD TO START WITH (scoring 350 points!) and see over the years if disposable income can later justify an upgrade from there.
The Lincoln Memorial should have the 1995 double die, but the seven varieties of 1982 are out until PCGS starts doing these varieties. I'd go either way with the 1972, 1983 & 1984 double dies. I don't have everything in MS, but I will some day.
My Buffalo set wouldn't be complete without the 1937-D 3 leg.
The Washington quarter varieties aren't that plentiful to be included.
The no-S proofs are also too scarce, even though I own two.
It really comes down to the specific series. Both sides have valid arguments. I'd like to see some, but not others.
David
Again, there are close to 200 PCGS graded 1950d/s and s/d coins alone!! This, to split among a couple dozen Registry sets???!!! There are plenty to go around. Back to the same point though. A collector on a budget should buy a 1950s/d or d/s in PCGS-MS63 grade. The coin is only a few hundred dollars!! And, gets right now approx. 8x the points of a $10,000 MS68 silver quarter!!! Yes, a collector can opt for an MS63 of these varieties right now for a couple hundred dollars and receive around 8x the points of a collector who just bought the REGULAR ISSUE MS68 coin. Folks, the problem here has NOTHING TO DO WITH COLLECTORS NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND A NICE EXAMPLE OF VIRTUALLY ANY OF THE VARIETIES WE ARE DISCUSSING.
1. Collector A decides to spend $100 on a 1957(p) PCGS-MS67 quarter and $300 on a 1950d/s in PCGS-MS63 grade. Total expenditure: $400. Total points: 67 + rating of 9 x 63 = 567. 567 + 67 = total points of 634. Cost for 634 points-$400 or roughly $1.50/point for the "average Joe" collector you refer to.
2. Collector B: "Mr. Big Boy" spends $10,000 to buy a pop 1 MS68 1957(p) quarter (if and when the coin gets graded in this hypothetical). Total cost $10,000 for 68 points!!!!! Cost per point: Nearly $150/point.
$150/point for Mr. Big Boy vs. $1.50 point for "Average Joe Collector" AND AVERAGE JOE ENDED UP SPENDING ONLY $400 FOR 634 POINTS. MR. BIG BOY JUST SPENT $10,000 FOR 68 POINTS!!!!!
CONCLUSION: THE DECK IS ALREADY STACKED AGAINST MR BIG BOY BY PCGS RANKING TABLES, SO THE INCLUSION OF VARIETIES IS ESSENTIALLY INSIGNIFICANT TO THE AVERAGE COLLECTOR ANYWAY. Wondercoin.
-------------------------
Assisting collectors with building Registry sets and a strong buyer and seller of these sets. Please also visit my websites at www.wondercoin.com and www.pcgswholesale.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com
I agreed with you over on Braddick's thread (kind of)
Out of here for the night but thanks for the great discussion. Good thing we're all friends here!!
Later, Dave
Daryl
I have to disagree with you on this one the only reason to add to variety coins to the registery sets is so you dealers can push the coins you have in stock. You were pushing 2 Wash quarters a few months ago and could not get a bite on them now that they are included in the set you and David Hall can make the big money on these coins. I consider it an OUTRAGE that you dealers have pushed to have them included.
PCGS THE ONLY WAY TO GO
Ed
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not following the reasoning behind your scenerio. If one of the motivations behind getting involved in the registry is the friendly competition to create the number one set why would "Mr. Big Boy" collector spend $10,000 on a coin that's only going to get him 68 points rather than use average Joe collectors strategy to get the most bang for the buck. If he's got $10,000 to spend on one coin I'd hope he'd have enough sense to figure out the best strategy for building the number one set.
Now the guy that's got $50,000 to spend on building his registry has the advantage even without the varieties and that's fine. Adding varieties to the mix increases the advantage. This isn't a matter of right or wrong but if some thought in designing the structure of the registry is centered around motivating the maximum number of collectors to get involved increasing the financial requirements to the point that it eliminates the possibility of the average collector to be competitive in the race for the top 10 or 20 sets would in my opinion steer Joe average collector away.
P.S. Still standing
MS67PLUS: Let this thread (and your comments) prove that even though we agree on most things, most of the time, that we can also totally disagree with each other on occasion, such as this time.
First of all Ed, FOR THE RECORD, and this is in writing here on this thread, I not only did not push PCGS for including varieties, I HAD NO CONTACT WITH PCGS WHATSOEVER ON THE MATTER, PRO OR CON. I learned of PCGS' decision to include (4) new quarters like everyone did. Moreover, you are absolutely correct that I was strongly pushing to sell the VERY COINS PCGS ELECTED TO ADD TO THE SET A COUPLE MONTHS AGO!! Anyone could have bought them at that time right off this board and I would have had NONE LEFT IF COLLECTORS WOULD HAVE TAKEN THEM!! As it was, one of the finest known varieties I had offered in PCGS-MS67 for some time before the changes by PCGS was bought from me the day of the announcement by a forum member AT THE SAME PRICE I OFFERED IT WEEKS EARLIER (I simply kept the same price) AND FOR SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS THAN A NATIONALLY ADVERTISED PRICE OF ONE OF THE MOST REPUTABLE COIN DEALERS IN THE COUNTRY FOR THE SAME COIN!! So, Ed, in this case, you are totally off base with your suggestion that I had ANYTHING to do with PCGS' decision to add the 4 coins.
If you want to be "on strike" with PCGS, that is fine, but please don't suggest I pushed to have those varieties added as that is TOTALLY FALSE.
The "problem" is that many people don't want to collect the varieties, for whatever reason, and don't want them made mandatory because their sets would then be considered incomplete.
I like the varieties, which is why I now own 5 of the 10 1938-1964 PCGS-recognized Jefferson varieties in MS65/better. I hope to find the others as well, though I may not be able to swing the '64 SMS coin anytime soon.
As stated elsewhere, I feel a set should be considered to be 100% complete when it includes all of the standard date/mintmark coins. Those sets that include some/all of the varieties should be considered to be more than 100% complete, and should receive more total set points based on that achievement.
A 100-coin set of MS67's would have total set points of 67.00. The same set, if it included 10 recognized varieties, all in MS67, would be awarded 73.70 total set points (Avg grade of 67 x 110% complete).
The top sets WILL include the varieties, WILL have more total set points, and WILL be listed in their rightful position at the top. The key here is that the collectors further down the list can still have 100% complete sets, which is THE GOAL of most serious collectors of anything.
With this approach, you totally avoid the argument of which varieties should be mandatory, while still rewarding the collector who goes the extra mile.
Ken
Ken
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
peacockcoins
It may not be a matter of a collector choosing to include varieties but having the means to include them. The varieties could add considerably to the cost of building a set which might serve to exclude many avid collectors that are on a limited budget. We also haven't ironed out what should be considered a variety verse an error.
Again, it's not a matter of right or wrong but what's best for the advancement of the registry set program and I don't claim to know what's best. If the powers that be make the decision to include varieties let it be done with a full consideration of how it might affect participation in the registry program. Will it draw more collectors to get involved, turn collectors away or have a neutral affect as far as participation is concerned. If more involvement is better then IMHO including varieties might turn collectors away. Just something to consider.
I believe the registry was intended to showcase the finest, world class sets. What is truly remarkable and a great thing is how many folks are having such fun with partial and/or not highest grade sets.
Anyway I saw the slots and that my closest challenger has the varieties. So I wanted them
So I must say Solid summed up my opinion.
I am trying real hard to put together a set of 20th century coins in nice circulated grades, based a lot in part on cost. For the cents, I have everything except the 2 S mintmarked Indians, the 09-S VDB, and the 22 Plain for my folder. I consider the 22 Plain like I do the 09-S VDB. Yes, it is a set stopper, but I still want it. Most of my collection would grade around VF, but these two will be G or VG. Takes longer to find a nice one in lower grade, but having it to me in any grade is more important than having it in a grade that breaks my bank. Won't change my opinion of the total set.
Keith
Without it the set just isn't complete. It wouldn't matter how I'd try to fool myself otherwise- that whole is empty.
peacockcoins
I agree "KEY" varities should be included in the registry.
Now, what exactly are the key varities in each series? Who decides? PCGS? NO WAY!
Re-elect Bush in 2004... Dont let the Socialists brainwash you.
Bush 2004
Jeb 2008
KK 2016
For those "keys" in each major series, I am reducing the certified competition for your worst known set. A lot of the key dates that are better sold certified because of the potential for counterfiet or cleaning, I'll buy in certified G-4 through about F-12, crack out, and pop in the album.
Picked up a really nice G-4 1921-D half on Teletrade that way a few weeks back and have added a few Buffalo nickels that way as well.
Keith
I agree "KEY" varities should be included in the registry.
Now, what exactly are the key varities in each series? Who decides? PCGS? NO WAY!"
Sean: If you think about this carefully, you really do need an independent third party determining what should be in the sets. Collectors might simply look out for their own self-interests (just like collectors point out that dealers might as well). For example, let's say you have a really neat and important dime variety where there are perhaps only 15 known in any grade. Of course, you want the coin in the Registry, but most collectors would not because the coin would be "too hard" and "too expensive". Now, say there were only 5 known-then you are guaranteed to lose in a vote by collectors. Now, say there are 50-100 known-well, maybe the collectors would allow that one in because they can find it easier and cheaper. But, in my opinion, this sure isn't the way to determine which coins should be required for sets as the important keys (i.e. which collectors voting happen to already have one tucked away!)
I am simply guessing here, but I suspect David Hall and PCGS tried to select the proper varieties to include in the Wash Quarter by not catering to collector or dealer (self)interests per se, but by honestly assessing which varieities MAKE SENSE for the set (perhaps using, in part, the RedBook to show at least which varieties have been recognized for a long time). For example, "rumor has it" the Redbook will begin recognizing the 1964 SMS coins real soon. And, it well might become an important variety, but it has no history in the RedBook at this time.
Conclusion: The same arguments certain collectors have made concerning dealer involvement in selecting registry required coins are present when collectors try to dictate which coins belong in a set. Collectors are driven by the same (self) interests as any dealer would be. Collectors and dealers should have equal ability to suggest things to the Registry companies, but in no way should collectors or dealers get to pick what belongs in a Registry set in my opinion.
And, yes, I am one of the few coin sellers around here who would so boldly point out collector self-interest in the process. It isn't the most popular position to win new collector customers (in fact, I don't see any other coin dealer sugesting it around here), but as I have said many times, I am not trying to win a popularity contest here.
Lets take dimes for example.
PCGS cant even attribute between a small date and a large date 1837. They slab one variety, the 1873 double shield. Why would i chhose to allow PCGS the right to pick which varities go in MY set, when they know very little about the series. Why not allow Brian Greer, Jerry Fortin, McCloskey who are all respected "experts" in the field of seated dimes choose which varities are valid of being "major" & "minor".
The key to the seated dime varities is by far the 1841-O closed bud reverse. The large or the small O. Between the 2 of them there might be 50 coins known. That is a pretty large population in relation to "die hard" seated dime collectors. This is why IMO collectors and/or experts should decide which varities to add and which to omit.
IMO if PCGS came to me and said that i got to choose which were in, I would say:
1839-O Huge O
1841-O Closed Buds Reverse, BOTH large & small O
1843/1843
1876-CC type II rev
I would like to go more in depth, but know PCGS wouldnt be in favor one bit
Sean
Re-elect Bush in 2004... Dont let the Socialists brainwash you.
Bush 2004
Jeb 2008
KK 2016
How to determine which varieties should be part of the registry is another question. Someone had suggested looking at a Red Book from 20 years ago. That's a possibility, or how about being listed on the grey sheet? Or visible with just a 5x or 10x loupe? Varieties are collected by specialists, and if you have a registry set, that should make you something of a specialist. I wouldn't consider a Lincoln set complete without the '22 No D or '55 DD, as they are obvious to the naked eye, have long been recognized as keys to the set, and are available in reasonable quantities. Some other varieties, such as the 1917, 1936, 1941 DD's, and the 1944-D/S are far less available, and I would suggest these be given bonus points rather than be requirements.
Hopefully, there will be sufficient feedback to David Hall's survey for PCGS to formulate a policy that will ruffle the fewest feathers among registry participants.
Jim
And we certainly wouldn't want those nasty dealers determining which varieties were included.
I wondered who kept jacking up the bid on that one. . .
peacockcoins
Actually, sorry it wasn't Teletrade I got the 21-D, records show I got it from Heritage on the last major auction they held. The Teletrade piece got too high for me as well. Now I only need the 21-P to finish my Walker set.
Keith
pmh1nic
This isn't a matter of right or wrong but if some thought in designing the structure of the registry is centered around motivating the maximum number of collectors to get involved increasing the financial requirements to the point that it eliminates the possibility of the average collector to be competitive in the race for the top 10 or 20 sets would in my opinion steer Joe average collector away.
(agreed!)
Geez, which VAM"S will be added? Top 50? Top 100??? all?!?
anyhow, this is just too much to comment on at one time...Really tho which VAMS will be added???
Just my opinion.....Tim