Of course, there is no logical reason to argue these coins shouldn't be included in the Registry set of Mint State Lincolns... 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.
I think wondercoin gave a logical reason against requiring varieties in his first post. The arbitrariness of the Set Registry can lead to the slippery slope of varieties. I love trade dollar varieties and want PCGS to attribute them, but I wouldn't want them required in a registry.
Why not? Let's examine a coin more people are familiar with. If the Buffalo nickel registry required varieties, who's to say what should be included? Should I say a set isn't complete unless it has the 1938-D/S and at least three varieties of the D/D? It's arbitrary. Tradedollarnut would have every right to be mad at me if I said his set wasn't complete without the 1876-S II/II DDO (especially if I only made that claim because I had one and he didn't).
I like solid's idea. Call a set 100% complete for including all dates and mintmarks the mint intentionally struck and released into circulation for business strikes (lest we require the 1913 Liberty nickel or 1804 silver dollar). If a collector wishes to add varieties, let his set be deemed "more than 100% complete." Of course, we'll all need PCGS to do its homework and learn how to correctly attribute all varieties of every Set Registry series.
Don't require ANY varieties. From a common-sense standpoint, there are only a handful which the vast majority of collectors would consider mandatory for a complete set anyway. I agree with Mitch's comment about the 1955 DD and 22 Plain Lincolns - those are well-recognized. The 3-Legged Buffalo also. Frankly the 1950 D/S and S/D Washingtons seem like quite a reach.
But if the handful of well-recognized varieties are required, there will only be relentless requests for more and more to be added. It will sound like those arguments for the Baseball Hall of Fame - if Smith is in, how come Jones isn't? Compare the statistics! (Strat, I know you can relate to that! )
So I would prefer the system that Solid mentioned - require NONE, but give extra credit to the sets that have them. That way the non-variety people can have 100% sets and the recognition that goes along with it. Those who add the varieties to already-complete sets gain additional recognition. The way it is now, you never know if your complete set will stay complete! Well said, solid!
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Comments
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.
I think wondercoin gave a logical reason against requiring varieties in his first post. The arbitrariness of the Set Registry can lead to the slippery slope of varieties. I love trade dollar varieties and want PCGS to attribute them, but I wouldn't want them required in a registry.
Why not? Let's examine a coin more people are familiar with. If the Buffalo nickel registry required varieties, who's to say what should be included? Should I say a set isn't complete unless it has the 1938-D/S and at least three varieties of the D/D? It's arbitrary. Tradedollarnut would have every right to be mad at me if I said his set wasn't complete without the 1876-S II/II DDO (especially if I only made that claim because I had one and he didn't).
I like solid's idea. Call a set 100% complete for including all dates and mintmarks the mint intentionally struck and released into circulation for business strikes (lest we require the 1913 Liberty nickel or 1804 silver dollar). If a collector wishes to add varieties, let his set be deemed "more than 100% complete." Of course, we'll all need PCGS to do its homework and learn how to correctly attribute all varieties of every Set Registry series.
Obscurum per obscurius
But if the handful of well-recognized varieties are required, there will only be relentless requests for more and more to be added. It will sound like those arguments for the Baseball Hall of Fame - if Smith is in, how come Jones isn't? Compare the statistics! (Strat, I know you can relate to that!
So I would prefer the system that Solid mentioned - require NONE, but give extra credit to the sets that have them. That way the non-variety people can have 100% sets and the recognition that goes along with it. Those who add the varieties to already-complete sets gain additional recognition. The way it is now, you never know if your complete set will stay complete! Well said, solid!
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.