To Those NOT Wanting Varieties in Sets: Why Stop There?
braddick
Posts: 24,116 ✭✭✭✭✭
As I recall reading- it wasn't popular during the first half of this Country's history for Numismatists to collect coins with Mint Marks.
Why not go the real lazy way and just set up all the Registries to require a coin from each year, but not from each Mint? After all- what's a little tiny mm anyway?
This way Lincoln collectors wouldn't have to worry about that bothersome 09-'S' VDB. Just the 09-VDB would work! The 1914-D? Naw, just the 14 (Philly mint) would work.
What an easy Registry if PCGS would just allow one coin from each year to make up a complete Registry.
The only FLAW with my thinking (!) is we ALL do know that set would NOT be complete- no matter how others would state it was.
Same with the Major Varieties. You're only cheating yourself not to include them and require them for a complete set.
It really is about the COIN and not the collector.
If you can compete in the Olympics- then it's about YOU. The Registry is not the olympics.
Why not go the real lazy way and just set up all the Registries to require a coin from each year, but not from each Mint? After all- what's a little tiny mm anyway?
This way Lincoln collectors wouldn't have to worry about that bothersome 09-'S' VDB. Just the 09-VDB would work! The 1914-D? Naw, just the 14 (Philly mint) would work.
What an easy Registry if PCGS would just allow one coin from each year to make up a complete Registry.
The only FLAW with my thinking (!) is we ALL do know that set would NOT be complete- no matter how others would state it was.
Same with the Major Varieties. You're only cheating yourself not to include them and require them for a complete set.
It really is about the COIN and not the collector.
If you can compete in the Olympics- then it's about YOU. The Registry is not the olympics.
peacockcoins
0
Comments
They have one "variety" listed. The 1873 double shield, nowhere near a key variety. Yet they have the 73-CC N/A listed on the coins you need to complete a set? The coin was never ofically released.
If they want to get into varities, thats fine w/ me, BUT they better list the major ones.
39-O huge O
41-O large & small O closed buds
1843/1843
1976-CC Type II
Funny how PCGS slabs none of thoes. POLITICS.
Re-elect Bush in 2004... Dont let the Socialists brainwash you.
Bush 2004
Jeb 2008
KK 2016
Not sure why the backwards thinking on the subject but that is your prerogative and you asked
There is also a fallacy in your closing remarks. That is that it can't be about the COIN itself because the COIN itself can't stand on its own. It requires someone (a YOU) to find it, purchase it, register it, and properly store and care for it. Without a YOU, the coin is just like any other inanimate object and only has value when a YOU buys it, if a YOU can afford it. If a YOU has the capability to buy it and a YOU wants o buy it, then by all means a YOU should. Using your logic, do we consider anone that doesn't have a Ferrari in their garage an incomplete person because a YOU thinks that everyone should have one? Or a family isn't a complete family because they don't live in a $500k home? Of course not. So why should we consider or feel that a Registry Set is incomplete if it doesn't contain a very expensive error coin that wasn't even supposed to happen?
As I stated in Mitch's thread, if the big boys want to make their toys count for more, than perhaps it is time to make registries for them so they can show off their toys amongst other big boys. Us lower class folks will just stay in our own "incomplete" worlds and "cheat" ourselves by trying to complete an "incomplete" set.
Thanks for asking
I don't think collecting every date and mintmark the Mint
INTENDED to make is lazy (or easy).
When I get every "normal" Mercury dime minted, my set will
be complete. Will I go back and get the 41/2 and 41/2 D?
Maybe, even probably. But only because they interest me.
So argue that you think the finest sets should go beyond "normal".
Argue that a significent percentage of collectors find varieties
interesting. But don't act like collectors who spend many years
and many dollars to complete a set are lazy because they choose
not to obtain a couple curiosities.
-Keith H
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.
Ray
And, of course, this is the same silly argument against those who say that their Wash quarter book never had a hole for the Light Motto.
Yeah, that deck is really stacked against the big boys.
Bwahahahahahahaha.
Ya gotta stop beating this drum Mitch.
If anyone has $10K to drop on the 57(p) in MS68
why can't he also buy the 1950d/s in PCGS-MS63.
The dollar per point curve is the same for everyone,
poor, rich or indifferent. It always takes a lot more
money to get that next point.
-Keith H
Buddy, I totally agree with your math. And I don't have anything against the Big Boys - if I had it, I would spend it also! However, don't you think that if a Big Boy would spend 10k for 67 points, he would also spring whatever it took to buy that pop 1 MS67 1950D/S (hypothetical ?)? Of course he would since for the Big Boys, it is the coin and not the money. So now, Big Boy spent unlimited funds for 670 points while Little Joe paid $400 for his 634 points. After two coins, there is a pretty significant spread already which will only widen. So in principle, I agree that the deck is stacked against the Big Boy, but it's nothing that unlimited funds won't allow him to overcome.
Another thing that bothers me in the Lincoln set is that currently, one can conceivably complete an MS red set within reason to include keys with the 1914-D being the most expensive in MS60. If you add the future weighting and possible RD, RB, and BN point bonus/deductions, Little Joe will never have a chance. I presume PCGS would count the 22 No D Strong like they do the 43's since there aren't any RDs. When I started seriously, I knew I could compile a 100% MS Red Lincoln Set. I'm not so sure I can if the varieties are required. Poor me? Hardly. But if I were getting started on the same set with these required now, I would pass because it would be an unattainable goal - why bother.
Slightly off subject here but the weighting issue you brought up made me think about it - how long will it be before the Big Boys start squabbling over the weights? I mean I think if I spent five figures on a pop 1 MS Gem, I would think that it carries more weight than a pop 1000 VF35 coin. Just more fuel for the fire
Ray: You crack me up. But even though your 1935 Set is 100% complete, there is still room for an upgrade - better hold off on the 1936 until you reach that plateau!
Thanks all, Dave
How about including blank planchets, clips, and broadstruck coins ect. No need to discriminate. That would really give one PCGS dealer a big jump in Biz!(Fred)
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
Soon, the day of bragging about having "15 different Registries!" will end and the SERIOUS collector will have to pick and choose which series he wants to pursue.
(My "lazy" comment wasn't directed at those who are putting together full sets with mint marks. It was directed at the ideal of collecting only year type without any direction and without considering the MM.)
peacockcoins
You're scaring me. I just finished writing basically the same points in the other thread related to this subject.
Wondercoin & Braddick
I see two major issue regarding whether or not to include varieties. One is whether there should be any concern as to how this will affect the decision of some (many or a few) to get involved with the registry because the requirement for including the varieties in the sets eliminates the possibility of them obtaining any of the top positions in the registry. Financial means is always going to play a part in registry set ratings but adding varieties IMHO exacerbates that situation.
The second issue is whether a set should be considered complete based on having all of the dates and mint marks. The Mint intentionally stamps a date and mint mark on coins for the obvious reasons. Varieties are for the most part an unintentional byproduct of something done unintentionally during the process of minting a coin. The engraver, coin, press operator aren't sitting there doing their jobs thinking about what varieties they can create today. Actually the Mint strives to avoid creating varieties. Their goal is to make each coin identical. Having said this I can see having one registry set that would be considered complete that includes all of the dates/mint marks and another that includes all of the dates/mint marks and varieties, as many as your heart desires. Just my humble opinion.
P.S. I'm still standing
to encourage participation at all levels.
I think the more participation there is, the better off we all are. PCGS will slab more coins. Dealers will sell more coins. And collectors will have more sets to compare theirs against, and more potiential buyers when the time comes to sell.
As I stated in my other thread, the primary goal of most collectors is to assemble a complete set of whatever it is they collect. By requiring the varieties, I believe you will discourage many people from participating, because they either can't afford, or choose not to collect the varieties.
I do feel that collectors that include the varieties deserve a bonus, which is why I proposed that the standard set of date/mintmark coins be considered 100% complete, and those people who include the varieties would have sets that are more than 100% complete. This way, you are recognizing the achievements of those that go the extra mile, without penalizing those who choose not to include them. The finest sets WILL include the varieties, WILL have more set points, and WILL be listed at their rightful place at the top.
Personally, I like the varieties because they I find them interesting, and feel they supplement the standard set. That is why I currently have 5 of the 10 PCGS-recognized Jefferson nickel varieties in my set, all in MS65 or better. I will buy the others as well (well maybe not the '64 SMS since there is only a handful in existance).
Ken
The other group apposing the requirement of varieties is stating it will discourage collectors from participating.
Can't have it both ways!
Now, pmh1nic, I can't speak for Mitch, whom you also addressed, but for myself (and you know I'm just 100% a Collector, right?) as much as we all hate to hear it: The REGISTRY is NOT for everyone. Sorry, not everyone will be a participant in the top five spots! Ain't gonna happen. Oh, everyone can still play- but the top spots are reserved for those who are willing to pony up and not just PLAY, but COMPETE.
I swam and played water polo in high school. Why? Because I couldn't play football- just wasn't good enough. Was that fair? Sure. We do with what we've got. I was a better swimmer than I was a wide receiver.
-Just because I don't have the funds to seriously compete (oh, pick any Classic Registry!) in the Standing Liberty quarter series doesn't mean I have the right to have PCGS change that Registry to make it easier for me.
Why should I delute the Registry?
peacockcoins
One of the sets I aspire to is a set of Morgan Dollars by year only. Isn't this how many collectors begin, with a "by year" set and then add in the mintmarks?
PCGS even has a Registry for the Early Commemorative Halves that is by type only (not mintmark).
It's not that I don't appreciate the work that collecting a truly complete set is. And I don't see the "by year" sets as being an equal accomplishment to a complete set, but still a worthy endeavour.
To each his own,
madmike
Braddick: Are you saying this would be like you peeing in the water polo pool?
Seriously, all the responses are excellent. Pmhinic: I hear you. Solid: You have a workable plan there, but, is it really "form over substance"? Tell collectors they got 100% complete, but the bonus points dictate that none of these "completed" collectors sets ever reach a top spot? Is this really "politics" at work?