Mock-up of Set Listings With Varieties
solid
Posts: 2,975
In a couple of other threads, I proposed a system where a standard set of all date/mintmark coins would be considered 100% complete. If a collector included one or more optional variety coins, their set would then be considered more than 100% complete, and they would be awarded additional set points in the registry.
Since a number of you responded favorably to this idea, I have created a mock up of how the Jefferson Nickel set could be shown with the optional varieties.
Click here to see it!
In this example, the Smith Collection is ranked #1. Mr. Smith has the complete 71-coin standard set, plus he has chosen to add all 10 varieties as well. The #2 and #3 sets also include some varieties.
Mr. Green (the #4 set) has chosen to focus on the standard set and include no varieties, but as you can see, he does have the highest ranked standard set of coins.
This approach allows each collector to choose the composition of their own set, while still getting credit for the optional coins they include. It also makes it easy to compare the "standard sets" of the various collections.
A real world example of this can be found in the "The Corso Collection" of MS Jefferson Nickels. In another thread here, Frank told us that he just purchased an MS68FS 1964 SMS coin. Now, I'm guessing that this coin will not be made mandatory, since there are only a handful in existence. But shouldn't he get credit for including this super rarity?
By making NO varieties mandatory, you eliminate the argument over WHICH varieties should be included, and WHO gets to make this decision. It also solves the problem of retired sets losing position because they didn't have a coin that was later made mandatory, or your retired set being shown as less than 100% complete!
The top sets will include the varieties, will have more total set points, and will be listed in their rightful place at the top.
Any thoughts?
Ken
Since a number of you responded favorably to this idea, I have created a mock up of how the Jefferson Nickel set could be shown with the optional varieties.
Click here to see it!
In this example, the Smith Collection is ranked #1. Mr. Smith has the complete 71-coin standard set, plus he has chosen to add all 10 varieties as well. The #2 and #3 sets also include some varieties.
Mr. Green (the #4 set) has chosen to focus on the standard set and include no varieties, but as you can see, he does have the highest ranked standard set of coins.
This approach allows each collector to choose the composition of their own set, while still getting credit for the optional coins they include. It also makes it easy to compare the "standard sets" of the various collections.
A real world example of this can be found in the "The Corso Collection" of MS Jefferson Nickels. In another thread here, Frank told us that he just purchased an MS68FS 1964 SMS coin. Now, I'm guessing that this coin will not be made mandatory, since there are only a handful in existence. But shouldn't he get credit for including this super rarity?
By making NO varieties mandatory, you eliminate the argument over WHICH varieties should be included, and WHO gets to make this decision. It also solves the problem of retired sets losing position because they didn't have a coin that was later made mandatory, or your retired set being shown as less than 100% complete!
The top sets will include the varieties, will have more total set points, and will be listed in their rightful place at the top.
Any thoughts?
Ken
0
Comments
Looks great. I think one of the columns, either standard or extended (whichever one the overall position does not get sorted on), will benefit from a position column. In your example, it gets confusing in the standard set column as the #4 Extended Set is actually the #1 Standard Set but remains in the #4 position.
The other thing is that when these sets are weighted, no doubt the varieties/errors are going to carry max weights. So unless someone has the ability and funds to purchase every variety/error, there isn't much incentive to cross over to the extended set.
Which takes the issue back to, is it easier to have two registries for the haves and the have nots or leave things the way they are with varieties/errors as options. Choice A hurts PCGS with additional resources required for maintenance and storage. Choice B hurts no one, as Little Joe can continue/start to compete and Big Boys can still proudly display their additonal acquisitions. Choice C, just making everything required, hurts a much larger population. Dave