LINCOLN BUSINESS STRIKE REGISTRY-WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED?

Steve

With the updating of Lincoln cent Registry sets in the past week or so to better define a (1) BASIC COMPLETE SET from a (2) BASIC COMPLETE SET WITH MAJOR VARIETIES and the all new (3) COMPLETE SET WITH ALL VARIETIES I thought it would be interesting to get the opinions of Set Registry participants collecting LINCOLN CENTS as to what specific variety coins should be included. For the purposes of this discussion I will NOT include PROOF coins here, but I will assume that as of now the 82 Lincoln proof cents (thru 2006) identified by PCGS are part of a complete collection with major varieties.

The BASIC Complete set (1909 thru 2006) excluding varieties contains 240 coins. The Basic complete set with major varieties contains 260 coins and the complete set with all varieties contains 370 coins. For this discussion lets just talk about the 20 coins that PCGS includes as MAJOR VARIETIES.

I happen to own 10 of those coins. They are:

1922 no D strong reverse
1944 D/S
1955 DD
1960 small date
1960D small date
1970S small date
1972 DD
1983 reverse DD
1984 DD
1995 DD

The other 10 that PCGS considers Major varieties

1909VDB DD
1909 S/horizontal S
1917 DD
1936 DD
1941 DD
1943 D/D
1960D sm dt/lg dt
1969 DD
1970S DD
1971 DD

I would add to the Major varieties the five other 1982 date and composition varieties.

Which coins do YOU think should be part of the Basic Complete Set with Major Varieties?

Steve

DMWJR

That's a good question Steve.

I like the new "Classics" set 09-64 that only adds the 22 No D, 55DDO, 60 SD, and the 60-d SD. That is the "complete" set that I grew up on.

The 09-58 Basic with Major Varieties Set is also OK, which includes these varieties:

1909VDB DD
1909 S/horizontal S
1917 DD
1936 DD
1941 DD
1943 D/D
1922 no D strong reverse
1944 D/S
1955 DD

I think the issue becomes the Memorial Cents, and more specifically the 1969 DDO and the 1958 DDO. How do you define Major? If you mean the doubling is major, then both of these varieties qualify because the doubling is as good as the 95 DDO, and almost as good as the 55 DDO. But if you define "major" as a larger population, then you wouldn't be able to include the 58 DDO and the 69 DDO would be borderline. Forget the cost of adding one of these to your set, because that really shouldn't be considered in the definition of "major." Collectors get hung up on these two varieties I think primarily because they are too expensive to add to their collection. In my mind, it doesn't make them less of a major variety just because they are expensive. (Yes, I know the 69DDO is in the set, but the 58DDO is not).

These are the ones currently listed for the set:

1960 small date
1960D small date
1960D sm dt/lg dt
1969 DD
1970S DD
1970S small date
1971 DD
1972 DD
1983 reverse DD
1984 DD
1995 DD

Personally, I would drop the 70s DD and the 71 DD as the doubling is more minor. All others listed are great. Interestingly, the 60-d/d DDO is the only RPM for the set, while there are several prominent RPM's in the series. I think the RPM's in the 09-58 set are there primarily due to popularity in years gone by. In addition, I would add the 1982 varieties (except the DDO). What Lincoln Memorial cent collector among us has not picked up the 7 coin set during our collecting???

LincolnsRule

This is a really tough question and a very debatable subject. There's clearly no wrong or right! I don't have an opinion as I'm not a varieties collector. However, what I consider to be a variety is a coin that the mint did not intend to make, like an DD or overmintmark. I consider the small date and large dates, and 1982 composition change, as intended changes in design, just like a 1909 with vdb and one without, and include these as part of what I would call a basic set. (Unfortunately (cost!), due to my definition, there's a few other coins I may need to consider including in my collection, like the 28-s large and small S, and the 1974 small and large dates, and a non-Lincoln, the 1972 Ike T1 variety).

DCW

"Personally, I would drop the 70s DD and the 71 DD as the doubling is more minor. All others listed are great. "

I disagree. The 1970s DDO is a very dramatic, bold doubled die. Nothing minor about it if you've held one in hand. It's definately one for the registry. I would also add 1995-d DDO, which is IMHO loads more interesting and rare than its Philadelphia counterpart. I also like the 1968-D DDR. Its got doubling all over the reverse, the lettering and the memorial itself. And how about the 1961 D/ Horizontal D? How has this coin missed variety buffs' attention over the years? Very clear, indisputable RPM.

WaterSport

I guess I was thinking that the word major had nothing to do with the significance of the doubling but rather the significance of its collectability. Which of course goes against why they included the 69 S DDO let alone the 1958 DDO? I do not know if its jealousy on my part or out right stupidity on PCGS part but I feel these two coins should not be in ANY variety set. I seem to recall at one time that PCGS required a certain number of graded coins before they would consider it for a set. If this is not a rule, then maybe they should get an opinion on this. The fact remains, if they took a collectors poll like what you’re doing here. These two coins would overwhelmingly be off the list. Of course if your going to keep high end material on the list. Then you can expect not to have to cover the cost of too many pedigree sets. Right?

After looking at the coins required in the new variety set, checking Coppercoins, looking at the Cherry pickers guide, looking at variety coins for sale and at auction, re-looking at the cherry pickers guide, re-looking at Coppercoins, re-looking at the coins listed on the registry, etc, etc. I felt the only thing to do was retire my set.

There are a handful of coins I have that did not come up on this new set for a lack of coordination of numbers. Like my 1943 D/D. It works on all the other sets, why not here? When BJ was contacted, “send it in for re certification..BTW, that will be $15. Hmmmm, your mistake, and I have to pay?….Does not seem right, especially when I have 4 coins the new set rejected…. Now how about those 1982 coins. Are we suppose to send them in to get the variety correct and does this variety show on the other sets? What difference does it matter, that will be $30 for the two you got and all the rest I have in NGC holders. Forget the cash, just try and match the coins and FS numbers. I can tell you there will be a lot of returned coins not with the numbers you were hoping for unless of course you’re Chuck, who I would love to hear his opinion, but of course he is in the middle of a move. I am sure he will be surprised when he sees what happened while his was packing. Anyway you guys have fun with it. And when someone hits 90% complete, I would like to hear if PCGS is covering your 5 free grade fees PLUS the $15 to get you varieties graded.

WS

DMWJR

Bob, you will disappoint many folks if you start deleting your sets. Yours represents a true collector set that appeals to the collector in all of us.

Maybe PCGS could help us out just a little on the reholdering/relabeling issue. I recall that when PCGS began designating FB on Roosevelt Dimes, that PCGS allowed current registry set owners to send in their coins for a free designation review and reholder. I think PCGS should probably do the same for anyone who has a registry set with major varieties from before they announced the new Complete Variety Set.

How about it BJ?

Steve

<< <i>This is a really tough question and a very debatable subject. There's clearly no wrong or right! I don't have an opinion as I'm not a varieties collector. However, what I consider to be a variety is a coin that the mint did not intend to make, like an DD or overmintmark. I consider the small date and large dates, and 1982 composition change, as intended changes in design, just like a 1909 with vdb and one without, and include these as part of what I would call a basic set. (Unfortunately (cost!), due to my definition, there's a few other coins I may need to consider including in my collection, like the 28-s large and small S, and the 1974 small and large dates, and a non-Lincoln, the 1972 Ike T1 variety). >>





One of the key words that we need to consider here is MAJOR.
I am very happy to see PCGS come up with a COMPLETE variety set for those who collect the many, many Lincoln varieties. Even there it is almost impossible to list EVERY one, but at least the over 100 they have so far determined is a good start.

As far as Major varieties, I agree with the above quote that certain defined Major varieties like the 1960 & 1970 small dates and the 1982 combos SHOULD be part of the basic set since the mint INTENDED for their manufacture. Besides, they are INEXPENSIVE to collect. I have always looked at price listings to determine key varieties thru the years. I remember the 1909 S over horizontal S was often on the lists and I often thought of getting it. Other than that one I am very satisfied with the 10 varieties I now own (see 1st thread) and the five 1982 coins. So for me, a total of 15 or 16 varieties over the current PCGS basic set is a complete set FOR ME.

Obviously, each of us has his or her own opinions on this subject.

Steve

WaterSport

Thanks for your words Doug. The other sets are going to stay put, but I guess this one has too many issues that need to be resolved first.

BTW, did I miss something here, or are these variety set changes suppose to be the result of the Satin Vs BS issues and therefore by the vote offered by BJ the matter is now resolved with the majority of collectors voting to have either BS or Satin coins in any set.

WS

perfectstrike

I've finally had a good look at the list and find it acceptable. We could debate the 1958/1969S issue all day but in the end it's a PCGS game and we don't have to play. Since it's a Complete Variety list the 1974 varieties should probably be there.

I'm very interested in any process for attributing Lincolns already in holders. I've been saving 1982's and 1974's for a few years. I tried crossing a few NGC holdered varieties earlier this year, at any grade, and at least one of my fees was refunded. It may be worthwhile to dig up that huge box of ANACS holdered Lincoln varieties I bought in about Y2K.

David

DMWJR

Bob, I don't think it has anything to do with the SF vs BS debate, but PCGS's attempt to have a "red book" set (the Classic Set) and a Cherrypicker's Guide Set (Complete Varieties). The normal Basic Set with Major Varieties is just what PCGS would historically recognize and include in the set, although they have been certifying other varieties for years that have not been included in any Registry Set.

If PCGS asked for input from Registry Set Lincoln collectors, I didn't get the memo either. I only got the one about SF vs. BS.

Silverstate

For the "Good, Bad and the Ugly" of this.

It is really a great thing.

Lincoln cents are now really getting recognized as a collectors favorite.

I'm thrilled that the lincoln cent is getting attention from PCGS on this matter.
As for the die varieties. I find them fascinating. I started in Lincoln Cents, then got into Large cents.
..As of late. The Presidential Dollar sets.

The Pres. Dollar Collectors have been debating over what coins to put in or leave out and its only the first year.
Just watch the "Lincoln Cents complete set" expand as more varieties are submitted to PCGS.

It's about time that they gave the varieties a home in the Registry sets.

Bottomline... AWESOME !!