Rule of 5 - Good or Bad Thing?

Silverstate

I believe it to be a bad thing.

Many rarities would then be excluded from the registries.
That should not be.

Examples:

One Dollar Gold with Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1849-1889) - Remove Coin # 7506 under Rule of 5

Type 1, Liberty Head , PR - Coin # 7593
Type 2, Indian Princess, Small Head, PR - Remove ALL - All coins under 5 pop each ( 5 diff Coins)

St. Gaudens $20 Gold with 1933 & Patterns, Circulation Strikes (1907-1933)
Pcgs # 9198 - 1907 Extremely High Relief $ 20 PR67 is a pop 1 - AND Is required in the set.

And also the coins in the Liberty Head $20 (1849-1907),
LOTS of low pop coins in there as well.

Large Cents Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes (1793-1814)
The 1793 Strawberry Leaf is required - POP 1 coin <-------------------------Redbook says it has 4 known to exist
BUT, It is in a set right now. Should this coin be pulled?

Liberty Nickels with 1913, Proof (1883-1913)
Isn't the 1913 Liberty Nickel a pop 2 coin...It's even in the Title of this set.

And as to the Modern sets.
Jefferson Nickels FS with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1938-1964)
Jefferson Nickels -
1961-D FS POP 3 (this one is in a set presently w/ pics)

Jefferson Nickels FS with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1938-present)
1965 FS - Pop 1
Ray Overby, has the pop 1 of 1 coins in his set.
http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/alltimeset.aspx?s=5703

Jefferson Nickel Set - Check out 1965 FS - POP 1

Mitch, the Lincoln cent - 1958 DDO is included in the latest Lincoln Cent complete varieties sets. - VERY RARE COIN !!!

I can find dozens of coins that are in sets now, that would be removed IF the Rule of 5 was in place.

BJ, Recently stated that the Rule of 5 - Does not exist now at PCGS.

The fact is that many of you have sets and know which coins might be in this low pop status.
Anyone know of others that would be affected by such a ruling?

I know there are many Large Cents that are in this status as well.
Low Pop Die Varieties, but that is why we have complete sets for those that collect these rarities.

Wouldn't it be sad to hide away the true rarities by having this rule?
And, This IF it were ever applied, would need to be applied to all sets across the board, equally.

It just cannot be done.

Although, I have always wanted a Strawberry Leaf Large Cent and a 1913 V Nickel.
We have auction catalogues, Redbooks and REGISTRY sets where they can be displayed proudly.


Isn't this the way it should remain?

What do you guys think?

wondercoin

Jim - Best I know, the "Rule of 5" was in existence for the entire duration of the Registry except (I am now told) for the past 2 years. So, for 9 or 10 years the Rule worked just fine and, as you mentioned, a coin like the stellar 1958 DDO was not a "required" coin in the Lincoln variety set as virtually no one could obtain one as it was "too rare". Jim - did you say the 58 DDO is now a required coin in the Lincoln MAJOR variety set (which it obviously is)?

I have some more comments and observations concerning the "Rule of 5" and when I get back this weekend I will likely supplement this quick comment.

Wondercoin

Silverstate

Mitch,

I don't believe that the Lincoln 1958 DDO is in the major set.
It is in the COMPLETE set. It has major weighting If you happen to have it as well.

Isn't that coin a 75-125K coin

Silverstate

OK Dime Guys...

Roosevelt Dimes FB, Circulation Strikes (1965-Present)

This set has at LEAST 10 coins that have less than 5 pops., THAT ARE PRESENTLY REQUIRED.

1969 FB
1970 FB
1976 FB
1979 FB
1980 FB
1980-D FB
1983 FB
1990 FB
1990-D FB
1991-D FB

Removing these would destroy all of your Dime Collections, If you are in the fortunate few that have these.
Any dime guys on the boards have these in their sets?

wondercoin

Jim - Yes - that coin is probably the KING of the Lincoln varieties. It is as MAJOR as they come and worth well into or in excess of your esitmate So, if PCGS did, in fact, abandom the "Rule of 5" a couple years ago, why is the 1958 DDO still not in the MAJOR variety set?

One other thing... the Rule of 5 also works to assist Registry players with the flip side situation. For example, PCGS recently added a host of new Lincoln cent varieties to the complete set (like a handful of 72 DDO minor varieties). The 'Rule of 5" assists collectors by not requiring these very minor varieiies until 5 coins are in the Pop report. This assures a collector he is not compelled to pay thousands of dollars for a "pop 1" or "pop 2" very minor variety or face having an incomplete set with a hole in it. The Rule is very "pro collector" in my opinion and I always supported PCGS' use of it. It is unclear to me why they abandoned the use of it two years ago (if they truly did)?

Also, the Rule never applied to designations such as FS Jeffs or FB dimes as the non-FS or FB examples were considered in the pop of the coin. So, that was never an issue in the past.

I would also be curious to hear from other collectors on this question.

Wondercoin

Silverstate

Mitch,
What coins make it into a Major category versus a Complete set may have its own set of rules, I don't admit to really knowing.
There are many more knowledgable than myself on that topic.

If, the 1958 DDO Lincoln is the King of Lincoln's, I agree it is a very desirable coin.
Shouldn't it have a home at LEAST minimumly in the complete set, rather than being banished from the registry?

All Coins with a PCGS number should be in a registry set, at least the complete sets, If nowhere else.


There also would be no need for many Gold Proof registry sets since almost the entire sets are such low pops.

wondercoin

Jim - I am as puzzled as you by this issue. One the one hand, if the Rule of 5 was actually dropped a couple years ago, coins such as the 58DDO needed to have been added to the major collection (2 years ago) - that obviously did not happen.

The Rule worked really well for years on coins that were "fresh" to the registry (like the minor 72DDO cent example I gave above). And, perhaps after some period of time, even if 5 coins are never slabbed, perhaps a coin deserves to count regardless.

Interesting debate to be sure.

Wondercoin

Silverstate

Mitch,

I understand your point about the 1958 DDO Lincoln.
PCGS is finally making things right.

The satin coins finally are seperated from the business strikes in a couple of sets..more to follow...

There are potentially many more VERY Low pop coins required in the Lincoln complete set.
It is not for the faint of heart.
However, The 1958 DDo does have a home in a complete set as it deserves.

Does anyone on this forum own one?

TAClough

<< <i>Also, the Rule never applied to designations such as FS Jeffs or FB dimes as the non-FS or FB examples were considered in the pop of the coin. So, that was never an issue in the past. >>



The above statement shows why the “Imaginary Rule of Five” makes no sense. If the “full Band”, “Full Bell Lines”, “Full Steps” designation on a coin with a certain date and mint mark does not apply to the “Imaginary Rule of Five” then why should the designation of a variety make any difference?



<< <i>One other thing... the Rule of 5 also works to assist Registry players with the flip side situation. For example, PCGS recently added a host of new Lincoln cent varieties to the complete set (like a handful of 72 DDO minor varieties). The 'Rule of 5" assists collectors by not requiring these very minor varieiies until 5 coins are in the Pop report. This assures a collector he is not compelled to pay thousands of dollars for a "pop 1" or "pop 2" very minor variety or face having an incomplete set with a hole in it. The Rule is very "pro collector" in my opinion and I always supported PCGS' use of it. It is unclear to me why they abandoned the use of it two years ago (if they truly did)? >>



This paragraph is puzzling to me. Is PCGS only to have sets in the Registry that everyone can have one hundred percent complete easily? If this is the case then get rid of all the early sets because they have several coins that would case over $1,000 for a pop 1 or pop 2 coin. If you are going to have a set that purports to being a complete set with varieties, how can you have it without having all of the varieties in it that PCGS recognizes? I can not say what PCGS did when they started the Registry, but my son and I have had a few sets listed for the past four to five years and this is the first we have heard about the “Rule of Five”.

We have several examples of the same variety with the Kennedy series, but we only pay to have the best example graded and attributed. Even though the population report only says that there are one or two coins graded, you mean to tell us that we have to pay the expense of having three or four of our duplicates graded and attributed before we can list them in our set? Sorry Mitch, but I think you are out to lunch on this one!

My son and I have several sets that we can only dream of having one hundred percent complete but they are still fun to collect. If there ever was a “Rule of Five”, it was a stupid rule and we are glad that PCGS did away with it.

JMHO,
Tim

wondercoin

Tim: The registry operated with this rule for 9 years. It is still being applied to this day on a limited basis (e.g. 58 DDO Lincoln not in the Major variety set). There were many Wash quarter varieties that also fell under the rule throughout the years. I am not sure why me commenting on something you did not know even existed for the majority of the life of the registry results in me being "out to lunch"? Nonetheless, reasonable men may differ.

Wondercoin

Silverstate

"If you are going to have a set that purports to being a complete set with varieties, how can you have it without having all of the varieties in it that PCGS recognizes?" If there ever was a “Rule of Five”, it was a stupid rule and we are glad that PCGS did away with it.

JMHO,
Tim >>



Tim,
I am in total agreement. If the COMPLETE Sets that are being set up now are not with all varieties, then they had better not call them complete sets.


I have a nice 1943 s/s Lincoln to add to the Lincoln Complete set. I didn't see one listed yet, so as with the rest of the sets...They will grow.

You have some nice varieties in your Kennedy Collection.

ellewood

However, The 1958 DDo does have a home in a complete set as it deserves.

Does anyone on this forum own one?

I believe Stewart Blay still owns the finest example out there:

Article

I'm sure someone has better photos than the article...

Silverstate

ellewood,

I am glad that the 1958 DDO has a home in the complete set now.

What a monster piece to won.
Makes you kind of envious....



There are many sets with minor and major varieties that will now have a home in at LEAST the complete sets.
What makes a coin worthy of the Major set?

I am looking forward to seeing all the stops pulled out when all the sets have true complete sets with varieties.

TAClough

If the phantom “Rule of Five” existed for nine years, I have to wonder what took PCGS so long to correct that injustice to the hobby. I realize that there are sets in the Registry that only have token Variety coin(s) in them. The Kennedy Half Dollars with Varities, Circulation Strikes (1964 – Present) is one of the sets in the Registry that only has one token variety coin in it, the 1974-D DDO.

The big question is, what does PCGS consider to be “Classic” or “Major” Varieties? Again, just looking at the Kennedy Half Dollars, why has the only variety listed in the set, the 1974-D DDO FS – 015.0? Why would PCGS take the basic circulation strike Kennedy Half Dollars and add just the one coin to make a set called “Varieties”? As far as “Classic” or “Major” Varieties go, what does the 1974-D DDO (FS-015.0) have that the 1964-D DDO (FS-013.4), 1964-D TDO (FS-013.5), 1964-D QDO (FS-013.6), 1966 DDO (FS-013.8), 1971-D DDO (FS-014.3), 1973-D DDO (FS-014.8) or the 1977-D DDO (FS-017.0) has?

I am half expecting to read someone post to this thread that PCGS shouldn’t have any coins listed in the set unless everyone who wants one can afford the top pops!

Again, if the “Rule of Five” did exist, I for one am glad that PCGS corrected their policy by eliminating it (just surprised that it took them nine years).

Just to summarize, to make clear, I hope that PCGS will make the sets Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Set with Varities, Circulation Strikes (1964 – Present) and Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Set with Varities, Circulation Strikes / Proofs / Satin Finish (1964 – Present) . I may never be able to fill all of holes in the sets, but if PCGS recognizes a variety with a unique coin number then I hope they will make a slot in the set for it.

JMHO,
Tim

Silverstate

<< <i>If the phantom “Rule of Five” existed for nine years, I have to wonder what took PCGS so long to correct that injustice to the hobby. I realize that there are sets in the Registry that only have token Variety coin(s) in them. The Kennedy Half Dollars with Varities, Circulation Strikes (1964 – Present) is one of the sets in the Registry that only has one token variety coin in it, the 1974-D DDO.

The big question is, what does PCGS consider to be “Classic” or “Major” Varieties? Again, just looking at the Kennedy Half Dollars, why has the only variety listed in the set, the 1974-D DDO FS – 015.0? Why would PCGS take the basic circulation strike Kennedy Half Dollars and add just the one coin to make a set called “Varieties”? As far as “Classic” or “Major” Varieties go, what does the 1974-D DDO (FS-015.0) have that the 1964-D DDO (FS-013.4), 1964-D TDO (FS-013.5), 1964-D QDO (FS-013.6), 1966 DDO (FS-013.8), 1971-D DDO (FS-014.3), 1973-D DDO (FS-014.8) or the 1977-D DDO (FS-017.0) has?

I am half expecting to read someone post to this thread that PCGS shouldn’t have any coins listed in the set unless everyone who wants one can afford the top pops!

Again, if the “Rule of Five” did exist, I for one am glad that PCGS corrected their policy by eliminating it (just surprised that it took them nine years).

Just to summarize, to make clear, I hope that PCGS will make the sets Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Set with Varities, Circulation Strikes (1964 – Present) and Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Set with Varities, Circulation Strikes / Proofs / Satin Finish (1964 – Present) . I may never be able to fill all of holes in the sets, but if PCGS recognizes a variety with a unique coin number then I hope they will make a slot in the set for it.

JMHO,
Tim >>



Tim,
I will mention this to BJ when I talk to her next week.
The Collectors of each series should have some input on all of the varieties that have been overlooked and that should be part of the Complete sets of each series.

Complete sets should be that, complete sets.

wondercoin

Jim - What are you going to mention to BJ next week? That a single Kennedy Half collector (who I do admire by the way) agrees that there should be no Rule of 5 (while dozens and dozens of collectors I know who have no interest commenting on your thread always supported the Rule)- while a second collector in your other thread basically feels that all the varieties should not be there so he can keep buying them cheap?

Seriously- have you noticed that many, many collectors these days simply don't care anymore what happens with the Registry? Or, is it just like the Presidential elections where half or less of registered voters even bother to vote anymore? Have these Registry collectors basically "lost interest" or are they secure in knowing that one way or the other PCGS will find the right answer without their participation? Has anyone really studied the metaphysics behind the current Registry and its participants? If I had more time it would be a fun research project.

Wondercoin

P.S. In a conversation I recently had with the Price Guide editor, he mentioned to me that he would support a "Rule of 10" to avoid situations where petty varieties (say worth $25 raw) are run up to stupid prices (i.e. thousands of dollars) so a collector could capture a "pop 1" or "pop 2" slot in the Registry while it was a blank for 95%+ of the other players. But, there is no Rule of 5 anymore, so this is just an adademic excercise at this point.

cointime

Mitch,

I do recall this rule. Now some have asked about the Designations like FS, FH and FB. I recall that the sets were not separated yet, so a Roosie with a pop less than 5 in FB didn't matter, because it was not required to be FB and one could just add a non FB coin to their set. Also I recall in the beginning only the top 5 sets would be displayed on the 1st page and one would have to click to see all the Current or ALL Time Finest link to see the rest of the sets listed. My thoughts as I recall are that there were not that many sets to join/build at the start and not to discourage a collector the 5 minimum pop before it was a required coin in a set was a way to keep the interests in building sets and not make it appear to be too difficult.

With all the new sets that have and in process of being created/revised by PCGS I too would have lifted the 5 coin minimum pop rule before being required in a set JMO

Alos I have noticed the same thing that Tim pointed out with the Kennedy halves (as well as the pop report and Price Guide needs updaing on these as well). I just figured BJ and company had their hands full getting the Lincolns off the ground


Ken

cointime

Just another thought came to me after I posted: It has only been what, 1 or 2 years since PCGS started doing VAMS? and now with the Cherry Pickers Guide as a reference started getting into the Vars? Before that if you did not go to ANACS and had PCGS grade/slab your coin they were given an "E" error coin number. What we are seeing is an evolution at PCGS and them rolling out new features/option for us to play with. I just don't see the big deal here I guess.

Ken

wondercoin

Ken - Finally, an "old timer" that remembers the antiquated rules!

And, everything you say makes sense. Interestingly, even though the FS or FB sets were not separated as you point out, the coins did have separate coin numbers, yet the Rule never impacted those separate coin numbered coins?

Oh well - that was then and now is now. Time for "everything but the kitchen sink" to be included in these sets. I also have a ton of Silver Washington quarters I bought over the years that could never go anywhere (e.g. 1936 DDO, 1964 transitional rev. - heck I even own (what I believe to be) the only Mint State 1965 Silver Quarter ever graded at PCGS). If I can get that in the regular issue 1932-1964 silver set and have PCGS change the set to 1932-1965 Silver Washington quarters - I can knock David Poole out of first place and make each and every player 99% complete (just kidding now David - at best it would be a "variety set" coin 1932-1965 Silver quarters - assuming errors now get included in variety sets!!) Jim - can you help me do that!! My 1965 Mint State Silver Washington quarter needs a home!

Wondercoin

Twincam

<< <i>Jim - What are you going to mention to BJ next week? That a single Kennedy Half collector (who I do admire by the way) agrees that there should be no Rule of 5 >>


Actually, Tim's not the lone Kennedy collector who feels that way. Several of us Kennedy collectors converse on a regular basis, and feel the same way.



<< <i>With all the new sets that have and in process of being created/revised by PCGS I too would have lifted the 5 coin minimum pop rule before being required in a set JMO >>


Exactly...that's the purpose of the non-complete variety sets...ie the Classic or Major Variety sets.

wondercoin

Twincam - Super - glad to have you in the conversation!!

Who else loves the fact that every single coin variety with a separate coin number should be a required Registry coin as soon as a single coin is slabbed?

Wondercoin

cointime

Dave,

Serious collectors like Tim and yourself I think have been ahead of the game in looking for and locating these variety coins for the Kennedy series. May hats off to you fine gentlemen

I too am looking for some in hopes PCGS will create a new variety short set (there are just too many in the whole series and I have never been one to collect much out side of a type set). Heck I just recently bought a triple die obv from TT that ended up being a QDO and the price guide never moved on the TDO not to mention there is no QDO pop or price guide.

Mitch,

I think your 1965 (which sounds really cool) will always be an error coin and not fit into a VAR set

Silverstate

Mitch,

I would agree that in a complete set.
Even your RARE Silver 1965 Quarter needs a home.

That is a really cool coin to own.

Of course, in the Complete set loaded with DDO's, DDR's & RPM's ect. It would be a nice place to display that coin proudly.

wondercoin

Ken - You comment makes perfect sense regarding the quarter (error vs variety). Yet - the "Missing Edge Lettering" (2007) Dollars contained in a host of registry sets - "errors" or "varieties" in your book Ken?

Wondercoin

P.S. Jim thanks - do you think a major error like the 1965 Silver Washington quarter (or a 1944 Steel cent for that matter) belongs in a Registry set then? Which set? Jim - what do you think? MEL $1's - true "errors" or "varieties"?

cointime

Mitch,

Good question and I haven't really followed or gotten into the dollar craze JMO the "Missing Edge Lettering" is an error due to the fact the mint process/operator failed to complete a step in the minting process. Now if this lettering had been some type of hub doubling or they changed the type of font/size then I would say it would be a VAR. Again I have tried to stay away from any of the long controversial posts on this topic, so these are just my thought and I am in no way an expert on the Pres $ series (my disclaimer)

Ken

Silverstate

<< <i>Ken - You comment makes perfect sense regarding the quarter (error vs variety). Yet - the "Missing Edge Lettering" (2007) Dollars contained in a host of registry sets - "errors" or "varieties" in your book Ken?

Wondercoin

P.S. Jim thanks - do you think a major error like the 1965 Silver Washington quarter (or a 1944 Steel cent for that matter) belongs in a Registry set then? Which set? Jim - what do you think? MEL $1's - true "errors" or "varieties"? >>



Mitch,
Well PCGS recognizes, the Missing Edge Lettering, Partial Edge Lettering, Weak Edge Lettering, Double Edge Lettering (Inverted & Overlapped) - ALL of these as Mint Errors.
At least that what on the labels now. They have been recognized to date all as varieties and the Presidential Dollar Collectors voted on the Major versus Minor status of al of the above mentioned varieties.

I have noticed in some of the sets. Lincolns at this point where the 1958 DDO , has a home as well as the lessor later die states of that same coin, presently share the slot in the registry, BUT the set has weighting.
So, The rarer, low pop coin get more value added for obtaining that particular coin.
Of Course, all coins don't have junior brother versions of the same error.

The 1944 Steel Cents, haven't been recognized in the complete set as of yet.

I believe it should be. If the word complete was not used, then it could be whatever type of set.

I believe we could all agree on the definition of what "Complete" means.

The Lincoln Complete set is currently LOADED with pop 1, pop 2, ect coins with all of those varieties in that complete set. It is a monster set!

wondercoin

Jim - Agreed - This has all become very interesting. The Pres $1 sets are loaded with with major (and a few minor) error coins. Perhaps it is time to get other major errors included in their error sets, like 1944 steel cents, 1943 copper cents, 1965 silver quarters, etc.

Without the Rule of 5 (which does not exist now) - all of these super major error coins could be included in their respective sets now.

Of course, we do not want every single error coin in the registry sets - do we?

Wondercoin

Silverstate

Mitch,
If the coin qualifies for its own coin number, then YES it should be included in the complete sets.
Some sets are in multiple hundreds of coins. Adding one super rare coin will not hurt or destroy the sets.
Many new coins are recieving coin number based on the Cherrypickers guide, then so be it.
Only a small group in each series will truely attempt the all encompassing variety sets.

Seems like Tim & Dave are ready when the Kennedy sets show up.

The Major or Classic sets would not normally contain these particular coins.

Twincam

<< <i>Many new coins are recieving coin number based on the Cherrypickers guide, then so be it.
Only a small group in each series will truely attempt the all encompassing variety sets.
Seems like Tim & Dave are ready when the Kennedy sets show up.
The Major or Classic sets would not normally contain these particular coins. >>


Jim
Yes...and not that my son and I have any misconception about completing the "Complete Set" any time soon. Heck, it may be some time before we can complete a Classic or Major Variety set, depending upon which coins PCGS includes in them. Basically, it boils down to this...we're not one of those who's going to lose sleep over not having every hole in the "Complete Set" filled right now. You won't hear a peep out of me about which coins PCGS includes or doesn't include in the Classic or Major Variety sets...We just want a true "Complete Set" to list what we have, and work towards ALL the varieties recognized by PCGS.

TAClough

<< <i>Serious collectors like Tim and yourself I think have been ahead of the game in looking for and locating these variety coins for the Kennedy series. May hats off to you fine gentlemen >>



Ken,

It is not that I am a serious collector, just ask my eleven year old he will tell you that they are his coins, just my wallet to buy them!

Guess I can't complain, I would rather have him collecting then out hanging on the street cornors getting into trouble.

Tim

Silverstate

Mitch,

After a little thinking about your Washington Quarter 1965 Silver.
This coin is probably a PCGS # E5878 coin.

5878 being the 1965 Washington Quarter- NON SMS - PCGS number plus the "E" for the error in the Silver planchet being used.

In this case, your coin could go into the registry as a 1965 Washington Quarter but get no bonus accolades for the Silver planchet error which is really rare.

So, the coin is still a coin but could only go into the registry under its base PCGS coin number.

wondercoin

As usual - just my luck!

Wondercoin

Silverstate

Mitch,
So I assume that means you will not be parting with that junk "E" coin for 1965 Washington Quarter pricing....



Not for sale....OK..

The Hunt is still on!

wondercoin

Jim - It took me close to 20 years to track down a Mint State example (my coin is graded PCGS-MS64), so I don't plan to do much with it, Registry or not.

Wondercoin

Silverstate

Mitch,
Of course I would not expect you to. That is a VERY cool coin.
Just one of those keepers.

wondercoin

Jim - The 1965 Silver Quarter is similar to the 1944 steel cent - right?

Are you saying someone with a 1944 steel cent would need to enter it in the copper 1944 slot of the registry? If so, something needs fixing - right?

Wondercoin

TAClough

<< <i>Jim - It took me close to 20 years to track down a Mint State example (my coin is graded PCGS-MS64), so I don't plan to do much with it, Registry or not.

Wondercoin >>



Mitch,

You have 46 more posts to go then you can use the coin for your 10,000 post give away!

Just a thought

Tim

Silverstate

Mitch,

What PCGS Coin number is that 1944 Steel Cent?

Since, the Bronze version of 1943 do have coin numbers.

What does a 1944 Steel Cent get?

It can't be a 1944 MSRD #?, or RB# ? or BN# ?

That is tricky...

Mitch, what is the answer?

wondercoin

Jim - There is a 1944 P & D Steel cent being offered at FUN in one of the auctions. Don't recall if they are PCGS graded.

Yes - it is tricky! What makes it even more tricky is that many of the greatest errors of all time are still not in the registry (you would think they would be among the first errors to be there?), while the far more insignifcant errors are? On top of that - there is a undercurrent that "errors" should not even be in the registry - just varieties.

I am as confused as you are!!

Tim - I will try to think of something interesting for you to win after my 10,000th!!
Wondercoin

Silverstate

So, all of our coins say Mint Error on the top, but have a PCGS number would be affected?
That would be a registry killer.

wondercoin

Jim - I agree- the answer is not to take away "errors" that are in the Registry already, but to be consistent with ensuring all major errors are treated the same within those series (and related series) - agreed?

Wondercoin

Silverstate

I agree with the fact that varieties for the most part are mint errors and need a place in the registries.

What about my Washington MEL Dollar with starburst, die clash coin.
That is a classic error with another error as a bonus.
So does this coin count as a Missing Edge Lettering Washington Dollar in the registry? It does now. Why change?

What about a Lincoln 1909 S VDB MS66RD, but has a die clash too. Can it stay in the registry..because it would then be an error coin as well as an 1909 S VDB ?
OR
Kennedy 1974-D DDO MS67, but has a Die Clash, so this coin could not be in the registry?
Wouldn't it still be a 1974-D DDO MS67 (OK, I'm making the Kennedy Boys droul all over themselves right now..sorry!)