David Hall Speaks- Variety coins

PQpeace

Message On Varieties From David Hall

To All Set Registry Participants:

It appears the most controversial part of the Set Registry
is how we handle varieties. There are very strong feelings
on both sides of the question as to whether or not varieties
should be included in sets. Several very creative
alternative approaches have been suggested by our
Set Registry enthusiasts, including calling a non-variety
set 100% complete and calling a set that included varieties
more than 100% complete.

All of the suggestions have mathematical and programming
problems for us and I don't think any of them will please
almost everyone. So, we think the best approach will be to
have two sets in the Registry...a "Basic" set that does not
include varieties, and a "Complete Set Including Varieties"
that includes the major varieties. This will allow someone,
who doesn't want to buy varieties to have the all-time finest,
100% complete 1932 to 1964 Washington Quarter Basic set (for
example), without the need to buy varieties. It will also
allow the person who does have the varieties to have the all-
time finest, 100% complete 1932 to 1964 Washington Quarter
Complete, Including Varieties, set.

It's a little more work for us initially, but we feel that
this approach should please nearly everyone. Please give us
your feedback, and, assuming most everyone is in agreement,
we can get on down the highway and finish adding all U.S.
coin sets to the Registry.

One more thing...

We really appreciate all of your comments and help. BJ and I
have read every email you have sent to us. And Rick Montgomery
has read many of them. We don't have time to personally
respond to every email, so please accept out sincere THANKS
for all your help.

Enjoy your coins!

David Hall

Coin Finder

I got this email as well, I think David Hall and PCGS are doing a great job and are accomodating most and I said MOST everyone with this strategy.

Kudos to PCGS!!

Tbig

blato1

This latest concession seems to resolve the issue for most people. Now back to the fun of the Registry!!

solid

It would be very hard to say that PCGS is not listening.

It seems that they are working to improve the registry,
and make it work for everyone!

Thanks, PCGS

Ken

BigE

How can anyone argue with that, lets go!------BigE

cosmicdebris

This is great news for everyone, PCGS and us.

CJK

I am very impressed with the solution that PCGS has devised. I believe it should satisfy (most) everyone--it does me.

dldallen

Count me as another satisfied member! Thanks PCGS and everyone that voiced concerns and remedies. Now, back to the sets! Dave

python1

Thanks PCGS!!!!!!
Very pleased with the new way of setting up sets.....
Lets get to it!!

clevegreg

I agree. A great solution and proof that PCGS in indeed listening to us. LETS ROLL

Greg

pmh1nic

Time out guys. Deciding whether to include or exclude varieties was the easy part (create two registry sets). The tough part will be deciding which varieties to include in the registry that will include varieties. That's where I think the major debate will be.

Spooly

Good Show!!

rkfish

I too believe this was the best decision for everyone. Thanks PCGS!

PTVETTER

I responded to the email and told PCGS I liked the idea! KISS principle. In reguards to which verities will be included? if you are in the verities set you are in all the way or stick with the basic set. I'm basic myself.

Pat Vetter

dbldie55

When I mentioned two sets a while back, people said "Don't do it" (not those who are approving now). I wonder what their opinion is now?

As for the next problem being which varieties to include, I would agree that will be tough, but I think Pat's solution is the correct one. If you do not like the choices, stick with the basic set.

howie08

I think this solution is the fairest to most of us. It's great that PCGS listened to our responses !! Let the games begin for all of us !! Deep & Shallow pockets alike !! We can all enter whichever playing field we desire.

oreville

David;

As a non registry coin collector, your tentative final decision (LOL) is the best way to go. I am pleased with such thinking.

I am just too old fashioned to do this registry thing but enjoy observing other registry sets. Most important by making this decision you have protected the integrity of older registry sets but allowed flexibility for such collectors to expand into varities as they which. One thing....keep the "optional category" of varieties for those sets that wants to display a bunch of varieties but does not which to score points for them in the traditional sets.

Now your only minor issues are what varities to pick? Using a 1980 Red Book as the standard leaves out some very fine varieties such as (for example) the 1983/83 DDR cent. Varieties will evolve with time so it might be best to allow them all but to limit the maximum amount of varieties that can accumulate additional points. Perhaps allow a maximum of 10 varieties per series and just be flexible when things change. Otherwise you will go nuts trying to recalculate the numerical scoring of sets. I suggest not revising varieties sets more than once a year at a specific date each year. That gives you plenty of time to grow with this thing. Go slow and go easy on changing the varieties schedule that is allowable. Fads come and go.

oreville

Now if I can only learn how to spell the word varieties correctly each time! I happen to collect varieties a lot too but am too haphazard in which ones I do.

I do not believe that every variety collector feels a compulsion to do them all.

mansco

Yeah! I can start my hunt again. My big question is can we get Don Dolga to relist his set????

MarkJude

It was nice to see that David Hall and Company listened to what people had to say. I appreciated having my voice heard.

MarkJude

BigE

Mark, that's true!-----------BigE

Monstavet

At first I wanted to jump on the bandwagon here, as it seems like PCGS has come up with a good solution...then I started doing a little thinking. Everyone seems very concerned about what varieties will be included in the "regular set plus varieties" Registry. In fact, much of the debate about varieties has been worry about which ones will be included in the sets, and how many more coins will we have to buy to complete a set.

My concern is this: With this new, dual-set system, which "varieties" are NO LONGER going to be included in the standard set? Let me give an example (and bear in mind that these come from the series that I am most familiar with). Take proof Kennedys. Will the Accent Hair now be a variety, and thus no longer included in the regular set? Thus, no need to waste time acquiring a high grade sample of this challenging "variety?" Without it, the Kennedy proof set becomes fairly simple to complete. Another example, this time from Jefferson proofs. How about the 1971 no S Jefferson proof? Will this now only count in the variety set? So again, no need to acquire THE most difficult Jefferson proof in high grade anymore? And for those of us who have already spent money on these previously required coins, are we now forced to unload them, or collect a bunch of other less common varieties just so we can complete a set containing this coin? I know there are coins in almost every series that will fall into this problem zone. Any thoughts?

DeepCoin

I am one of the many who are VERY happy with this solution. Kudos to David Hall and PCGS for listening to the members. If you consider the amount of work required to keep this free set of boards operating (I know they are generating sales this way) it is more impressive. thanks again for listening.

oreville

Deep Coin: What is a no bands reverse merc dime? Do you mean absolutely no vertical bands in addition to the no center horizontal bands?

How can a no bands reverse dime exist yet be graded MS-67 let alone MS-66?

I do like your style as it makes the rest of us "stuck up" collectors (including myself) ponder for a moment instead of pontificating. LOL!

oreville

<< <i>At first I wanted to jump on the bandwagon here, as it seems like PCGS has come up with a good solution...then I started doing a little thinking. Everyone seems very concerned about what varieties will be included in the "regular set plus varieties" Registry. In fact, much of the debate about varieties has been worry about which ones will be included in the sets, and how many more coins will we have to buy to complete a set.

My concern is this: With this new, dual-set system, which "varieties" are NO LONGER going to be included in the standard set? Let me give an example (and bear in mind that these come from the series that I am most familiar with). Take proof Kennedys. Will the Accent Hair now be a variety, and thus no longer included in the regular set? Thus, no need to waste time acquiring a high grade sample of this challenging "variety?" Without it, the Kennedy proof set becomes fairly simple to complete. Another example, this time from Jefferson proofs. How about the 1971 no S Jefferson proof? Will this now only count in the variety set? So again, no need to acquire THE most difficult Jefferson proof in high grade anymore? And for those of us who have already spent money on these previously required coins, are we now forced to unload them, or collect a bunch of other less common varieties just so we can complete a set containing this coin? I know there are coins in almost every series that will fall into this problem zone. Any thoughts? >>




My response is simply this...what is wrong with your basic set having one or more varieties which don't generate any "points" yet still "dresses up" the basic set which we can all view and enjoy. Does owning one or more "cool" varieties must always have to have points? Enjoy the ownership of the varieties for what they are and when you are ready to own all or most the varieies then that is the time to change the focus of your set from a basic plus some nice varieties to a complete set with all varieties.

Secondly;I had a suggested a variety set in which each collector may choose up to 10 of the available varieities for points and the others would be optional but would also be "recognized" as a additional included varieties but no additional points.

I am not sure collectors of varieties necessarily have a compulsion to always have one of EVERY variety. This will evolve in concept as time passes.

Monstavet

I guess my point is this. Some of these varieties have been "tried and true," integral pieces to a set. Maybe an example from a classic coin series would make my point better. Take Morgan dollars - 1878 and all the tail feather varieties - for years, there have been several well established versions of the 1878 Morgan dollar. Under the new system, you will only have to buy one of these I guess. Maybe that is okay, maybe it is not. Probably depends on how much money you have spent acquiring all the varieties and how high a grade you choose to collect. I am not saying I do not agree with the new solution - it is better than everything else I have heard. I do think those varieties are going to drop in value significantly, as fewer people are going to want them for their Registry sets. I think many people will want to complete the "basic set" but few will go after the full variety set. That is just my opinion. I like each series I collect, and I collect some of the varieties. But I may not want all of the varieties that some dealer, or PCGS, or whoever decided should be required. Maybe this is all for nothing, as maybe PCGS plans to keep these varieties in place in the basic set. I am just wondering...

Steve

My understanding of a basic set is ONE coin for each date and each mint mark. Nothing more. Nothing less. A variety or error coin (well known MAJOR varieties or Major errors in each series only) would be in the complete set. If this is NOT what you understand David Hall to be saying, then I think we still will have problems.

solid

As my various threads clearly stated, I was very opposed to the idea of making varieties mandatory, as I felt this was a "slap in the face" to those collectors that had little or no interest in collecting them.

Personally, I would have benefitted from their mandatory inclusion as I have most of the varieties for my set already (not all finest knowns, but gems nonetheless).

I hope that with the new dual-registry format, all of the PCGS-recognized varieties will count in the "Extended Set". This should be a wide-open set. Who cares if you can't afford them all? I may never own a 1964 SMS nickel, but those that do should get full credit.

When we all were debating the mandatory inclusion of varieties, I never bought into the rich/poor have/havenot arguments. The simple fact is that the registry system, no matter how it is scored, will always favor those that can spend the money on top coins. We should all enjoy our accomplishments whether your set is 5th out of 10 listed, or maybe a few years down the road, 25th out of 100 listed.

I would also encourage anyone to pick up a few varieties to add to your basic sets, even if you gain no points Like colorful toning, these coins can add interest and diversity to an otherwise overall similar-appearing set. And, if you find yourself with more than a few...participate in the extended set and share your coins - even if you can't "get them all".

Ken

Looking for the following Jefferson varieties:

1942-D/Horz D - Any grade
1943 5c DDO "Doubled Eyes" - MS66, MS65FS, or MS66FS
1946-D/Horz D - Any grade
1939 Rev '40 Proof - PR66

dbldie55

Ken, I agree with you totally. The varieties should still be options in the basic sets so that they can be listed. Then the collector who only feels they should collect a few of them can still list them.

The open set should be just that, open. Make them all required and let the games begin. Then the true champion for a given set will be known.

If the registry was only for those that thought they could be #1, there would be very few participants, which would be very boring. I like this idea. Think of the basic sets as a minor set of the open set just like the new minor Commemorative sets.

quattrocoins

Ken,

Your points are well stated. I too agree with you.
I am happy with this new set-up!
As for the "complete" set, I sent and recieved the following e-mails to and from David Hall:

Hey David,

Thanks for the the opportunity to give our opinions.

I'm sorry that I did not fill out the original survey.
My main concern was the way the varieties were
included. I wanted to suggest the two different sets,
as you have now stated, but felt that it was
inappropriate to ask for the extra time and effort it
would take to implement this. I'm happy to hear that
you felt this was the best solution. One suggestion I
would make is in the naming of the sets. I think that
calling sets with varieties "Complete" could offend
some that do not think this way. Perhaps "enhanced"
would be a better designation. As with the cameo and
deep cameo designations, I feel it's better to give
bonus points for them, rather than subtract points for
lack of them.

Thanks for your concern of the members, and your work
to make the Registry Program better.

Sincerely

Don

Hi Don...Agree with your comment re the negative connotation on the word "complete".
We'll do it like this...

Washington Quarters - basic set

Washington Quarters - with varieties

That should be ok....David Hall

Nice to know that they are still listening!

Regards,

Don

"Enhanced (Extended?) sets and

robbnsc

IMHO we are drifting off the matter at hand. Let's take Morgan Dollars as an example. The major tailfeather and reverse varieties of 1878 are listed (as best I can remember) in the 1980 Redbook. That being so, they would be included in the basic set. I think that we have a well-thought-out plan using the 1980 Redbook as a map for the basic set. It has almost all of the commonly accepted varieties that would be in the basic set.

I wish that I had not thrown out my 1980 Redbook when I moved last year. It would be a most valuble reference at this point. Oh well, it's water over the dam.