1933 One Coin Wonder Set- Should It Rank Higher Than An AU Set?

wondercoin

So, the fellow that buys the 1933 Saint registers the coin with PCGS and NGC as a "One coin wonder set" and the masses cry out that the complete set of AU Saints deserve to be ranked higher than the 1933 one coin set!! No different question here than an MS69 Silver Roosie dime compared to a set of MS63 Roosies. In fact, the MS69 on a % basis is probably worth more than the 1933 compared to a complete set of Au Saints.

So, why shouldn't the "one coin wonder" set be ranked #1? After all, it was near unanamously agreed that incomplete sets should count. So, 40% or 20% complete is OK, but not 2% (1/48 dimes)? Why not? Why is 20% OK then? Why isn't it required that a collector has ALL the coins or can not get credit for the set?

Is this classic "cake and eat it too". In other words, grading companies: don't force me to obtain a COMPLETE set before I can register my set and, by the way, the fellow with the one monster coin can't get the proper credit for his one coin set either because the Registry is about "sets"! What gives? Inspired by Braddick Wondercoin.

braddick

The "One Coin Wonder" set deserves the top spot if the number 2 set isn't fine enough overall to overtake it. Plain and simple- no matter how much the #2; #3; #4, and #5 set guys b!ith & moan.
-Not a popular opinion, granted, but for the integrity of the Registry, a required position to take.

pmh1nic

Is the AU really complete if you're including the 1933 as part of what's considered a complete set?

You can have a complete Roose set without having the MS69 coin.

FullSteps

The individual (or more likely company) that buys the 1933 Saint is probably NOT interested in the registry or in completing a set of Saints...but is buying for investment purposes. However, if they could shell out the money they will need for the 1933, they probably have enough to buy a full set of Saints as well.

Just my opinion...don't look for the 1933 to be added as a registry set anytime soon.

Tim

CarlWohlforth

Here is another question. Will either of us convince the other of the error in his ways? I doubt it. That is OK because differences of opinion are good, productive and fun.

If our hypothetical collector (investor?) registers his one '33 Saint (what grade?) say in MS 63 and another collector registers his complete set of AU 58 Saints (including the '33) I'd vote for the complete set. (I don't believe the '33 is unique.) I would do so because the complete set beats the one coin set in every date but one. But that is only my opinion, others would vote for the one coin set.

I think we should encourage people who want to display their awesome coins. The Gallery idea is a great one. Then we can satisify both groups of opinion.

Another way to satisfy the most people might be to let NGC continue with their weighting of super coins and encourage PCGS to continue to reward complete sets. That way we can have our cake and eat it too!

perfectstrike

I considered the other side of the registry when I responded to my survey. If PCGS were allowed to eliminate some of the work they do (reviewing collection and coin comments), I'd be willing to give up set rankings until I get to some arbitrary point (say 50%). I still wanted to be able to enter my collection, but was willing to give up something as a compromise.

With all the comments of late, the probable variety sets and weightings, I'd change my opinion to 50% of max possible score. So if the one coin set scored high enough, I think it should be ranked.

David

wondercoin

The AU set did not contain a 1933 coin. Just a complete set (other than the 1933) that took a collector 15 years to build. How's that? The point here is that once you demand that the grading companies NOT require complete sets (as nearly everyone did here in the firstplace), it becomes is totally arbitrary and capricious to then say 2%, or 5% is unfair, but 25% is just fine. Think about it Wondercoin

sonofagunk

When I buy it, I am going to keep sending it in to the different services and cracking it out so that I can put the population reports way off. Then I will sell the inserts on ebay as collector items.

CarlWohlforth

It is fun to see your set climb as you add coins. I love partial sets, I have a few myself I'm even having fun adding coins and not climbing (because you all are adding faster than I.)

I see nothing unfair in allowing partial sets to be entered but to value complete sets more than partial sets. This is exactly how PCGS was doing things before weighting.

There is little doubt that the current top PCGS sets are pretty great. Even without weighting. And most of them are %100 complete.

I am not arguing against all weighting. I just suspect some coins are weighed too heavily currently by NGC. I am willing to add/remove coins from my NGC sets to help determine exactly how NGC weighs things.

keithdagen

Mitch,

It's kind of a moot point for the 33. It's currently an optional coin.

But, answer this question, would you rather have a set of Roosevelts, say 36 MS-67's and 12 MS-68's, or the single MS-69 out there. Which would make a better "set." I can see the point of a set of MS-66's ranking below the MS-69, because they are common, but what does it take to overcome it?

Keith

Monstavet

I agree that these "one-coin-wonders" should carry more weight in a set, but it doesn't make sense that a single coin should outweigh any other complete set. Certainly an MS69 Roosie is impressive, and maybe that single coin is worth a dozen complete MS60 Roosie sets, but it shouldn't beat out an enitre set of 67s/68s, which would take considerable effort & cash to assemble. Think of it in the context of the complete Type set. A huge set, very difficult to complete. Is there one coin that someone could register that would make them #1 even without any other coins? That seems fundamentally wrong to me - and a slap in the face to the great collectors who have completed or are trying to complete such a set. It is not really much of a "TYPE SET" if you only have one coin, but are ranked #1.

shirohniichan

I think we need to clarify the meaning of "complete set." Should we include coins originally intended for circulation but not released to the general public (e.g. 1876-CC 20 cent piece since these were sold to mint visitors but not released into general circulation)? Or can sets that don't include such be considered complete because they include every coin intentionally released into circulation?

Grade rarity is another issue since it doesn't involve completion.

braddick

There would come a point when a complete set ofMS67's and MS68's WOULD overpower and climb above that lone MS69. Just don't expect it to be a set of mostly MS67's with just a few MS68's. Keep adding those MS68's- you'll see. That lone MS69 will be in second place in no time!

wondercoin

Braddick: Incidently, there is a serious Roosie collector with an NGC set out there with around (20) MS68 coins I predict. He asked me about the availability of the MS69 coin today. Now, if he were to register his set, he would likely be very pleasantly surprised with his position! But, he obviously choses to keep the set off the registry for now and that is his perogative. But, when the finest collectors don't register, expect "one coin wonder sets" to stand out like a sore thumb Wondercoin.

dbldie55

Is this coin certified? I thought it was raw. Other than that, I certainly do not compare a Saint to a Roosevelt dime in any form. I would rather have an AU 1928 Saint than a MS69 Roosevelt.

wondercoin

"I would rather have an AU 1928 Saint than a MS69 Roosevelt."

dbldie55: You have studying to do my friend

By the way, I had dinner last night with your close dealer friend from Montana and will dine with him tonight as well. I asked him if he would deliver to you the special prize I picked for you winning that contest last month. I plan on handing it to him tonight Wondercoin.

khayse

Shiroh,

> I think we need to clarify the meaning of "complete set." Should we include coins originally intended
> for circulation but not released to the general public (e.g. 1876-CC 20 cent piece since these were
> sold to mint visitors but not released into general circulation)? Or can sets that don't include
> such be considered complete because they include every coin intentionally
> released into circulation?

To me it doesn't count if it wasn't intended to circulate.

That's why I don't get excited about the 1804 dollar.
To me it's a token, a souvenir made for dignitaries, not a coin.

Of course, Just IMHO,
-Keith H

braddick

Mitch, I had a similar conversation with Jim Barlow earlier in the week. He is aware and involved in assisting an Ike collector that has the Country's FINEST PCGS Ike set, bar none.
Now, so far, the Registry- still being in its infancy- hasn't attracted all the great sets in all series, yet.
I'm sure that 20+ MS68 Roosevelt dime set would blow out of the water that lone MS69 "set". But, until it does, or another set comes along, don't expect the current 'MS67' sets to rank and rate higher than this one coin set.

dbldie55

Wondercoin, I did not say I would buy them both to begin with, only which I would much rather have in my collection, and I stand by what I have said. Some people actually collect things they like, not things that cost more money.

I will be "working" for that close dealer you talked to tomorrow, hope he found a flight home for Friday, otherwise I will wait until Monday to talk to him.

wondercoin

dbldie55: Your gift is now in your buddies' (Dale's) hands. I hope you like it. Wondercoin.