New Registry Set Proposal

morgandollar1878

I would like to see if anyone would be interested in a Type B and C Reverse short set for the washington quarters from 1956-1964. I contacted the registry team a while back and they rejected my idea. I just want to see if I am the only one that likes this idea or if there are several other collectors out there that would be interested.

For those that are not familiar with these varieties, the reverse proof dies used between 1936-1964 were used on business strike quarters from 1956-1964 on the "P" mint quarters and are noted type B reverse. The pick-up-point is the the separation of the "E" and "S" of "STATES". In the type B reverse they do not touch each other. The type C reverse is on the 1964-D only. 1965 reverse business strike dies were accidently used on the 1964-D business strikes. The pick-up-points of the Type C reverse are the boldness of the eagles tail feathers and the leaf by the arrow tips does not touch the top two arrow tips.

Please let me know what all of you think. Maybe together we can get this set listed in the registry.

garsmith

+1

sonoranmonsoon

I voted "It does not matter to me", because I do not collect them. But, I would like to say Welcome to the forum.

Dan50

I also wish to welcome you to the Registry forum. Don't be a stranger in the future.
Now I don't have a Washington quarter Registry, but I voted yes. Who knows, a short set like that is something I would like to check into. Been bored since selling off my Roosie Registry Set. And I do like Washingtons Quarters, well with the exception of Satin Finish coins.

19Lyds

Perhaps if PCGS did create this registry, which I don't think they will since these will be a part of the Complete Variety Set someday, they will get a little more attention?

edited to add: Oh Crap! I took the poll to 6 - 6 - 6 !

scottgardener

I also voted "yes," even though I do not collect this series, as if there are enough who do, it should be available.

I collect Morgan dollars. If anyone pushes for a set registry for a complete set of all VAM varieties of every date and mint mark of Morgan dollar, I will hunt you down and kill you.

Swampboy

I took the poll to 9 - 8 - 9 as I voted option 3 since I don't collect this series.

Great first post

morgandollar1878

I would just like to thank everyone that has left their opinions, and took the time to vote. I would also like to encourage others that see this post to take a moment leave their opinions and and vote. Every vote counts and, the amount of votes that I have at this time is better than none, and it can show that the registry team that there are others out there that would like to see this set.

Thank you for all the welcomes I will try to poke my head in the door every once in a while.

On a futher note: I would also hunt someone down and kill them for requesting a complete VAM registry set. I would hate to see someone complete that set. I also collect morgans and also the Top100/Hot 50 series.

LindeDad

Sorry but those coins don't have certification numbers that identify them as varities that I know of yet. So unless they are in the data base I don't see them making the set.
I could not find a listing for them in the PCGS coin number lookup either.

morgandollar1878

Each one of these varieties do have a coin number. They are a subset of each date in the population report. They are even allowing them to be used in the current washington registry sets. If you would like to take a peek at them the coin numbers are as follows:

1956: 145647
1957: 145024
1958: 146067
1959: 146068
1960: 145643
1961: 146069
1962: 146070
1963: 146071
1964: 145654
1964D: 145423

LindeDad

OK see that now. Wonder why they don't list the subset numbers in the Coin Number Lookup listing but they don't even show the full step of full bands number either.
But I would not add them to my set probably.

amiller

I do not collect these, but based on what I know about them I voted Yes. These are definitely collectible and it would make sense to put together this short, specialized set.

What I would much rather see PCGS do is create a new section of their web site to allow individuals to create their own registry set definitions. Participation in each set is up to us, the collectors, and the index page could be sorted by number of participants. This would solve the problem many people have with not being able to compete apples-to-apples due to the way they define their collecting goal and would give like-minded collectors a better idea of how they rank with each other. Additionally, everyone would have a chance to see how others have chosen to define their collection and perhaps be influenced to either expand their collecting goals or refine them to a more specialized collection.

The PCGS-defined sets would continue to be the only ones used for the annual registry awards.

morgandollar1878

<< <i> Wonder why they don't list the subset numbers in the Coin Number Lookup listing but they don't even show the full step of full bands number either. >>



I don't think they list them because that means that they would have to list all of them. It would be time consuming and it would take a small rainforest to print the catalog.

...and if I'm not mistaken, "8" is added to the coin number, and it is ONLY if PCGS designates it full bands or steps.


Oh, yeah, I forgot!!!! The other reason behind PCGS not publishing the subset numbers is because, the subset coins are ones that they have to verify, just like the full steps, bands, head, and others.

WCQX

In my opinion no silver quarter set is complete without the Type B and C reverse coins. They are totally cool and easy to identify. I have completed 2 sets of them collected over many years in super high grade and they are a lot harder to find in the high grades than most people give credit for. At least PCGS will designate the variety on the holder now. Both my sets are designated in the PCGS holders. The top honors in my set(s) are 1962 P TYPE B PCGS MS67 and 1964 D TYPE C PCGS MS66. I have an extra 1962-P TYPE B PCGS MS66 and 1964-D Type C PCGS MS65 to negotiate a trade if someone has an extra 1956 in MS66. My ANACS 1956 in MS66 did not cross over.

morgandollar1878

I have all of them except the 1956 and 1964. All of the ones I have are PCGS except the 64-D. It is in an NGC holder right now. I am going to try and get it crossed over soon, and I'll be keeping my fingers crossed hoping it will keep the MS-66 grade.

ProofArtworkonCircs

If they are going to have a set including silver business strike B's, I wish they would give some consideration to the 1969 D thru 1972 D type B's.

cointime

I voted yes. I see no difference between sets like the Jefferson Specialty Sets or the Mercury Dimes FB Short Set, Circulation Strikes (1940-1945), why not a Washington Specialty set?

PCGS if you are reading this please consider putting this 10 coin set up for us

morgandollar1878

I am going to try and leave this poll up for about two more weeks , and then I am going to submit it to PCGS. I hope that we can convince them that this set would be worth putting in the regisrty. I really appreciate everyone for taking the time to vote and leaving opinions about this set. For those that have not voted, please do so, as every vote counts.

cladking

ttt

just in case there's any new interest.

EvilEmpire

I have an extra 1962-P TYPE B PCGS MS66 and 1964-D Type C PCGS MS65 to negotiate a trade if someone has an extra 1956 in MS66. My ANACS 1956 in MS66 did not cross over.

An extra? Only two are graded 66....and one is in very safe hands.....for now. They say every man (woman in my case) has his price.

dlmtorts

I voted yes. I have been collecting Type B's for a couple of years now and I enjoy them.

FullStepJeffs

I said no because I don't collect them... but since PCGS doesn't see the light of day in the Jefferson nickel series by starting a new set in 2004 when most everything changed, all I can say is... Good Luck!

Steve