The J.J. Pittman Sets are now listed in the PCGS Registry
STONE
Posts: 15,275 ✭
JJ Pittman Sets
It seems that PCGS went through a lot of effort to list these coins.
IMO I dislike how they are listed with the other sets of the present. It just doesn't make sense to list them here when TPG's weren't around when Pittman's collection was assembled.
Sure, some of these coins have known pedigrees and now reside in PCGS, NGC, or other TPG holders, but this doesn't account for all of the coins. So what gives?
Also, I feel it should go the same with the Eliasberg coins/collections (and other collections assembled prior to TPGS, and/or purposely not listed on the Registry)
Any collection with an "Estimated Grade" listed in the PCGS Registry should be designated in a special section in the Registry (for these Earlier Collectors' Collections), and out of the way for the Present Collectors. This just eliminates the confluence of those collections of the past with the collections in PCGS holders of the Present.
OR, PCGS should keep this as is and post in the Registry EVERY collection that was ever assembled for American or Foreign Numismatics!
(This would keep from selectively choosing which collections are recognized and which are left for the sidelines (so to speak))
Your thoughts, ideas, suggestions?
It seems that PCGS went through a lot of effort to list these coins.
IMO I dislike how they are listed with the other sets of the present. It just doesn't make sense to list them here when TPG's weren't around when Pittman's collection was assembled.
Sure, some of these coins have known pedigrees and now reside in PCGS, NGC, or other TPG holders, but this doesn't account for all of the coins. So what gives?
Also, I feel it should go the same with the Eliasberg coins/collections (and other collections assembled prior to TPGS, and/or purposely not listed on the Registry)
Any collection with an "Estimated Grade" listed in the PCGS Registry should be designated in a special section in the Registry (for these Earlier Collectors' Collections), and out of the way for the Present Collectors. This just eliminates the confluence of those collections of the past with the collections in PCGS holders of the Present.
OR, PCGS should keep this as is and post in the Registry EVERY collection that was ever assembled for American or Foreign Numismatics!
(This would keep from selectively choosing which collections are recognized and which are left for the sidelines (so to speak))
Your thoughts, ideas, suggestions?
0
Comments
If they weren't/aren't PCGS-graded they shouldn't count.
If PCGS wants to recognize them, then create a special section.
At first I was a bit bothered by the Eliasberg collection being added to the All-Time best list, but I'm over it.
I have enough to worry about 'competing' with living collectors.
<< <i>I think you have them listed in each set, but not take a ranking. If the set would rank third, place it between the current #2 and #3 sets but leave the sets ranked 2 and 3. It's fun to see how the set ranks up to past sets but they shouldn't take a slot. >>