Give me your odds: Will PCGS "Do the Right Thing"?

braddick

I think so, and why not? When all of this settles down and the dust clears I bet we see a better Registry emerge out of it- like the Phoenix rising from the embers! (Ok, I'm being a bit melodramatic here).

Trust me: There will be NO 50 state quarters for the 1950- Current Type Registry. And, we're NOT going to lose coins from the set that make up its personality. That would be silly.

Who's with me on this? PCGS is not shortsighted. Although it appears they are leaning toward making a few colossal mistakes, just watch!
They'll do the right thing by us.
True?

tradedollarnut

itsnotjustme

I think they've heard us...

I just went and bought two of the gold coins I still need for the 1900 set.

cosmicdebris

Brian for your sake I hope so. I am not doing anything until they make a final decision.

wondercoin

Pat: With reference to your comment on the 50 state quarters only:

1. An amazing 28% of this board thus far supports David Hall and his the concept of including all 50 states in the ype set!! That is an amazing % especially considering the fact that collectors generally will not support anything new that requires them to go out and buy 50 new coins!!

2. IMHO, Keith's question was unfair in the first place, asking folks to vote on 1 or 50 with NO MIDDLE GROUND. If 28% of the board supports ALL 50 STATES, I wonder what % of the board would support a compromised balance of say 2 state quarters from each year and the selections being totally at the registry set submitter's discretion.

IMHO, state quarters are very important to any type set 1950 to date and there should be more than -1- in the type set. Wondercoin.

braddick

tradedollarnut: Is their decision a lock? No how, no way they'de change their minds? You're right about phantom coins (or, CAM'S) in the Registry. Possibly PCGS could still clear all this up and clean out these errors?
What steps did you take to eliminate these CAM's? I'm sure it had to be just a phone call.

khayse

Wondercoin,

Two a year?!
Where did you get that number?

I understand one a year and I understand 1 state quarter
period. Two a year sounds like compromise with no
logical reason behind it.

My vote is still for 1 out of 50 for the type set.

-Keith H

Spooly

Braddick I agree with you, PCGS will do the right thing. For the life of me I can't figure out what PCGS was thinking? These are some pretty bone head changes. (I am not even a type set collector, and I can see that!) I almost think PCGS is into S&M with changes like that! You would think after the Wash Quarter (varieties) uproar, PCGS would just stick to weighting the current sets. Then after that get feedback from collectors about making adds and deletes. I guess I am disappointed that the communication level between PCGS and the collectors is not better than it is. This should have never really happened. But I think PCGS will do the right thing and listen to the issues and make some changes.

Spooly

Oops!

wondercoin

Keith: 1 "lonely"state quarter for a type set through year 2008 which has in it 100 different MS state quarters (p and d) is equally rediculous imho.

Name any other 100 pc. collection out there in any series where only 1 coin is in a type set. I can't think of any off the top of my head. Can you? Wondercoin.

TomB

There is a severe problem with credibility in these polls. That is, anyone can vote just to screw up what the poll shows. As an example, I have no interest in these sets yet I voted, as could any number of others. Also, trolls could vote counter to what they believe the majority would want so as to skew the results. Lastly, I have only posted on this Board under one user name in the entire time I have been here, however, I have four user names registered on the Board, therefore, I could vote four times and really weigh down the polls with my thoughts. I have these user names since, at one time, there were allowed multiple users with the same name as long as the capitalization was different. Hence, I am TomB and also tomB, or some name like that. I am also ivyleaguecoin and Ivyleaguecoin so that no troll would try to steal my ebay name and use it on the Boards. Keep in mind, I have nether voted nor posted ever with any name other than TomB. Just wanted to point out some flaws.

braddick

Mitch, you wrote your reply the moment I wrote to tradedollarnut and then I logged off.
I agree that the Registry probably should have all 50 State quarters in it to make it complete. This is one of those instances where I don't care. I'm just not interested in buying 50 MS68 State quarters- they mean nothing to me.
So again, PCGS is right to add these coins but my total lack of enthusiasm will cause me to close this set.

tradedollarnut

In my opinion, the state quarters are still a Washington quarter. Have one for the type set and have another set for those who love their state quarters. Why in the world would you force a type collector to have 50 coins with a rather drab George on the front - even all the seated liberty type together wouldn't equal that much boredom!

Bear

While I only collect State Quarters out of circulation, most of the designes are just awful. A person would be fortunate if just two coins a year appealed to ones asthetic tastes. If PCGS wants a full set of SQs then the place to do it is in a set of their own and not burden collectors with coins they may not be intersted in . Regards Bear.

keithdagen

Mitch:

Modern commem sets require 44 different silver dollars, 15 different half dollars, 20 different half eagles, and 2 different eagles, all with different obverse and reverse designs. Yet the current PCGS Modern Type set requires 1 of each denomination. State quarters only change reverses.

However, to be fair, I started another thread to debate the issue some more.

TomB,

I agree, but there is no way to stop it. There are about 50 different setholders currently involved with these sets though, so there are a lot of board members with stakes in the issue. And the outcome of the weightings might encourage or discourage potential new setholders. Hopefully someone with multiple logins would not abuse the system.

Pat,

My gut feeling is that we will win some and lose some. Hopefully, no major deletions from the current sets, but maybe some streamlining on the larger set. Some additions, especially to expand to 1950 from current 1959, but we'll see. To wipe out a third of a set like planned will pretty much kill the current market for the set and would definitely discourage new registrants.

Keith

pop1

Since the "right thing" seems to be different to some, I'm sure pcgs will do the right thing to some. But will it be really the "right thing"?

Wingsrule

To Pop1's comment...

If a thousand people subscribe to a bad idea, it's still a bad idea.

But that raises the question - who determines that it is indeed 'bad'?