Everyman sets

Bochiman

What are your opinions of them?

I wasn't sure how I would take them, when they first were created, but I have found them "fun" and it has spurred us on to try a few things, and branch out, where we wouldn't have before.

If you like them, do you like the all-inclusive sets or would sets where design changes occurred (like lincoln wheat backs vs memorials.....to use as an example that doesn't exist so there shouldn't be any arguing about it ) be more fun?

I, personally, would like to see major design changes in classics be separated. I'm ok with an all-inclusive set as well, but would like to see the split outs.

Thoughts?

WaterSport

I am surprised not more folks have joined in. I think once owning a coin/series its tough to duplicate for some. PCGS could list the sets with strong collector interest grades like AU or XF, but I do not see enough interest for them to go that far. I also feel the lack of interest is indicative of this forums clientele. As in too many high end collectors who are not interested.
WS

ambro51

Since my main collecting grade with Gold Dollars is AU.....the climb to the great top of the heap (of 2) has been quite painless.

Probably the only way Id be able to boast a number 1 all time best! Actually, a few of the AU's are amazingly rare, like the 1875 and the 1880, and I got 'em.

A pleasant diversion but clearly not a optimum goal for the advanced collector. The whole idea seems like a "water cooler" creation.

scottgardener

It's a good concept, but an imperfect one. There's actually, for instance, an "everyman" gold $3 set. Given that there are only three "commons" (1854, 74, and 78), and finding even these at less than $1000 is a tremendous amount of work, the idea of an "everyman" gold $3 set sounds a bit like an Onion article or Monty Python skit.

And, with a lot of sets, there are still a bunch of rarities that cost a lot more in lower grades than common coins do in uncirculated. A better "everyman" set for Morgan dollars might be a date set excluding 1893-1896, the Indian $2.50 date set (since you don't have to get the 1911-D), or, for the gold $3, the "set" would be whether or not you have one. Having a fixed grade limit does help buffer against the skyrocketing cost of a MS67+ "don't sneeze while handling the grading submission" issue, so it's a good start of a good idea. It's also a lot simpler than coming up with a specific "Everyman Morgan set" with no 1889-CC or 1893-S and a maximum grade of MS65 on commons like 1879-S, a maximum of XF40 on the 1892-CC, and some eighty or ninety other specific limits on individual coins.

Edit: Come to think of it, I could join you in the gold $1 set. I've got three coins; one is Genuine, and the other two are AU. It'll be a long time, though, before my collection even comes close to yours. Your collection's web site, with full descriptions of the coins and the history surrounding them, is quite spectacular, on par with a trip to a museum.

ambro51

I like the idea of keeping the rarites in.

AU can be a beautiful grade with gold, ....especially smaller sized gold coins.

And thanks Scotty for the compliment on the website. Its a work in progress, eventually Ill include counterfeit detection, rarity tables etc etc etc. Only thing that will never be on it are For Sale Prices!!!!

rld14

<< <i>It's a good concept, but an imperfect one. There's actually, for instance, an "everyman" gold $3 set. Given that there are only three "commons" (1854, 74, and 78), and finding even these at less than $1000 is a tremendous amount of work, the idea of an "everyman" gold $3 set sounds a bit like an Onion article or Monty Python skit.

And, with a lot of sets, there are still a bunch of rarities that cost a lot more in lower grades than common coins do in uncirculated. A better "everyman" set for Morgan dollars might be a date set excluding 1893-1896, the Indian $2.50 date set (since you don't have to get the 1911-D), or, for the gold $3, the "set" would be whether or not you have one. Having a fixed grade limit does help buffer against the skyrocketing cost of a MS67+ "don't sneeze while handling the grading submission" issue, so it's a good start of a good idea. It's also a lot simpler than coming up with a specific "Everyman Morgan set" with no 1889-CC or 1893-S and a maximum grade of MS65 on commons like 1879-S, a maximum of XF40 on the 1892-CC, and some eighty or ninety other specific limits on individual coins.

Edit: Come to think of it, I could join you in the gold $1 set. I've got three coins; one is Genuine, and the other two are AU. It'll be a long time, though, before my collection even comes close to yours. Your collection's web site, with full descriptions of the coins and the history surrounding them, is quite spectacular, on par with a trip to a museum. >>



You basically said the same thing that I did when these sets came out.

Everyman Walkers? Ahh, very nice, now all those working class guys with limited budgets can buy their early dates in AU58! And of course we have the Everyman sets of Seated Coinage, this way you can get those CCs in AU58 instead of blowing your hard earned cash on 64s and 65s.

What I would like to see on the everyman sets is weight them by rarity for the series and grade or weight them based on matching grades. I mean, I have a VF set of Barber Halves, putting the set together in MS would have been MUCH MUCH easier (Albeit MUCH MUCH more expensive). Sets like Coast Guard Craig's XF45 set of Barber Halves are a tremendous acheivement and should be rewarded.

All that's happened is that AU58 prices are through the roof.

scottgardener

I just wonder if people will complain that their MS60s and 61s are overgraded, and that a scratch should have been seen as a very delicate rub. Or, worse, people taking MS64 and 65 coins and sticking them in their pocket for half an hour, hoping to make an AU58+.

Bochiman

<< <i>I just wonder if people will complain that their MS60s and 61s are overgraded, and that a scratch should have been seen as a very delicate rub. Or, worse, people taking MS64 and 65 coins and sticking them in their pocket for half an hour, hoping to make an AU58+. >>



Now there's an idea!


I just wish the Everyman sets were split up. I understand, after talking with BJ, that they tried to keep them simple....and you can never please all the people all the time. But, some of the sets went through changes (design changes like half cents and large cents, for example) and, imho, should be split up. That would encourage people to do the sets rather than seeing an early design stopper and not even trying.

LindeDad

<< <i>I just wonder if people will complain that their MS60s and 61s are overgraded, and that a scratch should have been seen as a very delicate rub. Or, worse, people taking MS64 and 65 coins and sticking them in their pocket for half an hour, hoping to make an AU58+. >>



Well a few of the dates in my Walker set I am still looking for are about the same price in 64 as 58 and I am able to submit coins.

scottgardener

Oh, bugger. I just gave people ideas...

I wonder if we'll next see a registry only for Genuine, Not Gradeable? Then we'll see people doing all kinds of strange things--maybe a set of curiously purple and blue Peace dollars, or mucky Indian cents.

DennisH

I love the idea of Everyman sets.

It opens up the thrill of the hunt and the joys of potentially completing a series to people of lower financial means, especially popular sets that have a few dates that are big stoppers in Mint State, like Flying Eagle/Indian cents, Mercury dimes, Barber quarters, Standing Liberty quarters, Walking Liberty halves, and Morgan dollars.