PCGS POLL? just say Maybe/no miner Type &SBA

gary

I voted no.......gary

cosmicdebris

I VOTED YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Typetone

Bill:

I think you made a mistake. You should have voted no, as none of those coins were in the original 20th century set. What we want PCGS to do is to put them back in the 1959 to present sets. I also told BJ that we don't need separate minor variety 1959 to present sets, just put those in the list back in. By the way if you didn't make a mistake, then I did so take a look.

Greg S

keithdagen

The question was posed:

Do you want these in the 1900 set (yay/nay), and then, do you want them in the 1950 set. My answer was 1900 no to all, 1950 yes to all.

Keith

Typetone

Keith:

That's the way I read it and I voted with you. By the way I got a note back from BJ saying that the reason for deleting the 92 - present late date silver proofs is that they are essentially the same as the earlier 1950 to 1964 proofs which are now included.

Cheers

Greg S.

cosmicdebris

Greg I sent BJ an email explaining what you just said. Basically I told her that I want what we had in the 1900 to present and the 1959 to presents sets. I told some including myself maybe confusing some of the new set names and the current set names.

HighDesert

I voted with the following email

[To BJ]

(sigh) Just as an experiment, why don't you try the following and see what kind of response you get.

1900s Type Set, Circulation Strikes-same composition as currently with the "1900-Present" including the gold.

1900s Type Set, Proof- roughly the same composition as the current "1900-Present" Set including the gold with changes as needed to reflect differences in MS and Proof mintage.

1900s Type Set, MS and Proof- the same as the current 1900-Present set

Forget the no-gold sets entirely.

Stop belittling the sets with phrases like "Minor Type Variations".

Then you can have your gold-only mini-sets and everyone is happy.

For 1950-Present, just add the four 1950-on coins to the existing two sets and you're there.

Whoever is pushing this "rigorous definition of type coins" is forgetting about collectibiity, interesting composition of sets and so forth. As you well know, a type set is anything you decide to make it. You had good ones. Why ruin them?

Seems simple to me....what's the problem?

High Desert

cosmicdebris

HD that was perfect.

keithdagen

Agree strongly with what you just said High. It's too bad that wasn't what happened the first time through.

Keith

keithdagen

Greg,

Just saw your post. If the 92-present Silver Proofs are the "same", can they be used in lieu of the 1950-1964 proofs? Be a lot cheaper to buy a PR-69DC of those than of the earlier coins.

Keith

Typetone

Keith:

Unfortunately, I would guess we don't get to pick 92-99 pieces in lieu of 50-64 pieces. Wish we could because it would same me a few hundred dollars buying a proof 1963 or 1964 quarter.

Greg

CarlWohlforth

Honestly I thought they would do what HD says then add weights. That would suit me just fine. The 20'th Century sets do need to end so maybe no Sac but otherwise just what HD said. It is simple, it is easy to understand, it minimizes rocking of the boat.