LET'S CHANGE MPL SET REGISTRY FROM "COLORLESS" TO "COLORFUL"

Steve

Just looking at Jonathan's #1 MPL Set Registry in another thread in this forum brings up an important point regarding the red/brown and brown Matte Proof Lincoln cents which are now part of the so called "Colorless" Matte Proof Lincoln cents set registry. The highest rated coins in this "colorless" registry are far from colorless. They are, in fact, COLORFUL toned coins. The owners of these coins including Jonathan, Richard, Bob, Matt and Mark in the top 5 should at least be given the desegnation from PCGS that their sets are part of the "Matte Proof Colorful Toned Set Registry". It is true that some coins may be dull brown and be allowed in this Set Registry, but such coins would not command a high grade point and therefore would not be competing for top honors. All of the top sets in this registry appear also in the regular MPL Set Registry where they must compete with the finest all red sets. Obviously, they are lower in the rankings there with the exception of Jonathan's special set which now ranks tied for #8 all time. I believe the purpose that PCGS used to create this separate Set Registry was to recognize the beautiful toned MPL's which just can't compete (on a GPA basis) for the top spots in the regular MPL Set Registry.

So, I will send a copy of this to BJ and see if we can get PCGS to change the name of this set registry. What do you think?

Steve

HdHunter

Steve:
Brian Wagner and I have felt for a long time, that the registry should be called "Toned", rather than "Coloeless". I believe the PCGS thinking was that there would be no special credit given for Set Composition Coolr Status, as there is in the regular MPL Registry, so the title was intended to indicate that. I still prefer to refer to it as "Toned" (see below poster for the McCullagh Collection display at Legend Numismatic's booth):



Jonathan

robec

Gorgeous set Jonathan!!!

Either "Colorful" or "Toned" makes a lot more sense to me than "Colorless", although I know why they used the term. I would definitely be in favor of the change.

illini420

It really should just be called non-red... I really don't like "colorless" either, but to call them "colorful" or "toned" just doesn't fit for all sets. Frankly, it may not even fit for all of the coins in Jonathan's set (the 1912 and 1916 look like awesome MPLs, but calling them the best colorful or toned doesn't seem fair to the other monster toners in his set and others' sets). For many of the dates, there exist coins that are more dramatic toners and which are more colorful than the coins in this set, but may not be technically graded as high. So what would be the best "toner" or "colorful" coin??? A slightly toned 66+RB, or a monster toned 66RB????

Further, we all know Jonathan has coins that are in the cream of the crop when it comes to RB MPLs, but we all know there are many many ugly/dull coins out there in BN and RB that none of us would call colorful or toned. Additionally, there are coins that are designated as RD which also have toning or color. You can exclude those from a non-red set, but to exclude them from a "toned" or "colorful" set just wouldn't be right.