Do you count varities as part of a "complete" set?

SethChandler · May 23, 2005 2:02PM

For example, is the 1873-CC No Arrows dime absolutely a must in order to have a complete set of Seated Dimes?

tradedollarnut · May 23, 2005 2:31PM

I think the answer is: sometimes.

I think the 1909-S VDB is certainly necessary to complete a set ... but not the 1955 DDO. I think the 1875-S/CC trade dollar is necessary, but not the 1876-CC DDR.

Tradition plays a factor.

Elcontador · May 23, 2005 3:26PM

I think it's really a matter of personal preference. If I think there is a major difference in a variety, such as with & no motto, I'll try and get both of them for my type set. Ditto re Type I & Type II SLQs. However, I'll pass when it comes to the coins with arrows and rays.

Lakesammman · May 23, 2005 3:44PM

Agree - the traditional "naked eye" varieties are to be included and should be. Major design changes, DDO's, etc. The 47th minute variety of a given year should not.

In the IHC series, the 1860 type 1 and 2, the 1865 fancy and plain 5, the 1873 open closed 3, the 1886 type 1 and 2. the 1873 S1 DDO and the 1888/7 S1 are all major parts of the BASIC series. I can't imagine considering a set complete w/o them. The miscellaneous MPD's and DDO's - definitely variety set material.

sumnom · May 23, 2005 3:46PM

It's personal preference. There are some many varieties in every series. You have to choose which you like. I don't count coins that were only issued in mint sets but most people do. It's up to you. I am not consistent on that point though. I have a special liking for sac dollars so I go for the mint set issues but I don't really care all that much about the different finishes or the presentation pieces.

sumnom · May 23, 2005 3:47PM

Agree - the traditional "naked eye" varieties are to be included and should be. Major design changes, DDO's, etc. The 47th minute variety of a given year should not.

Makes sense to me.

ER · May 23, 2005 4:37PM

<< I think it's really a matter of personal preference............... >>

coppercoins · May 23, 2005 4:48PM

Varieties, yes. Die varieties, no. Errors, no. There is a clear and distinct difference between them all that is simple to understand.

Darkmane · May 23, 2005 4:53PM

depends on how you define a complete set. you can define a set as by type, year, mint mark, varieties, vams, etc. if one collector is content not including a specific variety/double die, then good for him/her. if you cant sleep without it, buy two

Barry · May 23, 2005 8:44PM

I let the albums define it for me. If there's a hole to fill, it's [art of the set.

RYK · May 23, 2005 8:47PM

To some extent, this qustion is answered by others. For example, if you are completing a Whitman Classic set of mercury dimes, the 42/1 is included, but the 42/1-D. One certainly can purchase the 42/1-D for the set, but there is no place for it in the album. For buffalo nickels, similarly, the 18/7-D and 37-D 3 legs have album holes, but not the 14/3 or 36-D 3 1/2 legs.

In the gold coin series, the reference books provide similar guidance. The 46-D/D $5 is consider a variety essential to the series but not the 48-D/D $5, as an example.

PerryHall · May 23, 2005 9:08PM

It's really up to the individual as to what is in a "complete set". Usually the red book and/or the coin albums influences what most people consider to be necessary.

BAJJERFAN · May 23, 2005 9:15PM

The folks at the Mint sure know how to screw up other peoples' lives when they do stuff like that don't they?

291fifth · May 23, 2005 9:17PM

Collectors need to make their own decisions and not follow the crowd. An outstanding example of a "follow the crowd" coin is the 1937-D 3 legged buffalo nickel. I have always been amazed that this variety, which I personally consider to be little importance, still has a following. Since it is listed in the Red Book and included in most albums collectors who don't think for themselves "must" have it in order to consider their collection complete.

BAJJERFAN · May 23, 2005 9:21PM

Maybe the folks at the Mint should issue a statement of just what exactly constitutes an official set/issue for any given year.

Vetter · May 23, 2005 9:36PM

<< I let the albums define it for me. If there's a hole to fill, it's [art of the set. >>

mr1931S · May 23, 2005 10:09PM

It's really a matter of personal preference.

I consider the 1905 O 'micro O' dime as counting for a complete set of 75 Barber dime issues but '94 S as not. Reason is '94 S was not a regular issue and, beside that, is so rare as to not be collectible.

On the other hand, I've pondered whether '09 SVDB in the Lincolns should be considered essential to form a "complete" set of early Lincolns. I keep hearing "no" in my own mind. The reason here is that if one has the 1909 S (no V.D.B.) and the Philly 1909 V.D.B. "completeness" in 1909 Lincoln issues is there without the variety coin 1909 SVDB. In fact, adding the last two 1909 Indian cent issues to the Lincoln set and passing on the SVDB might be a more "complete" way of collecting the small cents from 1909 and later.

This is just my opinion of course and really it comes down to personal preference.

PerryHall · May 23, 2005 10:09PM

<< Maybe the folks at the Mint should issue a statement of just what exactly constitutes an official set/issue for any given year. >>

I don't want the government to tell me what to collect.

mr1931S · May 23, 2005 10:23PM

"I don't want the government to tell me what to collect."

Nor the album makers.

messydesk · May 23, 2005 11:01PM

Up to the collector. To me, a complete set of 1878 8TF Morgan dollars is 41 coins. To others, it's 1.

To some people, a complete set of SBA $1 coins is upwards of 20 coins. To me, it's just a Bad Thing.

Louis Eliasberg didn't have a 1922 D-less cent in his collection, and that didn't stop it from being called complete.

PerryHall · May 23, 2005 11:04PM

<< "I don't want the government to tell me what to collect."

Nor the album makers. >>

Nor the red book.

LanLord · May 23, 2005 11:06PM

So far, it seems that just about every answer is correct.

Yes,
No,
Maybe,
If you want to,
Not if you don't want to,

What it comes down to is collecting is a personal experience. You choose what's right for your collection. Just because an Eliasberg or QDB or other well known collector does it one way, doesn't mean it is the only way. Have fun with it, and do what is right for you.

Nysoto · May 23, 2005 11:29PM

It is up to the collector. Define your own set based on interests and $, don't let others do it for you.

xbob · May 23, 2005 11:54PM

<< I let the albums define it for me. If there's a hole to fill, it's [art of the set. >>

I wish there was a hole in the dime album for the 96W. I consider it part of a complete set more than a 22 plain cent is part of the cent set.
As others said, it's all in what you choose to collect.

Prethen · May 24, 2005 12:31AM

Small Motto and Open/Closed "3" varieties....YES, necessary.

paigowjohnny · May 24, 2005 12:40AM

<< I think the answer is: sometimes >>

I agree....for example....I wanted both 79-CC Morgans...the clear and capped CC
the 78 reverse of 79
the 79-S rev. of 78

and a couple others, but not all the varieties

LanLord · May 24, 2005 12:55AM

<< I wish there was a hole in the dime album for the 96W. I consider it part of a complete set more than a 22 plain cent is part of the cent set.
As others said, it's all in what you choose to collect. >>

There is in my Dansco album. It is the one that includes proof only issues, and there is a spot for the business strike 1996W.

When did you buy your album?

lathmach · May 24, 2005 1:21AM

I consider the major collectable varieties part of a set.
I collect the Liberty Seated Quarters.
Varieties I consider necessary for instance, are the 1840-O no drapery, the 1840-O with drapery, 1840-O with Drapery Large O, the 1843-O Large O, 1844-O Large-O reverse of 1843 both in coin turn and medal turn, 1853 No Arrows, 1853/4, 1854-O Huge O, 1854-O Crumbled Obv Die, 1856 Flag of 5 in shield, 1856 flag of 1 in skirt. 1857 flying eagle die clash reverse, 1862 type 1 rev, and so forth.

Ray

MrHalfDime · May 24, 2005 1:49AM

I must agree that inclusion of the 'varieties' is a matter of personal choice. There is no right way or wrong way to collect. As a die marriage collector, I certainly do collect ALL of the die marriages, not just the eyeball 'varieties'. It is my long term goal to assemble a 'complete' collection of all die marriages in the half dime denomination. For the Liberty Seated half dimes, Daniel Valentine reported 257 different 'varieties' in 1931. Although I do not quite have all of them, I do have over 500 DIFFERENT die marriages for the series, and counting. I will not be 'complete' until I have all of them, whatever number that entails.

mgoodm3 · May 24, 2005 1:49AM

Depends on the series and the coin you're asking about.

Robgetty · May 24, 2005 3:41AM

I agree that "it depends" is the correct answer.

Sometimes I want them, sometimes I don't.
(And sometimes I just can't afford them!)

xbob · May 24, 2005 3:51AM

<< 

<< I wish there was a hole in the dime album for the 96W. I consider it part of a complete set more than a 22 plain cent is part of the cent set.
As others said, it's all in what you choose to collect. >>

There is in my Dansco album. It is the one that includes proof only issues, and there is a spot for the business strike 1996W.

When did you buy your album? >>

I got mine last month. It's the one without proofs. I guess they kept it to strickly circulating production since the 96W was only in Mint Sets.

veryfine · May 24, 2005 4:03AM

<< An outstanding example of a "follow the crowd" coin is the 1937-D 3 legged buffalo nickel. I have always been amazed that this variety, which I personally consider to be little importance, still has a following. >>

I am in total agreement on this one. The 22 Plain cent always bothered me too. It is really a 22-D from a damaged or worn die. Is this coin still considered a "variety?"

Bochiman · May 24, 2005 4:25AM

In my mind, which is the only one that counts for collecting, to me, the answer is no for most of them.
Maybe the '09s-vdb just because it was SUPPOSED to be struck that way, then was changed. But, that would be the only lincoln I could think of that I would accept "having" to have for a complete collection that is a "variety".
I have the 55/55 DDO now and don't consider that necessary for completeness.

flaminio · May 24, 2005 5:34AM

<< I got mine last month. It's the one without proofs. I guess they kept it to strickly circulating production since the 96W was only in Mint Sets. >>

I'll bet their Kennedy album includes the 1970-D. I hate inconsistency...

TomB · May 24, 2005 5:42AM

In my own collecting experience I consider only those coins or varieties intentionally and willfully produced by the Mint to be included to make any set complete.

tjkillian · May 24, 2005 5:59AM

<< In my own collecting experience I consider only those coins or varieties intentionally and willfully produced by the Mint to be included to make any set complete. >>

For the Indian cent series, I would consider the 1864-L, 1864 Bronze, 1864 Copper/Nickel to be part of the complete set, but not the 1860 pointed bust/round bust. All the DDO and DDRs, no. Not the open and closed 3, nor the type I and type II 1886 indians.

Tom

TONEDDOLLARS · May 24, 2005 6:44AM

Yes, I collect Morgans

Shamika · May 24, 2005 8:26AM

In general, I would say no. But as in the case of the S-VDB, I would say yes.

nwcs · May 24, 2005 8:29AM

Not really. I think a complete set is date/mint. Then there is the complete with varieties set.

Steve · May 24, 2005 9:46AM

<< In my mind, which is the only one that counts for collecting, to me, the answer is no for most of them.
Maybe the '09s-vdb just because it was SUPPOSED to be struck that way, then was changed. But, that would be the only lincoln I could think of that I would accept "having" to have for a complete collection that is a "variety".
I have the 55/55 DDO now and don't consider that necessary for completeness. >>

Ron & others, great thread! And of course, we each must decide what makes a complete set. In the Lincoln cents I chose date & mintmark plus certain varieties. If the US Mint deliberately made the variety, then I have it in my collection. That would cover the 1909VDB and plain versions from both Phily & San Fran. It would include the 1960 & 1970 small dates. It would include, in the proof series the 1979 & 1981 mintmark varieties and the 1936 satin composition as well as the brilliant variety. All of these because the mint made them from a plan to issue them. In addition I collect certain other major varieties that some may call "errors". They include the 1922 no D (die #2), 1944 D/S type 1, 1955 DD, 1972 DD, 1983 rev DD, 1984 "ear"DD, 1995 DD and in proof, the 1990 no S. Obviously, there are others but I chose to limit it there. I do not believe that because a coin is expensive that it should not count. Conversely, I don't believe that the hundreds of doubled die varieties in the Lincoln cent series as identified by Wexler and others should necessarily be included. That collecting process as Chuck (Coppercoins) has persued, is a lifetime effort and should be a collection in its own right. The 1943 & 1944 composition errors (copper & steel) I do not include either, but those would certainly be worthy if they were available and affordable. JMHO. Steve

dwssws · May 24, 2005 9:50AM

In the CC Morgan series I feel that the major varieties are an integral part and some of the most interesting

Do you count varities as part of a "complete" set?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Do you count varities as part of a &quot;complete&quot; set?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Do you count varities as part of a "complete" set?