Why are late date Walkers an established set?

RYK · August 26, 2005 4:23AM

From another thread:

I sold out of my late date walkers at the height of the last promotion. I am thankful I did.

How can late date Walkers be an established set? It makes no sense to me. These are the least challenging part of the Walkers series. Why not makes a Lincoln set of all coins excluding the 09-S VDB, 1922 plain, and 1914-D and call it the Lincoln short set? Who decides these things?

Longacre · August 26, 2005 4:27AM

The promoters.

DickyBetz · August 26, 2005 4:38AM

It does seem kind of silly...

DennisH · August 26, 2005 4:41AM

Perhaps cost and the Grey Sheet as much as anything. The grey sheet shows set prices for 1916-47, 1934-47, and 1941-47. Many of the early date coins are very expensive in Mint State grades, whereas the middle and late dates are generally very affordable for many collectors.

XpipedreamR · August 26, 2005 4:52AM

I don't get these short sets either. I'm familiar with the thought that the whole sets are too pricey for the average collector, so they're broken up to make them more doable. I guess if completing a capricious, made up set floats your boat, then more power to you. I would be just as happy to think that I've got a bunch of nice Walkers from the 40's and some from the 30's, or whatever. Although, I must confess, I DO have a fine 1911-D Double Eagle set

billboat · August 26, 2005 5:28AM

Not sure either----I understand collectors creating their own sets---like civil war IHCs, CC Morgans, WWII Jeffs, Mercs and Walkers--or any other meaningful combination---Morgans are broken into two groups for albums, 1878-91 and 92-21, so I guess you could call them Set #1 and 2. I guess the short set of Walkers has just become a traditional alternative to a complete set fostered by dealers. Marketing strategy?

Russ · August 26, 2005 5:31AM

It has to do with the way the old albums were divided.

<< From another thread:

I sold out of my late date walkers at the height of the last promotion. I am thankful I did. >>

I also sold my short set when prices were much higher than they are now. Wish I could say I'm a genius, but it was really just luck.

Russ, NCNE

CTcollector · August 26, 2005 5:46AM

Its my understanding (old timers please correct me if I am wrong) - that back in the day, prior to certification, there was a Whitman board or coin album that was specifically for the 41-47 dates (the short set). It was very popular to collect the short set in this fashion - to a point where the demand was extremely high. Most of the 40 dates were in more demand than the somewhat less common 30 dates and prices reflected that. The 41-S at one time, was considered very very rare in full gem. That was then and this is now. Today, its all promotion and hype.

XpipedreamR · August 26, 2005 6:04AM

From a registry perspective, maybe they figure that if they didn't have these short sets available, collectors with less $$$ would blow the sets off or at least not pursue them as aggressively. This way, they can still get that registry fever going in these subsets of Walkers and Mercs.

TorinoCobra71 · August 26, 2005 6:25AM

MONEY drives the reigistry set craze....

TorinoCobra71

ChangeInHistory · August 26, 2005 6:25AM

I think to some degree the album makers have a hand in establishing those dates. WWII years can stand alone, Washington short set is 1941-64, War Nickel dates, Mercury war date sets, .......

I think Longacre hit on another part of the reason (promoters), DennisH hit on another part of it as well (greysheet greater # of collectors with "complete" sets)

Combine those three and just from seeing those years so often it becomes an everyday part of coin collecting.

supertooth · August 26, 2005 6:30AM

Guess I should say a few words---since the Walkers are my thing these days. Russ and CTcollector are correct. The old Whitman blue albums with sleeves went from 1916--40 and then from 41--47. Some older cardboard only blue Whitman holders started with 1934. So, collecting this series forced you to go between the folders. But I would like to add these comments. If you care to check the PCGS and NGC and ANACS totals for the "early" Walkers [1916--1933] in say XF grade and above, you will find a group of coins that are without a doubt difficult to obtain in "original" condition. The best 20 coins of that grouping of the first 26 coins probably have a combined total of 2,000 or less "slabbed" coins in all grades from VF--Unc [for each date and mint]. Just as an example---the 1917S Obv has a total slabbed pop of just 47 pieces in NGC holders from the grades of VF20 to AU55. That means that just over 2 coins per year, in that grade range, has been slabbed in each of the 20 years since NGC has been grading. I am fortunate to own 3 of those 47. In contrast, any of the dates from 1934 onward can be obtained in XF or higher without extreme difficulty---although some dates and mints are tough. So, I believe the "availability" has had a lot to do with why the "early" group of Walkers have gotten separated from those later years [which were much easier to collect]. The early Walkers would be an extreme challenge for most any collector in "original" Vf or above grades. Bob [supertooth]

MrSpud · August 26, 2005 8:59AM

I am putting together a short set of Walkers in an old Meghrig album that starts with 1939. I am glad I found the album because I really like the look of BU Walkers and I really dislike the look of circulated BU Walkers and I am not ready to commit to putting together a set that includes the key dates in uncirculated grades. The circulated Walkers get this line right down the middle that is more distracting to me than fingerprints. The dates of 39 and up are very affordable in nice uncirculated condition and the old Meghrig album is allowing me to do a nice toning experiment. I plan on filling the album and then to let it sit for 20 years or so undisturbed. I don't think I would risk that with uncirculated key dates as they are just as likely as not to come out corroded looking rather than attractively toned.

jom · August 26, 2005 9:22AM

<< How can late date Walkers be an established set? It makes no sense to me.. >>

<< These are the least challenging part of the Walkers series. >>

I think you answered your own question.

However, a "set" can be ANYTHING you want it to be. Collect only coins from 1942? Sure why not? Only toned Buffalos? Sure. SLQ's WITHOUT FHs. OK. It's your money, do as you please.

jom

flaminio · August 26, 2005 9:44AM

Short sets are for wusses. There's another name for a short set: "incomplete".

bgrice · August 26, 2005 9:59AM

There's not a whole load of participants in either PCGS's or NGC's registry when it comes to the late date set, so I doubt it was any kind of marketing ploy. I never even thought about just collecting the '41-'47 series, but I needed some money so I sold off my earlier date walkers. Something had to go and in the end I should have a complete section of the series with nice coins without any holes to fill. It's definitely not a hard series to put together, but like any other the challenge is to find the best one's that I can afford. And if I should knock some unsuspecting registry participant out of the Top 20 when I finish then let them start upgrading or forever live on the 2nd page.

MrEureka · August 26, 2005 10:01AM

Longacre nailed it.

1956Half · August 26, 2005 10:36AM

For me its a matter of economics. I just don't have the cash to buy the really big dollar coins like most of you guys on here. None the less I like nice coins in decent grades too, and would want to put together a set and know its complete for what it is. Its not a Wussie thing, nor an incomplete thing either. In this case a person is establishing what they want in their set based on their limits and capabilities. Once that goal is reached that collector calls it complete. I set the limits of what I can afford and review the pricing sheet to see how far I can go back without getting into coins I cannot afford in the grades I want to obtain them in. I don't like many coins in less than BU condition or at the worse case for tougher keys a high AU grade which further helps to establish my sets limits. For example, Mercury dimes. There is no official short set or later date set. I started at 1929 and went forward to the end. Once I have all of those I consider my short set complete. Of course I may decide to move back a little farther and have contemplated doing 1926, 27 & 28. With the Walking Liberty halfs its the same thing. I could probably go back farther than the late short set beginning date of 1941 set by the albums, and may choose to do that. But by reviewing the pricing sheet, 1934 is about the limit for me, and if I decide to do a long short set I'll consider it complete when I have all coins from 1934 to the end.

Russ · August 26, 2005 10:45AM

<< Short sets are for wusses. There's another name for a short set: "incomplete". >>

Or, they could be for people who can't get excited about the dime-a-dozen 1971 and newer coins in their series.

Russ, NCNE

nankraut · August 26, 2005 10:52AM

Russ said: It has to do with the way the old albums were divided.

When I put my set together, I had no trouble finding the "short set" in circulation, including the 1938-D. They were in a separate Whitman album. But, the 21's were always hard to find in circulation. I even had to purchase the 1921-D. Cost me $4.50, as I remember for a VF.

MrEureka · August 26, 2005 11:11AM

Russ said: It has to do with the way the old albums were divided.

There are many series that have multiple albums and very few have attracted "short set" collectors. If dealers had never promoted the short sets, no self-respecting collector would have even considered the possibility.

Like flaminio said: There's another name for a short set: "incomplete".

billboat · August 26, 2005 11:13AM

I agree!

BillJones · August 26, 2005 11:19AM

I would not be quite so hash.

The short set covers the era from the beginnings of World War II to the post war boom. It' s a legit era in history, and given the price of the early Walkers, it's not a bad collection, for Mint State coins, for a collector who does not have a lot of money.

RYK · August 27, 2005 8:27AM

Today I learn that there actually is a Lincoln Wheat Short Set: 1934 to 1958. Perhaps it's a race. You start ten collectors at the coin show at 10:00 AM and you see who can finish it in MS first.

DickyBetz · August 27, 2005 8:30AM

<< Today I learn that there actually is a Lincoln Wheat Short Set: 1934 to 1958. Perhaps it's a race. You start ten collectors at the coin show at 10:00 AM and you see who can finish it in MS first. >>

coinkat · August 27, 2005 10:28AM

I think the so-called short set has been around for at least 30 years.. is it complete? no Is it something worth collecting? yes... if you include the dates from 1916 through 1940.

100proof1957 · August 27, 2005 10:33AM

Simple !

the 20 coins fit in a PCGS BOX !

MrEureka · August 27, 2005 10:36AM

I think the so-called short set has been around for at least 30 years.. is it complete? no Is it something worth collecting? yes... if you include the dates from 1916 through 1940.

Of course the short set is worth collecting, with or without the earlier issues. But I really can't imagine a collector coming up with the idea out of the blue. Likewise, I would not expect a collector to think up a 1956-63 short set of Franklins or a 1977-date short set of Washington quarters. Dealers get credit for creating the "short set" concept. It's a pure promotional gimmick.

coinkat · August 27, 2005 10:43AM

Andy... I am not disagreeing with you on this one...

Why are late date Walkers an established set?

Comments

Leave a Comment