20th Century Set Weights Are Up

keithdagen · March 14, 2002 3:29AM

Initial thoughts anyone?

Keith

HighDesert · March 14, 2002 3:40AM

I'm thoroughly underwhelmed. Breaking the gold off into meaningless mini-sets is the height(depth?) and strikes me as, well, meaningless.

Edited for typos

keithdagen · March 14, 2002 3:48AM

High,

I personally agree, but I think that they probably didn't want to combine the sets since they made the High Relief Saint and the 2 Indian Eagle rarities mandatory.

Would like to see what the consensus opinion is, but I want my gold to count as more than a mini-set. Eliminate the 8 coin "type" set (we already have a 12 coin set for that) and offer the sets separate & together, just like the Complete side.

Keith

CarlWohlforth · March 14, 2002 3:50AM

Well at least it brought you back out of hiding, HD!!

It suits me perfectly. That is because I am collecting proofs -- except for gold where I'm going for mint state.

I like knowing the weights. I also like knowing the Barber half is weighted heavily

For the proof only set I didn't want to collect all the quarters. I didn't really think about it but there are many more holes for me there as there are both matte and brilliant proof types.

For the mixed set I didn't want to collect all the quarters. In both cases I was thinking the SBA might be a weight of 1 rather than 2.

At least everything is out there for us to look at. I know you can't make everybody happy....

I'm still not sure what set I'd complete first. I will wait to see if there is complete "design" type set like the 20'th century gold design set.

Lots of new stuff to think about !!!

Dennisl · March 14, 2002 3:54AM

I can't believe that the 1900 - 1999 20th Century Type Set , Circulation Strikes does not include the gold and yet it includes all 5 varieties of 1999 Statehood Quarters. I do believe that gold coins were a circulating issue.

I also can't believe that every variety of statehood quarters will be required in the 1950 - Present Modern Type Set. Now you have to have a statehood quarter set to compete in the Modern Type Set. That is ridiculous. IMHO

DENNIS

bartdog · March 14, 2002 3:58AM

For one that cannot really afford the gold issues, I like the idea of breaking them out - HOWEVER, I understand the opposite view. It does strike me as overkill to include all of the state 25c issues in the set... I don't really desire to collect the series. Did I overlook or has the TYI/II IKE requirement been dropped.

Bill

Dennisl · March 14, 2002 4:23AM

Below is a copy of the email I just sent to David Hall regarding these new set designations:

The 20th Century Type Set , Circulation Strikes name should be changed to the 20th Century Copper, Nickel, Silver, Clad Type since it does not include the gold coins that were circulating issues. I also believe that not all 5 varieties of 1999 Statehood Quarters should be required, just a TYPE State Quater. Also, why is a High Relief Peace Dollar required but not a Wide Rim and Narrow Rim SBA Dollar?

I also can't believe that every variety of statehood quarters will be required in the 1950 - Present Modern Type Set. Now you have to have a statehood quarter type set to compete in the Modern Type Set. When the statehood quarter program is finished, the set will have 70 coins and 50 of those will be statehood quarters. (Assuming that no other coin changes design in the next 6 years) Even though I do have a statehood quarter set and can add these into my Modern Type Set, I think this is ridiculous IMHO

Dennis Doeppenschmidt

Bear · March 14, 2002 4:28AM

DENNIS, GOOD COMMENTS I AGREE WITH YOU TOTALLY. REGARDS BEAR.

madmike · March 14, 2002 4:50AM

My main concern is the 1900 - 1999 set. (I still think the years should be 1901 - 2000)

I can't understand why the original 1900 to Present type set had a number of differend Lincoln Cent varieties, and now they've decided those no longer count. If they were significant enough to add at the begining, why are they gone now? Same thing with the SLQ and the Ike's.

I was looking forward to adding the gold coins to my set, but I can collect the gold set as well. (it's all one big collection on this end!)

If the entire run of State Quarters stays in the Modern Type Set, I predict an early death for this set. Let me say, there's no way I'll be purchasing all those quarters.

Other than that, I'd have to start plugging coins in to see how satisfied I am with the weighting.

And yes, I too agree with Dennis' suggestions.

madmike

keithdagen · March 14, 2002 4:57AM

There were very few actual weighting concerns that I had. SBA too high, clad 76 harder to acquire than silver 76, and some other minor tweaks.

Everyone,

Please make sure that you e-mail David Hall your opinions of these sets at this address. Otherwise, your opinion will probably go uncounted. PCGS has made it clear that they prefer for collectors to hash out opinions on the boards, but that PCGS staff will not be able to monitor the boards for this purpose.

Keith

cosmicdebris · March 14, 2002 6:29AM

I think they totally screwed everything up!
The state quarter crap SUCKS!
Removing the Commemoratives SUCKS!
Removing the bullion SUCKS!!
Breaking out the gold SUCKS!
After I spent all that money on the Third SLQ and the 2 76 ty 1 and 2 Ikes SUCKS !
I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON THOSE COINS NOW THEY REMOVE THE COINS!
And changing the DATES SUCKS!
ADDING the 1950s coins to the modern sets SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

edited for emphasis and clarity

cosmicdebris · March 14, 2002 6:50AM

Below is my email to David Hall:

<< <i>DH

I spent a lot of money on those sets as they were and NOW you have totally screwed them up. Removing coins I spent a lot of money does not make me happy at all. The 1959 sets should have been totally left alone. Adding all those quarters is ridicules. Removing the Commemoratives was wrong. Removing the 3rd SLQ and Type 1 and 2 Ikes and Gold from the 19th century set is ridicules also. Basically I am very unhappy and have had it with the PCGS registry. How else do you expect your customers to react? >>

keithdagen · March 14, 2002 7:05AM

Bill,

Let us know how you really feel about the changes.

Keith

Popcoin · March 14, 2002 7:37AM

Initial thoughts:

Bill, how do you fell about the changes again??

Modern Proof Type set (1950-present):
I will need 32 new coins and will not need 11 coins that I have
( some of the most expensive).
What about the SAC, is this not a "to present" coin?

20th Century Type set (1900-1999):
Removing the gold did not bother "me" because I did not have any.
I can come closer finishing this set now (I do have 6 year 2000 coins).
I still don't see why the HIgh Relief Peace Dollar is still there since they dropped the other Standing Liberty Qtr and one of the 76' Type Ikes.

Remember, this is just my "Initial thoughts".
Larry (Bill said it better)

Steve · March 14, 2002 7:40AM

Here is a comment from someone that has no interest in type sets. The comment really applies to all PCGS Set Registries. This program is really very young. It is envolving and will continue to envolve over time. I believe most posters comments are based on their own personal feelings and how that affects their potential position. Why not let these sets go as David Hall has set them up. The weighting is all new and nobody knows how that will envolve. After a year, say in early 2003, I'm sure things will be very different. JMHO. Steve

cosmicdebris · March 14, 2002 7:49AM

David Hall just wants to keep changing the composition of the sets to he can sell more coins.

keithdagen · March 14, 2002 7:59AM

Steve,

So far, I don't think that anyone is really complaining about the weightings, mostly composition of these sets.

Some background:

The existing 1900-present set has been in place about a year. The new set breaks the set into 2 pieces, gold and non-gold. Each of the new sets is further split into MS only, PR only, or combined. However, the new set cuts off the date at 1999, causing many to need to purchase new coins to replace their 2000 and 2001 dated peices, which previously were valid. A couple of coin types were eliminated (this makes the 1900-1964 portion exactly the same as the Complete Type Set) and a few ultra rare gold pieces were added (also in line with Complete). Also, instead of asking for a single state quarter, the set requires one of all designs from 1999.

The existing 1959-forward sets were created in response to collector demand for a set that didn't require as big an investment (no early gold, Barbers, etc) and would be great for newer collecors. This was created mid-summer last year. To throw a twist, PCGS required the purchase of bullion pieces, modern commems, and new types of some of the modern material. Every single addition to the set required over the summer was scrapped with the newest version of the set. Also, the new set requires one of each state quarter. So at the end of 2008, the set will contain 50 state quarters and approximately 20 other pieces.

Keith

Typetone · March 14, 2002 8:02AM

Comments which I will pass on to DH.

1. I agree with Cosmic that previous pieces should not have been dropped. Original sets were reasonably well thought out, and many made purchases accordingly. Add back the early Lincolns, the 3rd Standing Lib, the second 76 clad IKE, Sacs, the second SBA, accented hair Kennedies, all the modern commems, and bullion, and anything else I forgot. These helped make the sets interesting. This is exactly why I haven't bought a type piece for about 6 months. I was afraid something like this could happen. Only bought what I wanted anyway (like the AH Kennedy, and 1909 VDB). Didn't buy the 3rd SLQ. How about those guys who did? What are they supposed to do, sell them at a loss?

2. Run the date on the 20th century set to 2000. Doesn't affect me but it does some. Probably should draw the line there though.

3. Personally, I like taking gold out, but I never bought any in the first place. Hope the split off set satisfies those who did buy gold. I plan to do the basic gold set however, not the 20th century variants. Actually, I had planned to drop out of the 20th century set over the gold requirements. Taking it out brings me back in.

4. Agree with extending the modern sets back to 1950. For proofs, thats really when the modern era begins. I have no problem buying a Lincoln Wheat proof, a Roosie silver, or a Washington silver proof. Already have Frankie.

5. Weights seem OK but they are not a big issue for me.

6. Almost forgot. Get the state quarters out of everywhere. One silver and one clad example, any state, is more than enough.
Greg S.

lordmarcovan · March 14, 2002 8:26AM

Call me an idjit, but I am really confused here. I step away from the Registry for a week or two, everything changes, and yet I don't see anything different, much less any mention of weights?

Am I on the same page as everybody else? (I'm talkin' 1900-present Modern Type) Is the most valuable coin I own (the third SLQ, in my case the Type 2) redundant now? I don't see anything different.

Just got my Barber half. 1907 MS64, ex DaBigKahuna collection. Held it for 2 or 3 days and then shipped it off as a trade-in on a much whiter MS64 1912. Until that one comes in, there won't be any new additions for me. All I need now are the two Saints, unless the set has changed. I still haven't deleted that MS63 1908 NM I sold to swing the Barber half deal.

Typetone · March 14, 2002 8:33AM

Lord:

Sorry, gotta call you an idjit.

Take a look under registry news for the new proposed sets and weights. Gotta believe you will go on the war path with us after you take a look.

lordmarcovan · March 14, 2002 8:42AM

OK, so it's been established that I'm an idjit, now. At least I got someone to agree with me on somethin'.

itsnotjustme · March 14, 2002 8:46AM

I wanted a type set, not a state quarter set! And what gives with removing all the varieties we had before? Did DHRC sell off all their AH Kennedys already? Why are Sacs missing from the 1950 to present sets? Why is the gold pulled, and then put into sets with the coins many of us will never afford included? And my Type 3 SLQ is now a type 2?? I might be able to understand the no T1/T2 76 Ikes, but not when each state quarter is included!

And how about all the special coins I went and bought for my sets? SMS nickel, Commems, Bullion, etc.

Drop the changes--leave us with what we had.

itsnotjustme · March 14, 2002 8:47AM

PCGS--are you trying to please or alienate your customers?

lordmarcovan · March 14, 2002 8:47AM

Hmm. I looked. Still don't see anything that would affect my 1900-present Modern Type Set (which is a mixed MS and PR set).

? I see the MS-only set but nothing else... lemme look again...

Never mind. I think I found it. They are calling it by the old "20th century Type Set"(Circulation Strikes and Proofs) name, rather than "Modern Type Set, 1900-present"?

clevegreg · March 14, 2002 8:47AM

1. All of the State Quarters needed - I already have them but I think it is kind of dumb. Perhaps they are attempting to interest those people just collecting those coins into other areas of the hobby, which isn't a bad thing.

2. New Gold Series - I will never be able to afford some of the previously optional coins that are mandatory in this set. Not quite sure yet what I will do here.

3. They eliminated alot of coins that were a pain to get, and somewhat costly eg. the Type 1 and Type 2 Ikes, some of the Lincoln cents, the third SLQ.

4. Weighting seems to be pretty fair.

5. I guess I am glad I have held off buying much lately. I was going to upgrade some of the Gold, but now I can use some of it as a trade I suppose.

Oh well, nothing stays the same but change

lordmarcovan · March 14, 2002 8:53AM

Waittaminnut. That set doesn't include gold. Now I'm really confused. I give up.

itsnotjustme · March 14, 2002 8:56AM

Lord, Lookie Here!

cointime · March 14, 2002 9:08AM

There are some very good arguments here from everyone. I did just recently buy my 1st gold piece, a indian $5. I did not really want to buy all 10 pieces of gold. I like the fact they are not a part of the set now, but will probably keep this coin after I get it slabbed. The only thing that really stikes me funny is adding all those state quarters, which I don't care much to have. I already have a few, but not the ones required for the set. I have mixed feeling about the whole thing. On one had, I believe you should not buy a coin if it is not what you really want to own. On the other hand, there are a lot of people that have more of a variety of coins than I do, but their reasons are just..... They were required for the registry sets they started and if they wanted to achieve 100%, then they were in essence forced to obtain them to play the game. I guess this is the message to DH, I will write. I will go with the 20th Cent. type set CS, and in time I may like it. Just my two cents.

Kenny

khayse · March 14, 2002 9:28AM

> Perhaps they are attempting to interest those people just > collecting those coins into other areas of the hobby, which isn't a bad thing.

Clevegreg,

Perhaps they are trying to strong-arm the rest of us.

-Keith H

cosmicdebris · March 14, 2002 9:37AM

Maybe DHRC will pay us what we paid for all the coins he wants to take out of our sets. That way we can buy all the State quarters he is trying to push.

TomB · March 14, 2002 10:00AM

Has anyone noticed that the two SLQ varieties left do not cover the entire series? The TyI is '16-'17 while the TyII is '25-'30, how about the '17-'24 coins? Perhaps they will include back into the set the requirement for three SLQs, although that seems reasonable and so I guess it will not happen.

cointime · March 14, 2002 10:46AM

I think that was a typo. The CS set is 1917-1930 type II. Good catch

Kenny

keithdagen · March 14, 2002 11:44AM

Looks like a pretty good consensus going that additions are not necessarily bad (unless it's a full set of state quarters), but that the deletions are downright wrong.

Another observation for the Proof guys. The 1992-present silver proofs that you have cover the combo set for the Washington & Roosevelt silver slots now. Look at the dates for the coins (1932-1998 & 1964-present). But those pieces don't work for the Proof only sets or the 1950 sets. So that's three more pieces that apparantly have been dumped.

Keith

lordmarcovan · March 14, 2002 12:17PM

Brian- I did lookie there. Here is what I see in Modern Type:

<< <i>Weighting preview for the Modern Type Set - Circulation Strikes (1950-Present) click here.

Weighting preview for the Modern Type Set - Proofs (1950-Present) click here.

Weighting preview for the Modern Type Set - Circulation Strikes and Proofs (1950-Present) click here. >>

Nothing about Modern Type 1900-present.

keithdagen · March 14, 2002 12:19PM

LM,

Now called 20th Century Type and you have your choice of Copper, Nickel, Silver (Called 20th Century Type) or 20th Century Gold, but not a combination of the two.

Keith

lordmarcovan · March 14, 2002 12:24PM

Hmm. Thanx. Needed someone to lead me by the hand, there, I guess. I'll go read some more. Been thinkin' about dumpin' my post-1964 stuff and going Complete Type, or maybe even selling the gold and going for C/N/S. Dunno. I'm gonna finish 1900-Present, first, before I do anything. I might find it hard to part with my gold. What you just described sounds pretty stinky.

danarchy · March 14, 2002 12:26PM

well, my first thoughts came just after winning a proof plat $10. to the tune of $110.00. I see that this is no longer part of the set. I won this auction from DAVID HALL. I'm pissed. I just made my first coins. Including a gold eagle, and a gold commem. Like i said in another thread about this. I have spent roughly 2 months wages on coins that no longer are part of the set I am putting together.

Long story short. I'm Pissed.

I would also like to quote Cosmic, as I share his emotions exactly
And he said so eloquently

"I think they totally screwed everything up. The state quarter crap sucks. Removing the Commemoratives sucks.
Breaking out the gold sucks. After I spent all that money on the Third SLQ and the 2 76 ty 1 and 2 Ikes SUCKS !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I spent alot of money on those sets and NOW THEY REMOVE
THE COINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And changing the DATES SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ADDING the 1950s
coins to the modern sets SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

that about sums it up!

keithdagen · March 14, 2002 12:32PM

LM,

Before you do anything drastic, let's see what PCGS' reaction to our reaction is. Also, I wouldn't do too much to the Complete Type sets either until PCGS weights them. Definite possibility of changes there as well.

Keith

Spooly · March 14, 2002 12:45PM

LOL! Man that is alot of State Quarters!

PCGS should rename it "20th Century Type and State Quarter Set"

I guess the State Quarter dealers are very happy!

lordmarcovan · March 14, 2002 12:49PM

I still have the two Saints to buy and completion of negotiations on my MS64 Barber half, so nothing drastic is gonna be happening with my set for a while. Oddly enough, however, I had played with the idea of selling my third SLQ anyway (I mean the middle one- 1917-D Ty.2, MS64 FH). It has a huge trend value on the PCGS price guide, and I am only partially enamored of it, really. Cashing in on its high value (though I don't expect anywhere near full trends for it) and buying a whiter, more common date/variety has been on my mind...

Dennisl · March 14, 2002 12:50PM

Everyone that is upset with the changes needs to email David Hall. He needs to hear from each and every one of us. Here is his email:dhall@collectors.com

Spooly · March 14, 2002 12:57PM

Sent one to BJ too!

bj@collectors.com

You might want to send one to Rick M too!

KoinKollector · March 14, 2002 1:03PM

Collect coins YOU want to collect...
I hear alot of you complaining you just bought this coin & its no longer good. Almost sounds like you bought it just to put on the type reg set?... I hope the problem is taken care of soon, and remember collect what YOU want, not what David Hall wants you to collect

KoinKollector · March 14, 2002 1:05PM

Reason that all State Quarters are required...
Prices are dropping... David Hall got caught w/ his pants down because he has a TON of these coin in inventory. He comes up w/ this idea to get the quarters hot again so he can make his pockets fatter...

danarchy · March 14, 2002 1:12PM

So, would you complete a transaction for a coin with David Hall, that has just been omitted for the set you are collecting?

KoinKollector · March 14, 2002 1:15PM

Id never buy a coin I didnt WANT to own... Why let DH tell you what to collect??

danarchy · March 14, 2002 1:24PM

I have a MS plat already, wanted to complete the proof type set. Which I do collect proofs. This is one of those coins which was needed for the set. To complete the set, this was needed. Pretty simple. I wanted to finish something I started! Now this isn't needed. Just a bunch of state quarters...

goldenpony · March 14, 2002 2:14PM

Well, I am not happy with the new make up of the sets. Guees, there is alot of that going around. All the state quarters is WORNG, no SLQ tyIII is WRONG, heck the 1950 to Present set has the 2000 quarters, but no Sac?

The weighting seems a little strange too. All the 1999 State quarters get a 1 and a SBA gets a 2? On the State Quarter Sets the 1999 coins are all a 2.

Heck, I almost spent a few hundred of my hard earned dollars on a No Motto St. G the other day, now its not part of the regular set? Not to mention the Platinum, Commeratives, Gold Eagle, and Gold Commerative I bought last year.

Heck, I'm with CD, this SUCKS!!!!!

This is a bunch of garbage.

coynclecter · March 14, 2002 2:17PM

I can appreciate everyone's anxiety but let's face it. You let a coin dealer define what you are going to collect by setting up a glory board to provide recognition. Now you are suprised when he uses it as a marketing tool, the exact thing it was set up to be.

Collect what you like and forget the registry. It's a marketing tool, nothing more.

I'm only upset that I sent in my DC accent hair too late. I was hoping to sell it for a nice buck before the price fell. I hope it still has value in the proof Kennedy set.

BTW why can't I find the coin rating in the proof kennedy set??

lordmarcovan · March 14, 2002 4:00PM

KK- good point. A nice coin is a nice coin, regardless of whether it fits into one's Registry set or not. Still, I rather enjoy playing the game by someone else's set of rules, knowing my competitors are doing the same thing. It sorta levels the playing field, or at least it ensures that everyone is playing the same game, if that makes any sense. When it ceases to be fun, I will cease doing it.

Speaking of nice coins, I need to upload a better pic of my aforementioned 1917-D Type 2 MS64 FH quarter. Upon getting out my albums and having a look at it rather than the picture attached to my set, I see it is much nicer than I remember. It has a trace of gold toning on the obverse that came out brown in the other pics, so I made a bigger and brighter picture. 37.9 KB, so I thought, heck, why not attach it here and get a free URL, instead of using andale? (I wonder if that will work?)

I still think I'm gonna list it, with a healthy reserve, of course. I'm in no hurry to sell it, but if my reserve is met, then I'll use it to buy the two Saints I need. (Forty bucks face in gold for 25 cents in silver...what a bargain! LOL). Then the second (middle) SLQ (the type I will have just sold) is all I'll need, and if the set changes to two SLQ's I won't need to buy anything at all, except maybe some State quarters or something like that, heheh.

Let's see if the upload works:

Popcoin · March 15, 2002 12:30AM

Year 2008 - Modern Proof Type Set (1950-present):

100 State Quarters (50 Silver / 50 Clad) and 21 other types.

********Nice "TYPE" set*************

Bring on Greg's suggested Basic Type Set,
Larry

PS: I like the Proof Platinum, Commeratives, Gold Eagle, and Gold Commerative in this set and will keep them, however, as I find some of the older "real type" coins it will become more and more difficult not to sell them for the $$$, since they are not included in a type set.