Options
Give me your odds: Will PCGS "Do the Right Thing"?
braddick
Posts: 23,381 ✭✭✭✭✭
I think so, and why not? When all of this settles down and the dust clears I bet we see a better Registry emerge out of it- like the Phoenix rising from the embers! (Ok, I'm being a bit melodramatic here).
Trust me: There will be NO 50 state quarters for the 1950- Current Type Registry. And, we're NOT going to lose coins from the set that make up its personality. That would be silly.
Who's with me on this? PCGS is not shortsighted. Although it appears they are leaning toward making a few colossal mistakes, just watch!
They'll do the right thing by us.
True?
Trust me: There will be NO 50 state quarters for the 1950- Current Type Registry. And, we're NOT going to lose coins from the set that make up its personality. That would be silly.
Who's with me on this? PCGS is not shortsighted. Although it appears they are leaning toward making a few colossal mistakes, just watch!
They'll do the right thing by us.
True?
peacockcoins
0
Comments
I just went and bought two of the gold coins I still need for the 1900 set.
09/07/2006
1. An amazing 28% of this board thus far supports David Hall and his the concept of including all 50 states in the ype set!! That is an amazing % especially considering the fact that collectors generally will not support anything new that requires them to go out and buy 50 new coins!!
2. IMHO, Keith's question was unfair in the first place, asking folks to vote on 1 or 50 with NO MIDDLE GROUND. If 28% of the board supports ALL 50 STATES, I wonder what % of the board would support a compromised balance of say 2 state quarters from each year and the selections being totally at the registry set submitter's discretion.
IMHO, state quarters are very important to any type set 1950 to date and there should be more than -1- in the type set. Wondercoin.
What steps did you take to eliminate these CAM's? I'm sure it had to be just a phone call.
peacockcoins
Two a year?!
Where did you get that number?
I understand one a year and I understand 1 state quarter
period. Two a year sounds like compromise with no
logical reason behind it.
My vote is still for 1 out of 50 for the type set.
-Keith H
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
Name any other 100 pc. collection out there in any series where only 1 coin is in a type set. I can't think of any off the top of my head. Can you? Wondercoin.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I agree that the Registry probably should have all 50 State quarters in it to make it complete. This is one of those instances where I don't care. I'm just not interested in buying 50 MS68 State quarters- they mean nothing to me.
So again, PCGS is right to add these coins but my total lack of enthusiasm will cause me to close this set.
peacockcoins
Camelot
Modern commem sets require 44 different silver dollars, 15 different half dollars, 20 different half eagles, and 2 different eagles, all with different obverse and reverse designs. Yet the current PCGS Modern Type set requires 1 of each denomination. State quarters only change reverses.
However, to be fair, I started another thread to debate the issue some more.
TomB,
I agree, but there is no way to stop it. There are about 50 different setholders currently involved with these sets though, so there are a lot of board members with stakes in the issue. And the outcome of the weightings might encourage or discourage potential new setholders. Hopefully someone with multiple logins would not abuse the system.
Pat,
My gut feeling is that we will win some and lose some. Hopefully, no major deletions from the current sets, but maybe some streamlining on the larger set. Some additions, especially to expand to 1950 from current 1959, but we'll see. To wipe out a third of a set like planned will pretty much kill the current market for the set and would definitely discourage new registrants.
Keith
If a thousand people subscribe to a bad idea, it's still a bad idea.
But that raises the question - who determines that it is indeed 'bad'?