Options
More State Quarter debate for Modern Type Sets
keithdagen
Posts: 2,025 ✭
Mitch has suggested that a single state quarter example in a Type set is not enough, and that there should be at least one quarter required per year. So far, I have not seen any support of that stand in the debates that have raged over the last couple of days, and when I created my polls, there was no person who had suggested anything but all or one.
Instead of modifying the poll and negating the votes of those who have already voted in the state quarter poll, I would like to see some discussion here on the subject.
PCGS wants all 50 quarters in the 1950-present set, most of the board members think that a single example is enough. Mitch thinks one per year should be required.
My personal feeling is that the state quarter program is no different than the modern commem program and should be treated as such. In the current 1959-present set, a single state quarter, a single $.50 commem, a single $1 commem, a single $5 commem, and a single $10 commem are required. The setholder gets to choose which of their favorite example should represent these slots.
PCGS now wants one of each quarter, turning the set into a "state quarters and assorted other coins" set. If you require multiple state quarters (one per year, full set, or anything more than one), shouldn't you also require more than one commem as well. Why not require every modern commem minted. If you are doing the set in Proof, why not every Platinum eagle reverse? Why not every denomination of bullion instead of your pick?
Keith
Instead of modifying the poll and negating the votes of those who have already voted in the state quarter poll, I would like to see some discussion here on the subject.
PCGS wants all 50 quarters in the 1950-present set, most of the board members think that a single example is enough. Mitch thinks one per year should be required.
My personal feeling is that the state quarter program is no different than the modern commem program and should be treated as such. In the current 1959-present set, a single state quarter, a single $.50 commem, a single $1 commem, a single $5 commem, and a single $10 commem are required. The setholder gets to choose which of their favorite example should represent these slots.
PCGS now wants one of each quarter, turning the set into a "state quarters and assorted other coins" set. If you require multiple state quarters (one per year, full set, or anything more than one), shouldn't you also require more than one commem as well. Why not require every modern commem minted. If you are doing the set in Proof, why not every Platinum eagle reverse? Why not every denomination of bullion instead of your pick?
Keith
Keith ™
0
Comments
Will be away from my computer most of tomorrow and a majority of Monday because of some family events.
The original polls were created based on the issues that seemed to be the theme of the feedback on the original threads, as well as the suggested solutions. However, since there has been a lot of voting on the polls, surely others who did not post to the original threads have an opinion on this issue.
And as I said to Mitch earlier, if there is a lot of support for a number of state quarters between the extremes of 1 and 50, then I will create a new poll at that time with three options on the quarter issue.
Keith
Maybe if they add enough 50 SQ to the sets, members that are collecting them may move into the new type sets. (Just some thoughts, trying to figure what PCGS' goal is). Have a great weekend all....
Kenny
My Washington Type B/C Set
Frankly, I haven't a clue how or why PCGS came up with all 50 state quarters being required. Remember, this is only a 1950-date set; that is purely a "modern" set. Most "classic" collectors who hate state quarters equally can't stand all those modern Commems you mentioned or clad material. This is really a discussion for those forum members that buy or sell the material being included in this very important modern registry set - agreed?
My thinking is that everything in life, especially regarding registry stuff, is a compromise. Why is a 1934 DD quarter required in the variety quarter set but not a 43(s) DD? Why do pre-1978 proofs get more points than pre-1979? Or, why do 1953 and earlier proofs get bonuses as opposed to 1954 or 1952? Why do super rare MS68 silver quarters (that I can't buy even with my open offer of $6500) get less points than a 1932(d) quarter in VF-35 worth a $100 or so? "Why would there be a single state quarter from each year" would fit into these "why" questions nicely.
I just personally believe -1- lone state quarter in a modern type set such as the one being drafted by PCGS is way too few, while I conceed that rationally 50 is far too many. So, 10 is simply a reasonable compromise. One from each year with -10 MS coins to chose from for example.
If the collectors who are building these sets sharply oppose the one state quarter per year compromise, I won't be mad at all and I hope no one is mad at me for setting out my personal view on the subject. Clearly, more than 1/4 of this forum want ALL 50 coins, yet, as was mentioned by someone, no one is speaking out as to why. Likewise, 3/4 of the forum support -1- state quarter in the 1950 to date type set, yet many of these supporters would want nothing to do with this set regardless of how it is constituted.
Hey, PCGS decided upon 50 state quarters in the set! My thought of 1 per year can't be that "far out in left field" when it results in only
20% of the coins the PCGS "braintrust" came up with. Think about it. IMHO, it is a compromise that recognizes the significance of state quarters spanning a decade of time and incorporating 50 different designs.
I'll admit my main beef is the changes to the 1900-present set, and don't really personally have a preference to the changes to the 1959-present set since I retired mine. (That's why I tried to help organize this mini-campaign.) But I know that the guys who do collect that set will have strong opinions, and all input is welcome, dealers, collectors, non-collectors alike.
And according to the current changes to the 1900-1999 set, I'm going to need at least one 1999 state quarter real soon since my 2000 Virginia is about to no longer count.
And remember, whatever they decide on the state quarters only applies to the MS set. If you say 10 MS quarters, that means 20 combined set and 20 proof set quarters because those sets have clad and silver examples.
Keith
Keith: 10 Mint State coins only means 10 though - right? I understand your comment as to 10 clad and 10 silver proofs. Wondercoin.
09/07/2006
<< <i>This is really a discussion for those forum members that buy or sell the material being included in this very important modern registry set - agreed? >>
Mitch,
Those who sell the material? No, I don't agree. I don't even agree with those who buy! It should be the COLLECTOR that has the voice in this!
I distinctly feel 1 "50 State Quarters Program" (TM) coin is sufficient as the example for the "50 State Quarters Program" (TM) type coin!
09/07/2006
DAN
My first tassa slap 3/3/04
My shiny cents
<< <i>Clearly, more than 1/4 of this forum want ALL 50 coins, yet, as was mentioned by someone, no one is speaking out as to why. Likewise, 3/4 of the forum support -1- state quarter in the 1950 to date type set, yet many of these supporters would want nothing to do with this set regardless of how it is constituted. >>
Clearly the majority has spoken. 75% of the voters do not want the state quarters included, only a TYPE representative coin. The registry is for collector's sets not for dealer’s opinions as to what collectors should collect. I think PCGS should listen to the collector since the collector is the one that supports the company in the end. Dealers may be making most of the submissions but without the collector buying them, there would be no market and no PCGS. If a movement gets started to switch to over to the NGC registry it could really hurt PCGS. NGC is already grading more coins than PCGS. What is one of the most important concepts of business: "The customer is always right” I think PCGS made a mistake and believed what P.T. Barnum said: "There is a sucker born every minute” PCGS thought that their opinion was more important than their client's opinion. Well the suckers have spoken and they don't want this new set shoved down their throats. IMHO as part of the vocal majority
Bill: What makes you think any of the voters who voted one way or the other have a stronger likelihood than me to put this set together? This collector vs. dealer thing is "BS" imho. Cladmaker now has the #9 Buffalo nickel set registered. Is he a "collector" or "dealer" when it comes to the Registry? Meanwhile, I know of MANY collectors on this board who have not yet registered their set - should they be ignored too? I own and collect perhaps the very finest MS Wash quarter set in the country - so I have "no say" too because I also sell coins. I registered a set in the Registry before 99% of you guys even gave it a second thought and had "drag down" fights with Rick M. years ago to make sure PCGS would even follow through with their Registry Book they promised and then changed their mind on. So, nothing I say matters now because I also sell coins? "BS" Wondercoin.
Dennis: More "BS". How about a poll asking "have you stopped beating your wife" - yes or no!!!! Would be the same as asking collectors "1 vs 50" state quarters imho. Why not ask folks if they would eat "1 French Fry or 1000 Frys" for lunch and conclude no one will eat McDonalds anymore. Who are you playing for the "sucker"?
Having said that, I really could care less how many state quarters DH decides to put in his sets. If he had zero, I would have never said a word. But, he chose 50 and once the issue was opened up to this forum, I believe I have the same right to pontificate on the subject as anyone else on this board
<< <i>"Clearly the majority has spoken. 75% of the voters do not want the state quarters included" >>
<< <i>Dennis: More "BS". How about a poll asking "have you stopped beating your wife" - yes or no!!!! Would be the same as asking collectors "1 vs 50" state quarters imho. Why not ask folks if they would eat "1 French Fry or 1000 Frys" for lunch and conclude no one will eat McDonalds anymore. Who are you playing for the "sucker"? >>
Mitch,
You know I have a state quarter set. I would not have to go and buy these quarters like a lot of other registry set collectors so I do not have these as a hidden reason for not wanting to include them in the set. We don't include all the modern silver and modern gold commems.
Just like you, I have several unregistered sets: Morgan Dollars, Peace Dollars, Shield Nickels, Early Dollars. I only listed my modern sets for the fun and spirit of competetion. Lately the boards have been more about complaining than the spirit and fun of collecting. If the collectors don't want to collect all the state quarters, don't make them.
Dennis: Agreed. Like I said, I only commented when the issue became one of public debate. Again, if DH had added -0- state quarters or 50 and no one raised the issue for public debate, I xould have cared less.
Think about it, I just took a position in $20 gem PCGS Saints expecting to collect some and offer some to Registry type collectors. Now DH goes and gets rid of the Saints in the type set I hear!!! Have you heard me say one word about it? My comments were mentioned on state quarters only when collectors raised the issue publicly. Now, thanks for listening. I am finished with the subject. If DH decides to leave all 50 in the set- great. If he decides to cut it back to -1- -great. If he includes 10 - fantastic!
I never said Mitch the Collector does not deserve a vote, but Mitch the dealer does not
09/07/2006
In my opinion something is driving these decisions. PCGS is a business and their goal is to turn a profit. This is done by being the best and by grading the most coins. Certianly requiring collectors to add "extra" coins to registry set will make them more money. As I see things this hobby is at a fork in the road as of such. It can go right and continue to grow, attract more collectors, and be fun! Or it can trun left and head off into the sunset taking the hardcore collector with it and totally forgetting about the potential of adding new blood.
Having any dealers helping with the content and/or weighting decisions is totally wrong. The sets should be built for collectors, not to pad the pockets of the dealers.
I like coins, but I do not like what I have been seeing from PCGS as of late. I collected sports cards until the card cmpanies got greedy. I collected diecast cars until my ex-wife got all of them, but as of late I have noticed those compaines too have gotten greedy. In both cases I was one voice, but my voice does not speak for either of those hobbies any longer. PCGS can make or break some collectors with their decisions, lets hope they will listen to "US" as collectors and do the right thing.
If not I know where I'm getting the rest of the capital I need for my big project this summer.
About 75% of my collection is PCGS coins in Registry Sets so you can call me a "registry" collector also.
I agree with Typetones' statement:
"I don't think one per year is logical. For a type set, the option of one state is justifiable, and the option of all 50 is justifiable."
So my vote on the state quarter question was my "preference",
which is to have (one MS/two PR) state quarters in the type sets.
I think this is the concept many people have and why there is so few responses by different people to this thread.
I feel that most, but not all, the votes for 50 state quarters in the type sets come from people who either do not have a "registry type set" and/ or just want to screw things up.
Thanks,
Larry
20th C. Type Set
1976 Proof Set
As a person who aspires to own one of each type of coin ever minted in the US for circulation I expect to eventually get a proof example of each state quarter.
If you require one of each of the 50 designs, then you have half of a set given that you either pick a P or D, but you will need the S unless both the clad and silver are required. I am not sure about that part. So, you need at least half a set containing many coins.
This is a tough call, but I would have to weigh in on the side on one state quarter for the type sets. Otherwise you end up becoming a state quarter collector instead of a type set collector. What percentage of the type set would state quarters be if you required all of them? Far too high I would suggest.
In 2008, assuming no new designs, the proposed 1950-present Proof Set would contain 100 state quarters and 21 others
(83.3% state quarters). "Far to high" is very correct.
Larry
20th C. Type Set
1976 Proof Set
OK, you get a vote since you're a collector too.
If you don't like how Dennis has phrased the debate, place
a poll up yourself and include all the different choices you want.
I'm just warning you that I don't think type collectors are going
to want 10 different state quarters (I know I wouldn't). Don't
you remember the whining about the number of Ikes needed.
And I would've also guessed that they would laugh at the idea
of collecting 50 of them.
You might be able to talk me into two though (1 clad, 1 silver).
And no, I haven't stopped beating my wife (that would require
starting). She's a slight thing but she has a cast iron skillet and
she's not afraid to use it.
-Keith