Options
What is the point of a "short set"?
BillyKingsley
Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭✭
Hello folks, as I have been learning more and more about this hobby, I am ending up with more questions.
Here is one that's been perplexing me for a while. What is the point of a "short set"? From what I've been able to gather, it is a portion of a full set and it seems to be rather arbitrary in it's designations.
I don't understand this concept. It's not a full set, and that seems to be something that set collectors go for-myself included-so it seems kind of silly. To me, that is just a particular portion of a set that has been completed, but is not, in and of itself, a set. At least to me.
Thanks!
Here is one that's been perplexing me for a while. What is the point of a "short set"? From what I've been able to gather, it is a portion of a full set and it seems to be rather arbitrary in it's designations.
I don't understand this concept. It's not a full set, and that seems to be something that set collectors go for-myself included-so it seems kind of silly. To me, that is just a particular portion of a set that has been completed, but is not, in and of itself, a set. At least to me.
Thanks!
Billy Kingsley ANA R-3146356 Cardboard History // Numismatic History
0
Comments
I think that some of these were created to make it possible for collectors of limited means to fill an album (or, later, a registry set) and have a sense of accomplishment for doing so.
Personally, I am a big fan of short sets. They are a fine way for beginning collectors to learn the ropes without breaking the bank. For some folks having short term goals and completing them in a reasonable length of time is the only way to stay interested. Others may prefer the decades long pursuit of a larger goal, but most will lose interest before completing those goals.
As always, collect what you like, not what others like, or tell you to like. Enjoy the hobby.
As someone who is on a limited budget, I can certainly understand the appeal of them, now. (I had not considered that aspect previously) but I think that I would rather go the decades long route, like RedTiger said. I have patience and time, and would prefer to add pieces slowly then rush through a short set! The way I figure it, by going about it my way, the joy of finally getting something after a few decades of wanting it will (hopefully) far outweigh the joy of completing a short set in a short time.
At least, I hope so!
Even for those with no budget, the 76 CC may pose a problem.
<< <i> did that term extended into other series? >>
Buffalo Nickels, 1934-38, for one.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
Franklin-Lover's Forum
<< <i>were short set's mainly merc's and walkers or did that term extended into other series? >>
The Mercury dime and Walking Liberty half short sets are by far the most common. As others have said, 1934-38 Buffalo nickels and Silver War nickels also saw considerable popularity.
Although I don't know if it is commonly accepted as such.
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>It provides an achievable goal for a collector with a limited budget. >>
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>The proof Kennedy Short Set exists because the coins struck after 1970 suck.
Well said!
I collect Large Cents, and my set is "short" most of the required coins.....
Then you might like the long set of Prince Edward Island coinage of the 19th century!
I own both a long and short set of PEI cents!
Both long and long set owners have no quarrel with each other. There is a definite sense of mutual respect and affection for each other.
(tongue in cheek)
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
For example, my Mercury dime set would require the least expensive coin for each year, from 1916 to 1945. As far as grades are concerned, I'd want MS grades for every year, with an AU 1921.
With this approach, I still satisfy my desire to "complete" a set at a much lower cost.
What a great way to avoid the 16-D!
<< <i>My preferred version of a short set would be one mint marked coin, most likely D with a few S coins thrown in from every year, from 1916 thru 1931.
For example, my Mercury dime set would require the most expensive coin for each year, from 1916 to 1931. As far as grades are concerned, I'd want MS67FB grades for every year, with an MS67FB 1921.
With this approach, I still satisfy my desire to "complete" a set at a much higher cost.
What a great way to avoid the cheap common later dates!
<< <i>
<< <i>My preferred version of a short set would be one mint marked coin, most likely D with a few S coins thrown in from every year, from 1916 thru 1931.
For example, my Mercury dime set would require the most expensive coin for each year, from 1916 to 1931. As far as grades are concerned, I'd want MS67FB grades for every year, with an MS67FB 1921.
With this approach, I still satisfy my desire to "complete" a set at a much higher cost.
What a great way to avoid the cheap common later dates!
Your set is my DREAM set, not my reality set.
<< <i>I think that some of these were created to make it possible for collectors of limited means to fill an album (or, later, a registry set) and have a sense of accomplishment for doing so. >>
In other words.....marketing
<< <i>The proof Kennedy Short Set exists because the coins struck after 1970 suck.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ, would you mind explaining this a bit? Why do they suck? Just the quality? (I'm assuming you're being tongue-in-cheek about the "pre-1971" short set as there aren't really enough proofs to make a set at all, yes?) And at what point did the quality become "worthy" again--if it did at all? Thanks!
Yup, that was my thinking as well.
Steve
<< <i>Russ, would you mind explaining this a bit? Why do they suck? >>
They don't really suck, they're just too easy to find in high grade. No challenge. If I were a business strike collector I'd be more interested in the coins after 1970, since there are actually some challenging ones there.
Russ, NCNE