Does anyone else want a copper registry category for RB ONLY and BN ONLY?

barrytrot · March 1, 2012 11:39AM

There are some extremely nice looking RB and BN Lincolns and Indians, but registry wise it is impossible to compete with the RD's.

I know there is a "colorless" category, but the RD's still rule as they will be the highest graded.

Does anyone else want a category that in ONLY for "RB" or "BN" (or both potentially, I suppose)?

NOTE: Not to mention that many very knowledgeable collectors have made the statement that 100+ year old copper cannot be red.

PQueue · March 2, 2012 1:21AM

I have a 148 yar old two cent piece that is original red. 100+ year old copper can be red, but they are scarce.

Cocoinut · March 2, 2012 10:34AM

<< Not to mention that many very knowledgeable collectors have made the statement that 100+ year old copper cannot be red. >>

And they would be wrong! There are thousands of pre1912 Lincoln cents that are in original red condition. Red Indian Head cents and 2 cent pieces are not that uncommon. Here are a couple that are even older.

Red copper can change to RB or even BR when improperly stored, so a coin in a solely RB set may not qualify for that grade in 10 years..

Jim

DAM · March 2, 2012 2:56PM

I would like to see separate catagories based on color. The colorless sets are limited and could be skewed, if higher grades exist in RD than RB and BN.

A week or so ago I sent a request to Michele asking this very question. She said the brass said no.

Perhaps if more asked it might happen.

sonoranmonsoon · March 2, 2012 4:26PM

I ca't imagine anyone being interested in starting an all brown set.

Steve · March 2, 2012 11:55PM

<< I ca't imagine anyone being interested in starting an all brown set. >>

The person who thinks being #1 in a particular set registry is more important to him than having a nice COMPLETE set registry in that major category regardless of position might be interested. JMHO. Steve

dbemike · March 4, 2012 8:14PM

Asked for this awhile back myself...answer was "NO"

After watching rising pop report of RB Lincolns in past few years, there is definitely a following.

EagleEye · March 6, 2012 10:38AM

I think there should be a RB/BN set registry. Not separate.

WaterSport · March 6, 2012 12:30PM

UFB...anyway, I think its a great idea to have a Brown, and RB only sets. That R/B set would be a challenge.

WS

66RB · March 6, 2012 2:30PM

Hey WS, what does 'UFB' mean?

Anyway,

I find it odd that PCGS created a lowball set that awards the most points to the lowest graded coins, but when they introduce the colorless copper sets, there is no bonus for having a RB or a BN. The colorless sets were quickly populated by the guys with complete RD sets, and those aspiring to be competitive in those sets are quickly knocked further and further down. Kind of took the fun and uniqueness out of the colorless sets.

Following the logic of the lowball sets, where a 'cheaper' coin(read RB and BN vs. RD)why shouldn't a RB be scored higher than a RD while the BN scores even higher than the RB?

So, I agree that maybe there should be a registry category for only RB and BN sets, or 'fix' the colorless sets so that there are bonuses for RB and BN coins.

DIMEMAN · March 7, 2012 4:48AM

I don't have a horse in this race, but if I did I would be for the RB and BN. And they should have there own sets.

Also, I don't think RD coins should be allowed in those sets.

lusterlover · March 7, 2012 8:33AM

Considering that the majority of uncirculated copper coins fall into the RB category (I assume we're talking indians and wheats), it would make a lot of sense. And if you did it, you should absolutely exclude reds from it. I vote yes.

Coppercolor · March 7, 2012 2:02PM

Thank you 66RB and Dimeman. They need to "fix" the colorless sets and give credit where credit is due.

I've searched high and low for 20 years to find and make pop 1/0 browns for my collection. Even those coins get instantly trumped by some third tier red coin that's a 657/69 pop and two grades down from top pop (for example)

Swampboy · March 7, 2012 2:27PM

<< I think there should be a RB/BN set registry. Not separate. >>

Coppercolor · March 14, 2012 10:21AM

Resurrecting this thread.

I went into the top ten sets in the the colorless 1909-1958 lincoln registry. I counted how many coins in those sets were red, red-brown or brown.

So I found this interesting positive correlation between the rank of the set and how many red coins were in the set. Here's what I found

#1 Set 130/140 are red
#2 Set 116/140 are red
#3 Set 110/140 are red
#4 Set 86/140 are red
#5 Set 93/140 are red
#6 Set 96/140 are red
#7 Set Au Set
#8 Set 87/140 are red
#9 Set 92/140 are red

Skip to lower sets

#15 Set 0/140 are red
#16 Set 33/140 are red
#21 Set 4/140 are red

So #15, 16 and #21(me) are competing and looking for a serious forum for their redbrown and brown lincolns. However there is a reverse correlation between the number of brown/red brown coins in a collection and the collections rank. Therefore, PCGS has not succeeded in accomplishing what it wanted to accomplish by creating the colorless set.

It's to PCGS' advantage to disqualify red coins. If they did so, there would finally be a place where red/brown and brown coins could be valued and history has shown that this will translate into increased submissions. Look at what happened with the Everyman Collection. Talk about a giant pile of grading fees generated just because the registry created appreciation for AU-58 coins. Teletrade is literally littered with Au-53 to MS 63 coins that got graded with the hopes of AU-58 ing.

PCGS should consider a brown registy and they should consider a Red-Brown registry.
Just sayin!

copperhunter · March 15, 2012 6:08AM

Coppercolor-

My set is #13 (current rank) that has zero red coins. In my description of the set, I explain what the implied intent of the set should be-no red! Those with all of the high end reds need to get out of there. Those sets seem to me like the middle school bully; they have the cash and resources to build these sets, and they can play in the "regular" registry, as do I with the reds that I do have. The best rank that I ever anticipate attaining in the 09-58 basic set is #30. So, I am glad there are others who share this feeling and wondered if it would ever be brought up.

Thanks 66rb, dbmike, copper color, tortuga, and all of the others who pursue these wonderful colored Lincoln's.

Chris

barrytrot · March 15, 2012 11:17AM

<< Resurrecting this thread.

I went into the top ten sets in the the colorless 1909-1958 lincoln registry. I counted how many coins in those sets were red, red-brown or brown.

So I found this interesting positive correlation between the rank of the set and how many red coins were in the set. Here's what I found

#1 Set 130/140 are red
#2 Set 116/140 are red
#3 Set 110/140 are red
#4 Set 86/140 are red
#5 Set 93/140 are red
#6 Set 96/140 are red
#7 Set Au Set
#8 Set 87/140 are red
#9 Set 92/140 are red

Skip to lower sets

#15 Set 0/140 are red
#16 Set 33/140 are red
#21 Set 4/140 are red

So #15, 16 and #21(me) are competing and looking for a serious forum for their redbrown and brown lincolns. However there is a reverse correlation between the number of brown/red brown coins in a collection and the collections rank. Therefore, PCGS has not succeeded in accomplishing what it wanted to accomplish by creating the colorless set.

It's to PCGS' advantage to disqualify red coins. If they did so, there would finally be a place where red/brown and brown coins could be valued and history has shown that this will translate into increased submissions. Look at what happened with the Everyman Collection. Talk about a giant pile of grading fees generated just because the registry created appreciation for AU-58 coins. Teletrade is literally littered with Au-53 to MS 63 coins that got graded with the hopes of AU-58 ing.

PCGS should consider a brown registy and they should consider a Red-Brown registry.
Just sayin! >>

Wow that is a terrific summation of the need for an RB/B set!

+1,000!

Coppercolor · March 15, 2012 1:48PM

ttt

I'm not hearing much noise....

66RB · March 15, 2012 1:59PM

Coppercolor, excellent summation. Love the post.

You, copperhunter, and tortuga truly epitomize what this set should be all about.

I'm looking like some sort of poser at #16 with 33 RD's

Quite a few of those RD's in my set should not be called RD, imo. I bought them for the color (not red color) that they have

Coppercolor · March 15, 2012 2:06PM

66RB,
Don't be gushing and feelin all guilty on us for those 33 red abominations

We can see there's some red brown value in them even though PCGS got the color designation wrong. Maybe PCGS will eventually consider giving you a finders fee for locating those misdesignations.

Or maybe they'll penalize you for having beautiful brown coins in your collection that belong in mine! Darnit

Coppercolor · March 15, 2012 10:33PM

<< Coppercolor, excellent summation. Love the post.

You, copperhunter, and tortuga truly epitomize what this set should be all about.

I'm looking like some sort of poser at #16 with 33 RD's

Quite a few of those RD's in my set should not be called RD, imo. I bought them for the color (not red color) that they have

>>

#100 66RB, Copperhunter and Tortuga have been an inspiration. And Copperhunter looks like he might be a Boilermaker which puts him in even greater stead. Engineer Copperhunter?

illini420 · March 15, 2012 10:51PM

I really don't like the idea of completely excluding a RD coin, but I understand that even if you don't award a bonus for RD in the colorless sets the RDs will still win since there are plenty of 67RDs and 68RDs out there, but very few in those high grades for the RB and BN color designations.

Maybe instead of rewarding a bonus for RD like is done in some sets, maybe they could impose a slight penalty in a colorless set... for example, give a BN coin +2 points in the ranking and an RB coin +1 point. That way, in the Registry a 68RD, 67RB and 66BN would all be treated equally. For many dates, those are the top grades available about as hard to make.

copperhunter · March 16, 2012 12:03AM

As a golfer who plays by a set of rules that involves a lot of self-policing if you will, the colorless sets should just be handled that way. Don't enter a set in these registries unless you plan on placing non-red coins there. For those that do have sets there, enter only rb/bn coins, or reds like 66rb has for example that really are not red, but do have extraordinary color/toning appeal. For those that do have all reds here, i think they should kindly be "shown the door". I think this type of set is more for showcasing, with the added bonus of rating and ranking. Oh, and by the way, by all means, you MUST have pictures to enter in this area. The "it is pointless without pics" argument holds the most truth here!

barrytrot · March 16, 2012 12:08PM

<< As a golfer who plays by a set of rules that involves a lot of self-policing if you will, the colorless sets should just be handled that way. Don't enter a set in these registries unless you plan on placing non-red coins there. For those that do have sets there, enter only rb/bn coins, or reds like 66rb has for example that really are not red, but do have extraordinary color/toning appeal. For those that do have all reds here, i think they should kindly be "shown the door". I think this type of set is more for showcasing, with the added bonus of rating and ranking. Oh, and by the way, by all means, you MUST have pictures to enter in this area. The "it is pointless without pics" argument holds the most truth here! >>

PCGS would never kick a set out that was "legal" so this idea holds very little weight.

And, as is already visible the REDS will be used and they WILL WIN.

Either the set excludes reds or penalize them with a point or 2 deduction (I like that idea). If not, then the reds will continue to win. There is no stopping them with "politeness" since the whole thing is practically anonomous.

Also, PCGS will never require pictures. That's always up to the user of the registry and they want to encourage users not discourage the ones that want to remain private.

Coppercolor · March 23, 2012 9:23AM

I've been back and forth this past week with the registry folks and they appear to have no interest in changing this colorless registry. They do have a lot of registries and maybe they're fatigued.

barrytrot · March 24, 2012 4:02AM

<< I've been back and forth this past week with the registry folks and they appear to have no interest in changing this colorless registry. They do have a lot of registries and maybe they're fatigued. >>

Meanwhile there are at least 100 sets with fewer than 5 registry participants and this is one of the most popular.

Put your time where your cash is I say

Does anyone else want a copper registry category for RB ONLY and BN ONLY?

Comments