Year Sets

[Weidel Legacy Collection]

I just received the latest mailing from R&I coins. The first page discusses something that DH has committed to add to the other registry in the near future. How does this sound: Proof Year sets starting from the first year the US Mint created proof sets through to the latest issues.

 

Since I'm a collector of '50 - '64 proof coins this sounds like a GREAT idea and I'd love to see NGC add this to the Registry.

 

OK, what does everyone think about this idea?

 

[Hoot]

Good idea RWW.

 

Hoot

[IrishMike]

I love the 36-42 proof sets, unfortunately I sold most of my inventory this year, when prices skyrocketed.

[Weidel Legacy Collection]

I can't blame you for that! Of course, now you can start a new collection of something else with your proceeds!

[SMS67-migration]

Finally someones on my side. GREAT idea.

[gmarguli]

Since I'm a collector of '50 - '64 proof coins this sounds like a GREAT idea and I'd love to see NGC add this to the Registry.

 

OK, what does everyone think about this idea?

 

I think it sounds awful. The PCGS registry has become a sad joke. Too many meaningless sets (like year sets). I hope NGC doesn't follow that same stupid path of looking for a way to create the highest number of sets rather than focus on getting real sets.

 

Just my ever so humble opinion...

[keithdagen]

It would be one thing to do a set of EVERY proof coin minted 1936 to 1942, or some comprehensive set like that, but a set for each individual year, with a whopping 5 coins on average, is a bad idea.

[CarlWohlforth]

Some people get reaquainted with collecting by going for a "finest" birth year set, proof or mint state. That idea lured me back, but I got sidetracked a zillion times since then. Why not have year sets? You don't have to look at them if you are only interested in real sets.

 

I have a 1956 proof set with two really neat NGC coins I wanted to show off. I just bought a PCGS quarter and might look for a cheap dime so I can list my coins in the PCGS registry.

 

My guess is that NGC will add these sets because they are fun for many people that don't have more serious collections.

[SMS67-migration]

Carl

You couldn't have said it any better.

Thanks

[keithdagen]

Carl,

 

It is my personal opinion that the Registry should not have "easy" sets, or sets that can be readily obtained, because it clutters the Registry with a bunch of small sets and dilutes the purpose.

 

You just have to look at PCGS and see the 2,000 (slight exaggeration) sets of coins available for entry, and if the only coin you own doesn't fit, you can petition to get a set made for you individually.

 

Proof sets or year sets are an excuse for dealers to bundle coins together. Looking at a major national dealer's current inventory, I can get COMPLETE proof sets for the years 1938, 1955, 1957, 1959-1964, SMS sets of 1965-1967 and 1972, all with a couple of mouse clicks. Does that really represent collecting, or just purchasing?

 

Proof sets and Year sets are nice to get collectors started, but really have no place in a Registry.

[CarlWohlforth]

I guess I'm just thinking of the Registry as a public, computerized Whitman folder.

 

I was competing for 1'st place for a while. Now I'm just hoping to add one or two type coins a year. I won't have a serious complete type set for a long time. So I was thinking some of these proof sets might be fun for now.

 

It depends on what the purpose of the Registry really is. Perhaps it serves different purposes for different people?

[cosmicdebris]

How about the Modern minted only for Collectors sets that I have been waiting for over a year now for PCGS to put up?

 

1965 to 1967 all 15 SMS coins

1970D, 1987P, 1987D, and the 1998 matte Kennedys

1973P, 1973D Ikes

Blue Ikes from , 71, 72, 73, 74

1976 silver coins (3 coins MS not proof)

1981-PDS SBAs

1994, 1997 matte Jeffersons

1996 W Roosevelts

2000 millenium Sac

 

[keithdagen]

Carl,

 

I think the Modern registry sets bring out the worst in collectors. I remember people screaming across the street because somebody got a Proof Sac in PR-70 and knocked 50 sets from #1 to #2.

 

That kind of fighting, or worrying about single points in those modern coins is what killed the Registry Forum across the street. Everyone worried about the grades on the plastic and competing in these sets. The Set Registry awards was another shouting match, when people accused PCGS of rigging the competition to allow a Modern Type collector to register the last couple of coins he had.

 

People in that category were up in arms over the incident, and made such a ruckus that the Forum there hasn't been the same since.

 

 

[shirohniichan]

Has it occurred to anyone that there may be collectors who want to register not so easy year sets?

 

gmarguli knows whcih one I'm working on, and I think he'll vouch for my on it not being easy.

[keithdagen]

Has it occurred to anyone that there may be collectors who want to register not so easy year sets?

 

Yeah, but you're interested in Canadian Registries too, which proves you're off your rocker.

[Oldtrader3]

Besides, if you want to put together these types of limited speciality sets, Capital Plastics has a holder for you.

[EVillageProwler]

Shiroh,

 

I know someone who wants to form silver year sets of 1851 and 1852, including all the branch mints. I don't know, however, if that person cares to see it registered online.

 

EVP

 

[shirohniichan]

I'm sure Capital Plastics doesn't make a holder for it.

 

I guess EVP is right-- I don't need to see it on line.