| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 1,350 |
|
|
Valued Member
291 Posts |
I, for one, don't get all this about "Registry Sets" and competitive coin collecting. I collect the coins I like and couldn't care less how they stack up against somebody else's. I enjoy showing my coins at the coin club but I have no use for "Registry Sets". YMMV  |
|
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16826 Posts |
It's like sport.
Some people play sports just to have fun, or they have a talent for it, or they like the exercise.
For others, it's all about the performance monitoring, the rankings, the statistics.
I personally don't see the point with Registry Sets, but then, I personally don't see the point of slabbing, either. Nor do I focus my collecting to the extent where I'd be particularly good at competing in any of the registry categories. But that being said, I recognize that it takes all kinds. If we mean it when we say there's no "right way to collect coins", then logically there's no "wrong way" either.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
I have no problem with friendly competition between acquaintances, but registry sets are mostly a marketing ploy by TPGs to encourage more submissions, or collecting of *their* product.
Edited by SteveCaruso
09/08/2012 10:49 am
|
|
Valued Member
 291 Posts |
I'm not knocking those who like the competition but...
On modern coins I can rarely discern a 69 from a 70, so I wouldn't pay big bucks for the 70 when I can get a 69 for much less.
Everyone should do what makes them happy and if the competition is right for them, more power to them.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
Rather than compete, I appreciate the advice we are able to offer to each other.
We can accept or reject that advice.
That is one of the very good aspects of the CCF.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
Without opinion, here is my take: The first link is to a proof set of quarters from 1999 on. The second link is to a complete set of Liberty Seated dimes. http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/all...aspx?s=57239http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/pub...aspx?s=14151If money is no object and if one has connections, I suspect that the first set can be more easily completed than the second set. The first set is all PR-70. The second set is not even all MS60 or above. The first set is overall graded 70.000 - theoretically perfect. The second set is overall graded 64.298 - not perfect. I had the opportunity to examine the Seated dime set in person last year. I doubt that I would cross a convention floor to see the Washington quarters. Edited by matthewvincent
09/08/2012 12:15 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Mattew I dont understand the comparison? If youre trying to say the grading doesn't matter at all its like comparing apples and oranges. The quarters were minted 10 and in some cases 4 years ago while the dime set is 150ish years old. If someone had those dime sets rated 45 or 65 like the one listed your going to the higher graded one with more interest every time unless its a low ball or something.
As far as the sets them selves they are good to see whats in a series and keep track of your inventory. You can keep them unpublished if your want, but ultimately they did start as a marketing tool. doesn't mean you cant use them to help you out if you wanted without turning it into a competition but some people do want to get that number 1 spot.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
The nicest and highest grades of dimes minted 150 years ago are rare.
Quarters minted within the last twelve years, MOST OF WHICH WERE SAVED,
are common.
I choose to concentrate on those who attempt to gather these rare coins into a collection.
Grading, absolute, highest grading, only matters if the coins SURVIVED!
The quarters survive. And they are abundant.
The dimes did not survive.
IF the highest available grade for a dime is AU-58, then that is rare coin.
IF dozens of quarters are available in Proof 70, well, that doesn't impress me.
Again, just my take on things.
|
|
Valued Member
291 Posts |
That is really an apples to oranges comparison.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
I'm kind of competitive by nature, so it's a blessing to know I can't afford to compete in a Registry.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
IF the highest available grade for a dime is AU-58, then that is rare coin.
IF dozens of quarters are available in Proof 70, well, that doesn't impress me.
I agree an 1850 MS 66 is more impressive than the majority of pf70 moderns. But I still dont understand what that has to do with registry sets or why you are trying to compare modern proofs to 150+ year old circulating coins |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
Simply, BOTH are listed as registry sets.
I only wanted to point out that not all registry sets are the same.
Edited by matthewvincent
09/08/2012 5:18 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Right, they have a set for everything. If you were trying to say theyre implying that the 70 is the better set they arent. The grading is just the average grade of the coins in the collection. The sets were never supposed to be compared to anything but other sets of that type. Most of the top sets do look fantastic but I do agree grade isn't always everything. Despite the fantastic strikes in the classic commems top set I think a lot of the coins have some ugly toning. The lexington and oregon specifically come to mind http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/all...aspx?s=14720 |
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,350 |
|
Posted 09/08/2012 08:36 am
