Pick one, will ya people?

[gpnyc]

If you already have a "US type set", why do some feel the need to add their set to the 1793-1964 set listing as well? One is really just a subset of the other. I don't get it - is it an ego thing?

 

When NGC created the classic type set, I was hoping it would be a haven for the use of coin collectors but it looks like its becoming another repository for point collectors. How long before the "obscured" sets make their way over?

 

Oh well.

 

/rant off

[TheMightyDuke]

It seems like, sorta, the Walker Short set...in a way, a small way. Perhaps the line in the sand is now officially drawn when it comes to classics vs moderns, and post '64 coins are modern, end of story. But why? Besides the fact they CAN, I am at a loss also. And I wholeheartedly agree about the 'point collectors' and the 'obscured sets' making their way over....you have a KILLER 1866 Cameo Proof Set.....#1.....KUDOS TO YOU! But are you in it to collect what you like, or are you getting posessed with not just being satisfied with what you have, and grab upgrades here and there, to finish as high as you can (that competition thing is habit forming). We all know what it takes to have a #1 set in most series...even ultra modern #1 sets cost a pretty penny. Forget the rankings....this is easy for me to say, as I dont have any #1 sets (top 10, and happy with them...upgrades are few and far between, so its a waiting game for me), but if I had that 1866 Cameo Proof Set, I would stare at that silver 3 center ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT!!...that is stunning!!!....that would make me forget all about points...YOU sir are a WINNER with that coin PERIOD!!!!! (and the Dollar aint too bad neither!!!)

[gpnyc]

I certainly do not consider myself a point collector. The 3CS you mention is a good example. Being only a PR64, I've had many chances to "upgrade" to a higher graded piece but I would never even consider it. The coin is absolutely spectacular to me. A point collector would not be satisfied.... but I am.

 

When NGC created the 1793-1964 set, I moved my old type set over and DELETED my old set which was in the top 15 1793-Present US type sets. What I don't get is why someone needs to show everyone the same set twice. Yes, the coins in my '66 proof set are also in my type set but that's apples and oranges. I'm referring to having two US type sets with the same coins, one cuts off at 1964, the other continues. To me its just clutter.

 

[TomB]

I was wondering how my set went up one notch...it was with the removal of yours.

[Revenant]

Well, I have 5 lincoln cents sets; early wheat, late wheat, all wheats, memorials, and all lincolns. Obviously the first 4 are just sub-sets of the last one using the same coins, so it's arguable that they aren't necessary/I shouldn't keep them all. So why have all 5 of them? Well, the first four sets let me narrow my focus and think about smaller sections of the lincoln cent run and how I'm progressing in each area without having to think about the overwhelming size of the 100 year set. The larger overall set lets me see the overall picture when I want to. All the coins have the same point value in all the sets and each coin only counts towards my point total once, so "point-collecting" really has nothing to do with it. I try to upload the best pictures I can for every coin when I can and I have never obscured a set.