Would you Multi-Holder this 1932 mint set?

[Revenant]

1C 1932 MS 66 RD NGC 701004-002

1C 1932-D MS 66 RD NGC 1947955-014

25C 1932 MS 65 NGC 221689-006

25C 1932-D No Coin

25C 1932-S MS 63 NGC 959126-003

$10 1932 MS 63 NGC 3122934-012

$20 1932 No Coin

 

Above is the current progress of a 1932 Mint Set I've been building with my step-father. Something that I've been discussing with him is, after we have a nice MS grade 1932-D, getting the 6 coin set muliti-holdered, possibly with a special label/pedigree. Once the set has a 1932 D quarter, it'll be the #1 set in the category (we're only 265 points away as it is). If a 1932 $20 Saint is ever purchased (several years from now probably) it will stand on it's own.

 

Some things I'm considering:

 

1. Some of the coins are in old generation ("fattie") holders, one of them doesn't even have a barcode. Would it hurt the value of these coins to ditch those holders (Since the old holders sometimes get a premium)?

 

2. Would it in any way effect the value/liquidity of the set? (It is VERY unlikely that the set will ever be sold, at least not for a few generations, so I don't view this as a major concern).

 

3. Will NGC Mulit-holder 6 coins (including a pretty big gold piece)? I thought I'd read that 6 was the maximum so I think I'm okay but I want to be sure.

 

4. I think it would be nice to label/pedigree the coins in some way (This set is being built in honor of his mother).

 

5. The Multi-Holder would make it difficult if there was ever a desire to upgrade one of the coins (like the $10 Eagle to a 64/65 or the 1932-S to a 64).

 

6. Would it be better to Multi-Holder the 5 non-gold coins and leave both the gold coins separate?

[MarkFeld]

2. Would it in any way effect the value/liquidity of the set? (It is VERY unlikely that the set will ever be sold, at least not for a few generations, so I don't view this as a major concern).

 

It certainly would, as for various reasons, many potential buyers might be interested in 1 or 2 of the coins but not the others. Generally speaking, the more coins offered as a group and/or the greater the value of the group, the more potential buyers you stand to lose.

[BankNote1]

I agree with Mark, keep the coins in their own holders!

[ctrl-migration]

Multi-holder them with a big rubber band perhaps.

[James_OldeTowne]

I'm the odd man out here, I guess. I would multi-holder these coins for sure! Sounds like an awesome grouping that would have even greater visual impact in an condensed format.

[World Colonial]

I would not multi-holder a set like this. I do not have a US coin guide in front of me, but some of the coins seem to be missing which would make it a disjointed set to me. I would rather do this with a set that has one of each denomination or all three mints for one denomination. And yes, in this case, I do believe it would reduce the liquidity.

[Revenant]

I would not multi-holder a set like this. I do not have a US coin guide in front of me, but some of the coins seem to be missing which would make it a disjointed set to me. I would rather do this with a set that has one of each denomination or all three mints for one denomination. And yes, in this case, I do believe it would reduce the liquidity.

 

Well, like I said, this would be done once 1 of the 2 missing coins was purchased. The last coin (that wouldn't be in the multi-holder) is worth more than every other coin in the set combined.

 

Thanks for the input.

[jesbroken]

I would consider a wooden display case that holds all the coins(in their holders) to include nickels and dimes should you ever decide to add them, I feel you could do a wooden case as reasonable as a 6 coin multiholder. Then all the coins could be viewed simultaneously and their individual liquidity remains unfettered. JMO

Jim

[Oldtrader3]

If I was considering a multi-holder for your 1932 set, I would only multi-holder the (5) minor coins and not the gold coins. The (2) gold coins would make the set hard to sell if they are in a multi-holder as well

[Revenant]

I would consider a wooden display case that holds all the coins(in their holders) to include nickels and dimes should you ever decide to add them, I feel you could do a wooden case as reasonable as a 6 coin multiholder. Then all the coins could be viewed simultaneously and their individual liquidity remains unfettered. JMO

Jim

 

That's kinda the funny thing isn't it? 1932 was a depression year. No nickels or dimes were minted that year. You make a very good point though. A display case is definitely something to consider.

[michael]

if it aint broke dont fix it

 

leave them alone in their individual holders

[DC Dawg]

I just did a 1938 set for my father. The set looks good and has his name as the pedigree. To make the old man happy, it will be worth the $60 future expense to break up the set when the time comes. Who knows... I may just keep it as a keepsake.

 

My vote... MULTIHOLDER!

 

Scott

[TomB]

The more correct terminology would likely be that this is a 1932 year set instead of a 1932 mint set since the US Mint made no mint sets that year. I think NGC might limit their multi-coin sets to five pieces, but if they can accomodate all your coins in one holder then I think it would greatly reduce the liquidity of the assemblage.

[Houston Investor]

No - keep the coins in their own holders. Otherwise your shooting yourself in the foot.

[jgrinz]

OT - I am Home chat ya up tomorrow (tired)

 

On Topic - He is creating an heirloom Piece - Multi Holder it an have it pedigreed

It will Look Wonderful ( Of course I am slightly jaded in that direction )