Should NGC include the 1895 Proof Morgan Dollar in the Morgan set?

[physics-fan3.14]

Just got an email from NGC asking "Should NGC include the 1895 Proof Morgan Dollar in the set 'Morgan Silver Dollars 1878-1921?'"

 

Need more information about the debate? In the NGC Registry, this is the complete set of circulation issues by date and mintmark. Since the inception of the Registry, we have excluded the 1895 Philadelphia Mint dollar because no circulation strikes are known. It has been argued that, by convention, collectors acquired a proof coin to fill this hole, and thus it should be a required component of a complete set. Others argue that it is not a circulation issue and therefore not required for a complete set of circulation issues.

 

Thought I'd throw it up here and see what y'all had to say!

[physics-fan3.14]

Just a note: the third option is not a part of NGC's poll, but I really think its the best solution. If you require major rarities for completion of some sets, especially sets which attract a lot of beginners, you discourage a lot of people. The Morgan set is by far one of the most popular sets on the Registry. Its the same argument why I don't think the 1817/4 should be required for the CBH set, although that coin is an even further extreme.

 

There are numerous coins throughout the registry that have the "non-competitive, display only" tag, and are not required for completion of the set. They are there for bragging rights, to display the coin for the lucky few that own them, and for the enjoyment of the rest of us. This would be the ideal solution for the 1895 proof only Morgan as well.

[MarkFeld]

I vote "No" and see no good reason why a proof issue should be included in a business strike set. I might feel differently if no business strikes of the date had been produced.

[Scott Gardener-migration]

I voted no as well; if it's a collection of business strikes, we shouldn't have to get a $40,000 proof to finish the set, when that money could instead go towards other things, like a Lexus IS350 or maybe a new cat. I would be OK with "display only," but it's still a proof-only issue.

 

On the other hand, if it's a "Morgan set," no mention of proof versus business strike, I could see putting it in there, though again, I'd rather not be required to have it.

 

Of course, an open-ended "Morgan set" invites all kinds of other issues--seven vs. eight vs. seven over eight tail feathers; reverse of '78 on a '79, reverse of '79 on a '78, reverse of '78 on '80; O over CC mint mark (Wait a second! This is New Orleans! Well, that explains the jazz musicians and the naked revellers throwing beads at me); and VAMs 1 through 20,748 for each and every date and mint mark... (Well, I finished my set of Morgans. I sold my house, but I can live inside the collection itself. NGC makes better insulation, but I use my PCGS ones for the windows.)

[World Colonial]

The correct answer is of course not unless there is one set that requires ALL proofs and business strikes to be complete.

 

However, if a coin was not issued, then it simply was not issued and that is how it is for a complete set of Morgan business strikes and the inclusion of an 1895 Philadelphia mint slot.

 

The question of whether a coin is a rarity should have nothing to do with it though NGC may decide otherwise for the Registry. Someone claiming they have a complete set which does not include rarities makes no sense to me, regardless of whether it is Morgan Dollars or otherwise. If a rarity is a legitimate part of a complete set, then those who do not have it simply do not have a complete set, regardless of what they would wish otherwise.

[$ilverHawk]

Of course not. My reply to NGC was no. Based on the definition of the Morgan set as being a business strike set. The 1895 Proof should be included in the Morgan Proof set and Morgan Date set.

 

All of the VAMs aren't required for a Morgan set. There's a separate set for VAMs. Bidness is Bidness Proof is Proof. If someone gives me a good rationale for putting a Proof coin in a business strike set I'd be willing to listen..

 

I'm wondering about the basis of this request. A little one upping going on?

[James_OldeTowne]

My three answers are no, no and No!

[JIM F.]

Of course not. Otherwise branch mint proofs and Zerbe 1921 proofs should arguably also be included.