Nickel Type Set Change?

[SPHansen]

What is your opinion?

 

I wrote NGC about the nickel type set... currently, the set has only one slot for the Westward Journey nickels of 2004 and 2005. Kathy answered saying that they consider the WWJ series as a single type, and that most type set collectors would want it that way. I think that two distinctly different designs on a coin, regardless of the series name, each deserve a slot in the set. She suggested I write and get the opinions of the other collectors, so here I am. I want to have the set changed to reflect the two unique coins.

 

What do you think? If you agree, I would like to know so I can petition for the change. Hopefully, this journal will go to the boards so answers will be public and easy for NGC to see.

 

Thanks!

 

See more journals by SPHansen

[chunk-it]

Hi SP, Right now i'm ranked 5th in 65 to date jeffersons's. I agree that they should be removed. They are not a Jefferson. Plain and simple. So why fall in to the same category? Just because their a nickel? It shouldn't work like that.

[SPHansen]

Thats a different issue, but I do see what you are saying, and I can work for that as well... they should handle the nickels like they handle the new cents; sets of Jeffersons should go up to 2003, then the WWJ, and then the new Jeffersons from 2006 onward. There is precedent with the Memorial, Bicentennial and Union Shield cents.

 

I'll push for this as well if I can get the support.

 

However, in this instance, I'm talking only about the type set, and splitting the WWJ slot into two distinct type slots.

 

[JAA]

I agree with you that each design change should be included in a TYPE SET. However that would mean that all four coins in the Westward Journey series be included in the Nickel Five Cent Type Set.

[coinsbygary]

I checked the nickel type set in the registry and noticed it has the shield nickel with and without rays and the Liberty nickel no-cents and cents. If these types are included, then I feel that the separate WWJ should be included also as a major variety.

Gary

[Mokiechan]

II agree with Chuck-It on the basic difference in the Jefferson set due to the WJ series and current new obverse. Those should be treated as a new series of Jeffersons.

 

SPH, I'm on the fence with your idea. On the one hand, I agree a type set should include all types of a particular series. On the other hand, this could get very bulky if you have a massive change like the Washington Quarters for the last 14 years. If they have a separate registry set for a particular variety like Statehood Quarters or WJ nickels, I can live with one example in a typical 19th, 20th, or 21st Century type set. It would probably have to be a case-by-case basis. For the Nickels, I would support your request.

 

Later,

Malcolm

 

[SPHansen]

Here's my thinking... if the obverse on the WWJ nickels were the same, I'd agree that one example would be fitting. However, the different obverses for each year are not the same within the series, and are a significant enough change to deserve the two slot treatment. One example for each year is fitting for a type set in this case. I definitely wouldn't push for such for the Washington Quarters, since the obverse stays the same throughout.

 

So, here's a more detailed list of proposed changes:

 

1. 21st Century Type Set: two slots, one for each year for nickel

2. Nickel Type Set: four slots, one for each different coin

3. Jefferson Nickel Set (Schlag Obverse): ends at 2003

4. Keep current WWJ Set as is

5. Jefferson Nickel Set (Franki Obverse): New set 2006 to Date

[brg5658]

I have two observations for thought:

 

1) If you include all 4 of the 2004-2005 nickels as separate types, then wouldn't that equate with including all 56 of the Washington State/Territory quarters and all future ATB quarters as separate types? And, one of each of the presidents in dollar type sets?

 

In my opinion, within-year changes and theme-based series are not "types" so much as a shift from long-term designs to a "commemorative coinage" type mentality like in most European countries. For "commemorative" type issues, I think only one slot for the series is appropriate for a type set. Thus, one slot for the 2009 Lincoln Cents, one slot for the 2004-2005 Nickels, one slot for the ATB Quarters, one slot for the "Presidential Dollar", etc. It's a difficult paradigm shift for US coin collectors to swallow as our coinage becomes more and more "commemorative" in nature.

 

2) You may find it interesting to note that the "Westward Journey" series of five-cent pieces were originally issued for years 2004-2006, not only through 2005. The final design of the series issued in 2006 (Return to Monticello) was then fixed as the design from that point on. If you don't believe me, check out this site where each of the years 2004-2006 are referred to as the "Westward Journey" series by the US Mint.

 

PCGS correctly sticks with the Mint's definition of the series and included coins from 2004-2006 as a part of the series. NGC has defined the WJ nickels as those from years 2004-2005 only. Thus, the confusion is bigger than you might think. That is, you now have a coin from a series that is identical in design (2006 nickel) but is theoretically a different "type" according to the US Mint from nickels minted 2007-present. Try to fit that one into your mold!

 

--------------------------------------------

 

In summary, I do not think all four of the 2004-2005 designs of the Nickel should be a part of a type set, no more than I think that a type set of quarters should contain one of each of the 56 State/Territory quarters or that a type set of dollars should contain one of each of the presidents and one of each of the yearly changes to the Native American dollar series. The nickel design changes from 2004-2005 (and actually 2006) are part of a series, not separate types. I think NGC is trying to be consistent for this short series, as it opens up a bag of worms for larger commemorative series if they are not consistent.

 

-Brandon

[brg5658]

I checked the nickel type set in the registry and noticed it has the shield nickel with and without rays and the Liberty nickel no-cents and cents. If these types are included, then I feel that the separate WWJ should be included also as a major variety.

Gary

 

I think there is quite a difference in "design modifications" of coins from the 19th century and the commemorative series mentality of modern 21st Century coins. Yes, the designs change on modern coins, but that is because they are a part of commemorative series.

 

This argument to the extreme is still best demonstrated by the analogy to a quarter type set including one of each of the State/Territory/National Parks quarters. Or a dollar type set including one of each of the presidents and one of each of the Native American dollar reverse modifications. A shift of that kind would really slant the "quarter type sets" toward modern representation, and would (in my opinion) not represent the "intent" of a quarter type set.

 

 

[coinsbygary]

Good points all, I guess if you include all the WWJ nickels, logic dictates you include the 50 state quarters, etc. If you make an exception for the WWJ nickels, where then do you draw the line?

Gary

[SPHansen]

Great discussion!

 

I'm thinking that the nickels are a special case... because the obverse makes a drastic change during the course of the 2 year series. This is not true of the 09 cents or various quarter series. I know the 06 was considered by the Mint to be part of the series, but it really falls practically with the 'new' paradigm of nickels, so i don't see an issue. Even the NGC WWJ series competitive set does not include the 06, so they already have a precedent set.

 

There are already differences with how NGC is handling the different sets... look at the cent verses the nickel to see my point. If we disregard the quarters and dollars as a world unto themselves, and bring the nickels into line with the cents, that would be cool with me. I'd like to see at least two slots for the WWJ series in the nickel and 21st century type sets, simply because the obverses make the coin a different type, regardless of the reverse commemorative aspect... it is a sort of hybrid that I think deserves the recognition.

 

 

[brg5658]

Great discussion!

 

I'm thinking that the nickels are a special case... because the obverse makes a drastic change during the course of the 2 year series. This is not true of the 09 cents or various quarter series. I know the 06 was considered by the Mint to be part of the series, but it really falls practically with the 'new' paradigm of nickels, so i don't see an issue. Even the NGC WWJ series competitive set does not include the 06, so they already have a precedent set.

 

There are already differences with how NGC is handling the different sets... look at the cent verses the nickel to see my point. If we disregard the quarters and dollars as a world unto themselves, and bring the nickels into line with the cents, that would be cool with me. I'd like to see at least two slots for the WWJ series in the nickel and 21st century type sets, simply because the obverses make the coin a different type, regardless of the reverse commemorative aspect... it is a sort of hybrid that I think deserves the recognition.

 

 

I don't collect type sets by denomination, but I do have a top type set across all denominations. My concern is that there isn't really any reasons within the "US Type Set" why the 2004 and 2005 nickels should be separated out. The distinction between whether the change occurs on the obverse or reverse is arbitrary (e.g., consider the "NO CENTS" versus "WITH CENTS" varieties of the 1883 Liberty NIckel). The point being, I agree with how NGC has it now, and ultimately, exceptions like the one you suggest for the Nickels lead to people scratching their heads because the same isn't done for other type sets. And, that analogy in the quarter type set (56 State/Territory "types") and the dollar type set is simply a bad idea.

 

Again, just my opinions, but I don't see how this appreciably improves the type sets. If you want to collect the full WWJ series, there is already a set for that purpose.

 

-Brandon

[Thane]

Wow, GREAT discussion.

 

The argument of characterizing rapid design changes in biz strikes as "commemorative" in nature resolves the emotional and logical argument discrepancies.

 

LOGICAL ARGUMENT: 56 state quarter types, 4 cent types, 4 nickel types, 44 dollar types === should all be separate types in a set

 

EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT: It doesn't feel right to force a collector to collect 56 quarters just to fill a type set ... but 4 types in one or two years (1c 2009 and 5c 2004-05) falls emotionally either way ...

 

COMMEMORATIVE ARGUMENT: Treat each set of commemorative runs as a single type.

 

However. I do feel some degree of classic coin snobbery in the problem. Why are "VDB" or "no cents" or "1943 steel" when they are isolated, one-year (or shorter!) changes? Besides past practice and collectibility arguments, how do you say "yes/no VDB" are type but 2005 waters/bison are not?

 

And the purely aesthetic reaction. to close: I had such high hopes when the Sac dollar and the offset Jeff 2005 portrait were introduced. Sac faces another way but turns to face the viewer; Jeff faces a vast open field of possibility on the right half of the obverse. What great ways for this country to celebrate POSSIBILITY on its coins, and not just flat faces of dead men.

 

 

[Six Mile Rick]

I checked the nickel type set in the registry and noticed it has the shield nickel with and without rays and the Liberty nickel no-cents and cents. If these types are included, then I feel that the separate WWJ should be included also as a major variety.

Gary

 

I think there is quite a difference in "design modifications" of coins from the 19th century and the commemorative series mentality of modern 21st Century coins. Yes, the designs change on modern coins, but that is because they are a part of commemorative series.

 

This argument to the extreme is still best demonstrated by the analogy to a quarter type set including one of each of the State/Territory/National Parks quarters. Or a dollar type set including one of each of the presidents and one of each of the Native American dollar reverse modifications. A shift of that kind would really slant the "quarter type sets" toward modern representation, and would (in my opinion) not represent the "intent" of a quarter type set.

 

 

I am agreeing with brg5658 this idea is personal and not thought through to the other 100 or more modern coin designs that would open up a can of unwanted coins to the type sets we already struggle to complete in the highest grades our budget allows. Leave things alone for a while and let the dust settle from the previous changes this year PLEASE. There has been enough havoc this year already.

 

Later---Rick