Dansco Album Questions 1 1

[VKurtB]

Subject: Dansco Album #8125 - Roosevelt Dimes including proof only issues. 
Area of Inquiry: “Complete set”

Facts: My #8125 is complete to the extent of 6 pages. I have one coin for which I need to start page 7, the 2023-S silver proof. Every coin in this album is MS64 or better, IMHO. Any after 1958 to date, with the exceptions of 1982 P&D and 1983 P&D are cut from U.S. Mint uncirculated sets and/or proof sets. There is no Dansco hole for several special issues, but there is for the 1996-W. 
 

Many have spoken of their “complete Roosevelt Dime sets”, containing all coins from 1946-1964. As if… That is 48 coins. The complete set of all filled #8125 holes consists of 6x42 coins, including several silver proofs after 1964. So I “ax” you: Is 48 coins a complete set? Or is 252 coins closer to the mark? I do have all the non-Dansco coins as well. I have them in NGC holders.

Hint: 48 divided by 252 is a little over 19%. Is 19% “complete”?

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by VKurtB

[powermad5000]

I will play along and give my opinion.

One word is missing from the descriptor of a 1946-1964 Roosevelt Dime Set. Silver. For those that believe that to be a complete set of Roosevelt dimes should name the set correctly. Roosevelt Silver Dimes 1946-1964.

In my humble opinion, a complete set is a set from the year of first mintage, in this case 1946 and ending at the last year of issue which in this case would be the current date, 2023, while anticipating the arrival of the 2024s. A complete set to me would also include all mintmarks, and all proofs. This set would be named Roosevelt Dimes 1946 to Date (or Current Date).

A complete set to me also would NOT include any "tribute" or non-standard issue (think gimmicky such as the Mint making only 25,000 of some special finish different design 100 year anniversary Roosevelt Dime in 2046) UNLESS it is struck in large quantity AND intended for circulation AND put into circulation. An example would be the case of the W V75 Privy Mark Quarters. Not only were they intended for circulation, they were ALL released into circulation. To me, that makes it part of a complete set. If the Mint makes some kind of standard proof for the 2046 year with a privy mark (100), that would to me fall under inclusion to make a complete set as it would fall in line with the normal proofs the Mint issues every year.

I am sure this leaves the door open for those who would say, "It is not a complete set then if you don't include all the gimmicky and tribute coins", but to me, look at the progression in the Redbook. Take 1950 as an example. 1950 P, 1950 D, 1950 S, 1950 Proof. 1951 P, 1951 D, 1951 S, 1951 Proof...

 

 

[Moxie15]

A set is complete when the collector is satisfied with it. The idea that some 'authority'  decides how one must collect is ludacris in my mind. To some a Morgan set is not complete unless you have all the VAMs to others if you have one of every date and mint, still others just every date, others still one in each grade. My set is complete when I say so not some expert or anyone else.

So yes if the collector has a group of coins that he is satisfied with then 19% is complete.

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/30/2023 at 10:39 PM, VKurtB said:

Subject: Dansco Album #8125 - Roosevelt Dimes including proof only issues. 
Area of Inquiry: “Complete set”....

Facts: My #8125 is complete to the extent of 6 pages.... So I “ax” you: Is 48 coins a complete set?....

Yes.

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 2:07 AM, powermad5000 said:

I will play along and give my opinion.

One word is missing from the descriptor of a 1946-1964 Roosevelt Dime Set. Silver. For those that believe that to be a complete set of Roosevelt dimes should name the set correctly. Roosevelt Silver Dimes 1946-1964.

In my humble opinion, a complete set is a set from the year of first mintage, in this case 1946 and ending at the last year of issue which in this case would be the current date, 2023, while anticipating the arrival of the 2024s. A complete set to me would also include all mintmarks, and all proofs. This set would be named Roosevelt Dimes 1946 to Date (or Current Date).

A complete set to me also would NOT include any "tribute" or non-standard issue (think gimmicky such as the Mint making only 25,000 of some special finish different design 100 year anniversary Roosevelt Dime in 2046) UNLESS it is struck in large quantity AND intended for circulation AND put into circulation. An example would be the case of the W V75 Privy Mark Quarters. Not only were they intended for circulation, they were ALL released into circulation. To me, that makes it part of a complete set. If the Mint makes some kind of standard proof for the 2046 year with a privy mark (100), that would to me fall under inclusion to make a complete set as it would fall in line with the normal proofs the Mint issues every year.

I am sure this leaves the door open for those who would say, "It is not a complete set then if you don't include all the gimmicky and tribute coins", but to me, look at the progression in the Redbook. Take 1950 as an example. 1950 P, 1950 D, 1950 S, 1950 Proof. 1951 P, 1951 D, 1951 S, 1951 Proof...

 

 

Are not the silver proofs from 1992-date ALSO silver?? Hint: It’s right there in the name. Under NO LOGICAL CIRCUMSTANCES is a 1946-1964 set a complete set of anything. The 1964 cutoff is completely arbitrary. So what you have is “my arbitrarily defined complete set of something or other.”

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 2:07 AM, powermad5000 said:

I am sure this leaves the door open for those who would say, "It is not a complete set then if you don't include all the gimmicky and tribute coins", but to me, look at the progression in the Redbook. Take 1950 as an example. 1950 P, 1950 D, 1950 S, 1950 Proof. 1951 P, 1951 D, 1951 S, 1951 Proof...

Oh I have the entire 1950-1964 proof set as well. But there are no Dansco holes for those, so they are in a Capital Plastics holder made, as if presciently, for exactly that purpose. 15 more coins.

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 7:57 AM, Moxie15 said:

A set is complete when the collector is satisfied with it. The idea that some 'authority'  decides how one must collect is ludacris in my mind. To some a Morgan set is not complete unless you have all the VAMs to others if you have one of every date and mint, still others just every date, others still one in each grade. My set is complete when I say so not some expert or anyone else.

So yes if the collector has a group of coins that he is satisfied with then 19% is complete.

How about we spell it “ludicrous”, or is it the inability to spell that occupies the same gene that allows everybody to define everything as they choose? I have lots of genetic markers, but thankfully not that one. “Ludacris” is the name of a rapper, and not a good one, either.

Edited December 31, 2023 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 11:11 AM, Henri Charriere said:

Yes.

Why? How? Are you a “metalist”? And even if so, what about the San Francisco proofs? What is abundantly clear here is that many here are uncomfortable having their biases challenged. Too bad. It’s what I do. 

Edited December 31, 2023 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/31/2023 at 1:08 PM, VKurtB said:

Why? How? Are you a “metalist”? And even if so, what about the San Francisco proofs? What is abundantly clear here is that many here are uncomfortable having their biases challenged. Too bad. It’s what I do. 

I look at it this way. Every company or concern -- and Set Registry has its definitions. By Dansco album standards, your #8125 is complete. Whitman would beg to disagree. There is a member here who boasts, Never a slave to a holder I will ever be, or something like that. Fortunately, for him, hybrids are accepted and he can mix and match to his heart's content. If such sets were not accepted, or CAC-stickered holders were no longer accepted, he'd have to improvise: consolidate, or form parallel sets, and some brand-loyal collectors apparently do. As far as I am concerned, my 🐓 short set of eight restrikes, comprising half the series, is complete. Can a Liberty Head V-nickel set be deemed complete without a 1913? Taken to its logical extreme, whomsoever owns the 1933 St. Gaudens double-eagle is the only person in a position to declare that minus his coin, all other sets are incomplete. I suppose the same could be said for those who own 1943 copper cents. Within the limitations set by Dansco for your series, your set is "complete."

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 12:49 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I look at it this way. Every company or concern -- and Set Registry has its definitions. By Dansco album standards, your #8125 is complete. Whitman would beg to disagree. There is a member here who boasts, Never a slave to a holder I will ever be, or something like that. Fortunately, for him, hybrids are accepted and he can mix and match to his heart's content. If such sets were not accepted, or CAC-stickered holders were no longer accepted, he'd have to improvise: consolidate, or form parallel sets, and some brand-loyal collectors apparently do. As far as I am concerned, my 🐓 short set of eight restrikes, comprising half the series, is complete. Can a Liberty Head V-nickel set be deemed complete without a 1913? Taken to its logical extreme, whomsoever owns the 1933 St. Gaudens double-eagle is the only person in a position to declare that minus his coin, all other sets are incomplete. I suppose the same could be said for those who own 1943 copper cents. Within the limitations set by Dansco for your series, your set is "complete."

What, pray tell, does Whitman include that Dansco does not? I’ll bet I do have it in another holder. I do own a 1963 vintage blue Whitman folder that has a hole for a 1965-D nickel, but that’s another story for a different day. I do also have all the gimmicky dimes. Ditto for Kennedy and Franklin halves, Nickels, and Cents. My 1932-1998 quarter set has four empty holes on Page 1. I ONLY put BU coins in there. And YES, I will buy some slabbed and crack them out to put in the Dansco. I’ll tape the label on the inside back cover. There are two already there. 

Edited December 31, 2023 by VKurtB

[powermad5000]

On 12/31/2023 at 11:42 AM, VKurtB said:

Are not the silver proofs from 1992-date ALSO silver?? Hint: It’s right there in the name.

Sure they are. But, for the 1946-1964, ALL the coins were silver. If the set is named correctly there is no confusion.

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 12:49 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I look at it this way. Every company or concern -- and Set Registry has its definitions. By Dansco album standards, your #8125 is complete. Whitman would beg to disagree. There is a member here who boasts, Never a slave to a holder I will ever be, or something like that. Fortunately, for him, hybrids are accepted and he can mix and match to his heart's content. If such sets were not accepted, or CAC-stickered holders were no longer accepted, he'd have to improvise: consolidate, or form parallel sets, and some brand-loyal collectors apparently do. As far as I am concerned, my 🐓 short set of eight restrikes, comprising half the series, is complete. Can a Liberty Head V-nickel set be deemed complete without a 1913? Taken to its logical extreme, whomsoever owns the 1933 St. Gaudens double-eagle is the only person in a position to declare that minus his coin, all other sets are incomplete. I suppose the same could be said for those who own 1943 copper cents. Within the limitations set by Dansco for your series, your set is "complete."

Every current series. Starting tomorrow, 1/1/24, none of my current sets are complete. 

Edited December 31, 2023 by VKurtB

[Moxie15]

On 12/31/2023 at 12:49 PM, VKurtB said:

How about we spell it “ludicrous”, or is it the inability to spell that occupies the same gene that allows everybody to define everything as they choose? I have lots of genetic markers, but thankfully not that one. “Ludacris” is the name of a rapper, and not a good one, either.

That is the spelling the spell check on my computer had as correct. So whoever programed the spellcheck has a spelling problem, and yes I have problem with spelling, always have .

Now, I respect your knowledge and dedication, but I think your thinking that the only way to define something is the way you define it and all other definitions are wrong is akin to thinking that if you are not Eastern Orthodox then you are not a Christian.

This is a hobby, as such it is meant to please and amuse the hobbyist. If you are pleased by completing a set of one of every possible variant minted then enjoy. It should cause you no pain or concern that another collector defines a complete set differently.

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 2:36 PM, Moxie15 said:

That is the spelling the spell check on my computer had as correct. So whoever programed the spellcheck has a spelling problem, and yes I have problem with spelling, always have .

Now, I respect your knowledge and dedication, but I think your thinking that the only way to define something is the way you define it and all other definitions are wrong is akin to thinking that if you are not Eastern Orthodox then you are not a Christian.

This is a hobby, as such it is meant to please and amuse the hobbyist. If you are pleased by completing a set of one of every possible variant minted then enjoy. It should cause you no pain or concern that another collector defines a complete set differently.

While I am not Eastern Orthodox, my first wife and my son are.

[Henri Charriere]

WHAT A COMPLETE SET MEANS TO ME, IN THREE EASY STEPS...

1.  Every hole is filled.

2.  Every hole has been upgraded to the extent possible. (There are exceptions such as low-balls, etc.)

3.  If the collection resides on a Set Registry, in addition to the above, every coin must be certified in the highest possible grade awarded.  Best set is not equivalent to best possible set.  It is my wish to own the best possible set by any means necessary.  That necessarily means should such a coin materialize, the house, the car and the wife must go.  I call that the Patton standard. When advised Congress had not yet approved additional stars be placed on his military dress uniform, he leaned back, smiled, and said, "I have my schedule, and Congress has theirs."  Nothing but the finest for me until death do us part.