Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Too Many Sets? I think so. Do you?

17 posts in this topic

Awarding so many various Sets in the Registry dilutes the intent and appeal, in my opinion.

It's like handing out trophies to ALL the participants in a race.

 

In my opinion there should be only two or three BASIC Type Sets and ONE set for each Series (ie: Washington quarters- one series- 1932 to date. Kennedy halves- ONE Set- 1964 to date.) The only addition would be sets for Proof and Mint State but NOT mixed Proof and Mint State.

 

It would cut the sets existing now in half- give or take- but would make the Registry easier to navigate and would provide more meaning to the sets that are then listed.

This is probably not a popular view and I've got an open mind. I'd love to read criticism of this suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea and think it a very pure way of looking at the Registry concept, however, the Registry animal needs to be fed in order to survive and the best way to feed it is to commercialize and exploit it. The latter is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just not the way I would like to see it done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I dislike having one set broken into many, there are some series that it would be good for. The Washington quater is one. Many people only collect the silver ones, so having them compete in a complete set wouldn't be fair. Same for the clad collectors. I'm not too thrilled with the idea that the clad set be broken up into more sets to take care of the state quarters.

 

There would be no reason to break up such a short set like the Kennedys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It would cut the sets existing now in half- give or take- but would make the Registry easier to navigate and would provide more meaning to the sets that are then listed.This is probably not a popular view and I've got an open mind. I'd love to read criticism of this suggestion."

 

I see your points about making it easier to get around and that there would be more appreciation of the fewer "remaining" sets. However, those who do not collect the coins in those "remaining" sets would be rather unappreciative, I would imagine! Because, you see, if someone is only a collector of one of the deleted sets, that person will, in effect, be eliminated from the registry completely once there set is deleted.

 

Coin collecting is a wide and varied hobby that can take on many forms. NGC has appealed to, and continues to appeal to, many of those areas of collecting. It has steadily expanded to include more and more collectors with more and more interests. Each set appeals to a certain group, and each set does not appeal to a certain group. If there are sets that you don't have an interest in, don't collect them!

 

While it is possible to give out too many awards, so to speak, NGC is not doing that, in my opinion. They are simply trying to make the registries as inclusive as possible. I don't think making navigation easier is enough of a reason to throw anything away, and the idea that the sets would have more meaning is only true because the people who aren't interested in the main stream sets would either have to conform or get out of the registry all together.

 

So, in the end, NGC, by having a variety of sets, is conforming to coin collecting's varied branches, rather than having the varied branches confirm to NGC. After all, people should collect what they like and have fun at it, rather than only collect what NGC accepts as a mainstream set.

 

There's your critisism tongue.gif !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things:

 

1) Too many sets is like the tree falling in the forest. If no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

2) Greg- where do you get your info the Kennedy is a "short set"?! It's almost 40 years worth of coins- three metal varieties, design changes, SMS's and MintState along with varieties (74D/D and 98-S).

 

Maybe ('maybe') break the Washingtons into silver and clad sets, but not "with varieties"- State quarters, and on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Greg- where do you get your info the Kennedy is a "short set"?! It's almost 40 years worth of coins- three metal varieties, design changes, SMS's and MintState along with varieties (74D/D and 98-S).

 

Where do you break this set? Have one set for the 90%, one set for the 40%, one set for 90% and 40%, one set for the clad, one set for the SMS, one set for the matte?

 

I think breaking the set into silver and non-silver would be stupid. The silver part is only a handful of coins.

 

It's small enough that it should all stay one set.

 

The ease of completion should be taken into consideration when making "sets". This is a set that is rather easy to complete. It might be a 40 years long series, but I can complete a certified set in a day on eBay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg- You realize you and I agree on this issue, right? My only bone of contention was the labeling of the Kennedy Set as a "short set". 100+ coins within a Set hardly labels it as "short" (like the SBA's or the SAC's or even the Ikes, if you want.) Other than that, we agree, in principle and spirit of this Thread.

I'm with you- I DON'T want to see it or pretty much any other set broken into sub sets for the Registry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Greg- where do you get your info the Kennedy is a "short set"?! It's almost 40 years worth of coins- three metal varieties, design changes, SMS's and MintState along with varieties (74D/D and 98-S).

 

Barber dimes have 74 regular issues and a couple of varieties, but nobody complains about splitting that set. Size is relative. grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Too many sets is like the tree falling in the forest. If no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

Pat - where the hell did you get that one? laugh.gif

 

I have to agree with coinman1794 on this one. I may not like the so-called "clutter" of a complex registry (although I think that's a relative term), but it's not the grading sevices creating collecting, especially for such set endeavors. Collecting is nuancical and I think that the registries should reflect that nuance, including the various strange specialties of collectors.

 

It may get increasingly difficult to organize the registries as they reflect more and more what collectors collect, but if anything, I think this diversity should be welcomed. It's up to the services to make the sets organized in their electronic presentation.

 

Here're a couple of footnotes: The 5 varieties included in the main buffalo nickel registry make about as much sense as Pat's #1 analogy wink.gif. They belong in a set devoted to buffalo nickel varieties. Get them out of the main set. Same with the 1943/2 Jefferson nickel in the two main Jeff sets. Also, the 1938-64 Jeff set makes no sense. The same master hub was used for all nickels through 1970, so the set should be that. I could say more, but....

 

Hoot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pat - where the hell did you get that one?"

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

That's the results of a second cup of coffee too soon after the first cup.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Too many sets is like the tree falling in the forest. If no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

I also read this and just could not think clearly afterward for the next few hours, that's why I didn't respond. confused.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Too many sets for some series.

For example, there are 3 sets for seated half dimes, but why need 3 when no one really cares for this series...one set is enough.

On the other hand, there isn't an important set like seated half doller yet.

I can't understand why they spend precious time making some useless sets when they have not made some "must have" sets yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my dog poops on the sidewalk and no one's around to witness it, do I have to pick up after her?

 

Oh, and I agree with those who feel that "less is more". As for the comment about spending too much time on making more of similar sets rather than spending the effort on making more "must have" sets like Seated halves, this was what was told to me: it's no real extra effort to create a bunch of additional sets of a series because the effort is in the series. The real extra effort is in get the data straight for an entirely different series.

 

I.e., 5 Jeff sets is only trivially more effort than 1 Jeff set because the "cost" is in compiling the data for the entire Jeff series. Doing 1 Jeff set now, then doing the Seated half set, then going back and doing another Jeff set is what we CS folks call thrashing... It's when the CPU spends more time going back and forth between tasks than actually working on the tasks themselves and simply finishing each task up completely...

 

EVP

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

toyonakataro,

 

This is all a matter of personal preference. For instance, I could not care less about a seated half dollar set but I was very happy that NGC added the Arkansas, Boone, Oregon, Texas, B.T. Washington, and Washington/Carver half sets because I like early silver commemoratives.

 

This does not mean that I think NGC should not add a seated half dollar set just because I am not interested in starting one. Who am I to say what someone else should be interested in collecting? Some like to collect cents and others dollars. Some like to collect whole series while others may choose to collect only part of a series due to personal preference or due to the large amount of money needed to complete the whole series, but aren’t we all coin collectors? And if we are why should some be excluded from participating in the registry just because others think that what they collect or how they collect it is unimportant.

 

What we all need to remember is that your ‘must have set’ could be and probably is someone else’s ‘useless set’

As I have said before I really don’t see this as a big issue. If someone is not interested in a new set they can ignore it, there are probably a lot of other people already ignoring a set that the other guy likes.

 

John

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wihlborg

I used the word "useless" because no one has registered 2 of 3 seated half dime sets yet although they were made more than a month ago ...no one really need those sets......I think it's useless.

 

I myself don't collect seated half doller( I only have a few as a type, and will not put them in seated halves registrey anyway), but I used the word "must have" because it's a basic set and I believe it's more important than some "variety" "date limited" sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites