A Registry Collection Strategy----Short Sets

INTRODUCTION
​

One of the biggest dangers in participating in a coin registry is the chance that the collector will stop collecting coins and start collecting plastic. This normally results in a collector focusing simply on the numerical grade of a coin but sometimes can get even worse. When registry fever hits a collector, he is overcome with the fill those slots, earn more points, catch the next collector. It is very easy to allow this fever to destroy the patience needed to assemble a top ranked registry set.

DISPELLING THE MYTH THAT GRADE = QUALITY
​

The first thing that registry participants must recognize is that a number does not describe a coin. Grade is not synonymous with quality. For example, just because a Washington quarter bears the assigned grade of MS67, does not mean that the coin is equal to all other MS67's or even better than some MS65 or MS66 coins. It simply means that the surfaces of that coin are outstanding. While surface marks routinely limit grade, it is much more rare for strike and luster to limit a coin's grade even though it is common for coins with inferior surfaces to get a grade bump as a result of exceptional eye appeal, luster, and strike. Take a look at the two NGC MS67 1937 Washington quarters and Heritage auction links shown below.



http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1129&Lot_No=7993




http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1116&Lot_No=8230#photo


The first is a glorious blast white example with an excellent strike and booming luster. Everything a collector would expect from a top pop coin including the incredible eye appeal that earned it a star designation. The second coin has rather subdued luster from the deep mottled toning and the strike is definitely sub-par. Does that bird even have breast feathers? Now I know what you guys are thinking, Lehigh96 is choosing a blast white coin over a toned coin, no way. Although I love toning, my allegiance is with eye appeal. In this case the white coin has all of the eye appeal and is a superior example despite the fact that each coin bears the same grade. Others are probably thinking this is photo magic. Both coins were auctioned and imaged by Heritage and although the strike of the toned coin could be hidden in the photograph, the only way to make the toned coin look better than the white coin is to use photo magic. The sale price bears out this fact with the white coin bringing $747 compared to the toned coin which sold for $575. The moral of the story is that a grade does not tell the whole story about a coin. I like to think of this way; just as toning is only the start to eye appeal; grade is only the start to a great coin.

A STRATEGY TO AVOID REGISTRY FEVER-SHORT SETS
​

I recently started a thread that discussed a short set of 1940 P-D-S coins within my Jefferson Nickel registry set.

http://www.cointalk.com/t66361/

My first purchase was the 1940-D which I obtained at auction. The coin is an NGC MS67 FS with a Compradore pedigree. The Compradore collection was the highest ranking Jefferson Nickel collection in 2007 in the PCGS registry. The next coin was the 1940-P in NGC MS67 FS. Although very high quality coins, they were easily obtainable in their assigned grades and not very rare coins. However, the last coin in the short set was the 1940-S which is exceedingly rare in MS67 full steps. I had many opportunities to acquire a lesser non full step coin, but I decided that I wanted my 1940 short set to be of equal quality. In the end, I was fortunate to obtain one of only 3 1940-S Jefferson Nickels graded MS67 5FS.

By separating your registry set into many short sets and then establishing a strict criteria of quality for the set, you can successfully avoid the pitfall of sacrificing quality for the sake of registry points. Lets go back to my Jefferson Nickel registry set for an example. My 1940 short set is complete but my 1941 short set is still missing the "S" mint coin. While my criteria for the 1940 short set was top pop full steps, my criteria for the 1941 set is incredible eye appeal in the form of rainbow toning on an MS67 coin. Take a look at my 1941 & 1941-D below.






These photos should give the reader an idea of the level of eye appeal needed to meet my strict requirements. Any old golden toned MS67 1941-S will not do. But take a look at my current set listing.



The temptation to fill the 1941-S and 1942-P slots is ever present. Only the standards established for the short set keep me from losing patience. I know that by filling that slot with an inferior coin, I will have failed in my goal for that short set.

CONCLUSION
​

Dividing a registry set into many different short sets, each with their own criteria for quality can help the collector maintain patience and reach his overall goal of assembling a world class collection. Accepting that reaching the top spot in the registry is not as important as meeting your own criteria for quality is of paramount importance. Along with this acceptance comes the realization that the top ranked collection might not be the collection with the highest quality or eye appeal. After all, which Washington Quarter do you want in your collection?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Very nice posting Lehigh.

 

that was a great post as always Lehigh!

 

Interesting post. The comparison of the two quarters is striking. I've got to agree with you on the desireability of the blast white coin. I think your Jeffersons are beautiful coins and congratulate you on your patience and approach.

 

Collecting coins that you love is not a race!!

 

One thing to point out - this need not apply to only registry sets, but collecting in general.

 

I fully agree, whither you are putting together a registry set or any collection...quality matters over the numerical grade. You must collect to your standards. Great post Lehigh!!!

 

As always, Lehigh, a great and thoughtful post.

How does breaking your set up into smaller short sets make patience any easier? I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Thanks...Mike

 

I hear your point (don't sacrifice grade for eye appeal), but the example you used to illustrate the point doesn't make it. The first coin is 67* and the second is 67. In terms of registry points, the blast-white 67* is worth more points than the 67.

Again, that doesn't change the underlying point -- which I agree with -- but rather you should consider a different example to illustrate it....Mike

 

thanks, nice post

 

Personally I weed through many graded coins to find the exact attributes I am looking for in a particular series for my Type Collection. I also educate myself on the particular coin I am looking for so I am aware of what to expect in terms of typical strike and luster, how hard/easy it should be to find what I am looking for and what additional premium I may have to dish out because of it.

I don't compromise, if the coin arrives and I am not pleased I sell it almost immediately and go back on the hunt.

 

Great info Lehigh, especially for a beginner like myself who has run into plenty of questionable slabbed coins. Keep up the good work in sharing information, for free!! Deal of the year, for certain! :thumb:

 

:thumb:

Definitely. It can be easy to throw a set together, but if you set certain standards and are patient, it can be a great set.

 

Mike,

It is hard to set strict guidelines for an entire date/mm set for any series. Mintage, availability, and price are all factors in determining the criteria a collector would use for his registry set. It would be nice if every collector could just use a generic guideline such as "all my coins are going to be top pops." Unfortunately, most collectors don't have unlimited financial resources and must draw the line somewhere.

Take Mercury Dimes for instance. Most registry collectors can afford MS67 FB examples from 1934-1945, but what criteria would they use for 1916, 1921, 1929? A collector would probably assign a different criteria for each of those years. By breaking the set into smaller short sets with strict quality guidelines for each short set, the collector can avoid purchasing a coin just to fill a slot. The criteria might be (gem,full bands, & attractive toning) for 1929 but only (MS63 & attractive luster) for the 1921 year. Without setting these guidelines, it is very easy for the collector to lose both patience and focus and settle for a 1929 MS64 FB in his collection. By having the rules in place for the short sets, the collector forces himself to remain patient and pass on the more common & lesser quality material that will undoubtedly present itself to him in his searches.

Perhaps I should have phrased it better. It doesn't make being patient easier rather it helps combat impatient urges.

 

I am glad you brought this up Mike, but I don't agree that my example doesn't illustrate my point. In that section of my post, I simply tried to show that the number on the slab is not the end of the story and that not all coins of the same grade are equal. NGC's decision to award a star designation supports my position that not all coins of the same grade are created equal. Nowhere did I mention registry points with regards to the Washington Quarters in my post. The reason for this was because I was trying to appeal to participants in both the NGC and PCGS registries. I admit that due to PCGS's exclusion of NGC coins in their registry that the example seems applicable only to the NGC registry. However, the fact that the white MS67 coin is awarded with more registry points only supports my philosophy IMO.

 

Lehigh, this is a really great post and a thoughtful strategy you have shared. Thanks for putting in the effort to write this up and provide images to illustrate your points.

 

As always, a thoughtful post from Lehigh. Not sure I agree that you can compare those two Washington Quarters as equals in grade and I also suspect that the photo of the toned example is a lousy Heritage photo. Nevertheless, the basic tenets of this OP are good ones: patience will be rewarded and the impulse to fill a hole (whether in a registry set or a Dansco) must be tempered and often ignored.

 

I see your point, but I also see Mike's. As you pointed out, the blast white coin has booming luster and great eye appeal. Thus, it is better than the drab toned example. But, in this case...it's also worth more registry points. So, the slab is giving it credit for being a nice 67 specimen. I feel that your point would have been better served if you had used a coin like the 67* that didn't receive the star. This way, one could be shown that all points being equal...it's better to wait for an example you really love...at least that was the message I took from your original post.

 

If they were graded by PCGS would they have the same grade?

You guys are making much more out of the star designation than you should be IMO, but if another example is what you want, I shall provide. This mistake was made in my own personal collection. Everyone knows my love of Jefferson war nickels. I was climbing the registry ladder and had broken into the top ten, but could not find a toned 1943-S.



I found the coin above after a few months of searching and convinced myself that attractively toned 1943-S nickels did not exist. This coin took the slot and I even made fun of it calling it the ugly duckling of the set. Sure enough, a few months later while searching the Heritage auctions I found this MS67 1943-S.




And of course, 6 months later, with the help of a fellow Cointalk member, I acquire the monster of all 1943-S Jeffersons.




There can be no argument that my original 1943-S had no business in my set and that had I been following the advice provided in this thread at that time, I would never have purchased the coin.

 

Great post Lehigh, lots of good info!