The coolest piece I have seen walk in the door in a while...

Mike all you are doing is what most people do - they have in mind their own definition of what a word means. And no matter how much they discuss it with someone else, they never change their minds about that definition.

But to the point, you agree that the '76 half and quarter are parts of their respective sets. And this is in spite of the fact that they have a completely different design than all of the other coins in the series. That different design makes those coins a different type. But it does not make them part of a different set.

By the same token, the 1792 half disme has a different design than the 1795 half disme. So it is a different type. But if you agreee that the quarter and half are different types, but yet still part of the set. Then you must also agree that the half disme is also part of the set. Or - else agree that the '76 coins are not part of the set. You can't change your definition for one and not the other.

Coins are broken down into groups and we use different definitions for those groups. The words we use for those groups are pretty standard in the hobby. And some, even though they are different words entirely, mean exactly the same thing.

Example - series and set. They both mean the same thing. All Jefferson nickels, regardless of date or mint are of the same series and of the same set. But they are not all of the same type. War Nickels for instance are a completely different type than those of the years before and after. But yet they are part of the same series and part of the same set.

The '43 Lincoln and the post '82 Lincolns, are both different types than either the Memorial Lincolns or the Wheat Lincolns. But yet they are all part of the same set and series - the Lincoln cent.

Same goes for half dismes. The set of half dismes includes all the various types and different designs. But we as collectors choose for ourselves to break that one set into several different sets where each type is a different set. But in reality they aren't. We just choose to name them that way.

I grant you, we tend to define all the different designs of nickels as different sets. The Shield is one set, the Buffalo is another set, and the Jefferson as yet another set. But they are all nickels. And since they are all nickels they are all part of the same set.

Do you see what I mean ? We don't take the War Nickels out and call them a different set. We say they are part of the Jefferson nickel set. We are choosing to change our definitions because it suits us to do so. We don't take the '76 quarters and halves out and say they are not parts of the sets. We are choosing to change our definitions because it suits us to do so.

Me, maybe I'm weird. But I choose to not change the definitions. To me a set includes all of the quarters, all of the halves, or all of the half dismes. Regardless of what type they are.

How many times has it been said that as a collector you get to define what a "set" is to you. Well, that's quite true. But is also nothing more than a convenience that is tolerated. So yeah, you can say that the 1792 half disme is not part of a set if you want to. But if you do, then you must also admit that is a 1 coin set. Still a set, any way ya want to look at it.

Now granted, all of this is but a tangent of the original point. That being that as a general rule for a coin to acquire significant value it has to be part of a set, and there have to be enough of them around to make a market in that particular coin. This is still true.

The 1792 half disme is valuable because there is a "set" of half dismes out there that people collect. And it has particular value because people consider that coin to be part of that set. And they consider that their set is not complete unless they have the 1792 coin as well.

Take that factor away and you end up with a coin with a small mintage number. So small that only few people can ever own one. And because of that alone, it is almost impossible to make a market for that coin because nobody wants one because it is not part of their set.

That's why there are coins out there that are more rare than the 1792 half disme, but yet they sell for a fraction of the cost. It's because they are not part of somebody's set, and there are not enough of them to make a market in them.

 

You're helping me make my point. In the Red Book, all of the half dismes are grouped together - all part of the same set. And that set is made up of many different types of half dismes, the bust, the seated etc.

Yes the 1792 is set apart. But it is set apart because they chose to label it as a Contract Issue. But it was minted by the US Mint and authorized by Congress and issued for circulation. That makes it part of the set - not a contract issue. Contract issues were only minted by private parties, not the US Mint.