If a collector were to have a complete set of US coins, perhaps defined as an item listed in the Red Book as a regular issue (not tokens, locals, made for collectors and never circulated) but including varieties (dates, mints, VDB, Type one/two in one year), how many coins would be in the set? Of that number, how many are considered nearly impossible to own (unique, illegal) even if the budget were to cover it (1933 $20)? I recall years ago reading of a collector who had the only 'complete' collection (can't recall his name) but many varieties have been added in the last half century. Does one exist today?
Dig out your Red Book and start counting. The REAL problem is that you included varieties. Suddenly you're into DDO's, DDR's, overdates, overmintmarks, RPD's, RPM's and LOTS of other stuff. You probably have to be more specific about exactly what you mean by "varieties". 3-legged Buffalo? 1922-D, No "D" (three of four varieties there)?
The only known complete collector set was I believe Louis Eliasburg. He even owned a 1933 double eagle for a short time before it got confiscated.
How could he have had a complete set, the red book has an 1873-S Liberty Seated Dollar, mintage 700, unknown in any collection... I'm sure theirs plenty more
http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article3829.chtml The above article explains a lot. If a coin does not exist, one can not be faulted for not owning it. The fact that some paperwork suggests that 700 were made does not even guarantee that the coins were actually made or issued in an identifiable form (perhaps they were struck without the mark or using the previous year's date - does anyone know the supporting evidence on this one?). The article points out that a proof and business strike were considered the same in that time so there would be no need to have both. I recall being of the opinion that proofs were not really coins even though you could spend one. This was in a time that proof sets cost $2.10 for $.91 face and spending was an option if your set had a defective coin. I have a 1962 proof half with ugly spots of toning. It should never have been removed from the mint package but it was. Today the only thing that keeps it from being spent is melt value. Once we called these 'impared' proofs. Note that an MS65 Redbooks for $100 while a proof is $15. Definitions of terms like 'complete' and 'collectable' have changed a lot since these coins Mr. Eliasburg's day. If you look at the link above, note the picture at the bottom showing where he kept his collection. I wonder if that was his home safe? Thanks CrustyCoins for providing the name.
But even his set wasn't 100% complete... I'm pretty sure for many series he used proof coins instead of high grade business strikes for the Philadelphia examples, which was common in old-time collections. Could be thinking of someone else though.
No I beleive you are correct but at the time he built the set that was acceptable and by those standards complete.
The 1873-S standard dollar WAS produced. Harry X Boosell located the inventory listing for the coins sent to the annual Trial of the Pyx that included a listing for an 1873-S standard silver dollar. I would not consider the collection incomplete because he used proofs instead of business strikes for some issues. That was considered proper and the proofs and business strikes were considered to be same up until at least the 1970's. If fact though the collection was NOT complete. He did not have an 1865 nickel three cent piece. His nickel three cent pieces contained a pattern 1865 instead of a business strike or proof regular issue. He also did not have an 1849 double eagle, but the second specimen of that coin has not been seen since the mid 1880's.
I didn't know his 1865 was a pattern and not a circulation strike...that is interesting. Now, for the 1849 Double Eagle...I have read in the past that some consider that coin to be a pattern itself. Is this untrue? I know that only 2 were struck with one going to the Smithsonian and the other to a government official (Secretary of the Treasury?) and hasn't been seen for a century.
So, here's what I'm trying to do, I consider this a fairly "complete" collection. Complete sets of the following, Flying Eagle Cents excluding the 1856, Indian head cents, lincolln wheat, memorials and the current ones. Two cents, maybe excluding a few of the expensive final years, three cent nickel and silver, shield nickel, v nickel excluding 1913:mouth:, buffalo nickel, jefferson, barber dime, mercury dime, roosies, barber quarter, slq, washington and states, barber half, walking liberty half, franklin, kennedy, a Orleans Morgan Dollar Set and a date/mint mark set of every dollar coin after the morgan. Is there any hope in me completing this by Dec. 2012?
This would be strictly a circulated set for any dates pre 1915. The coins with face value less than 50 cents dated after 1915 can be bought for 1-2 dollars each.
Not all of them. There are several very valuable coins under 50 cents face made after 1915. Here are two examples: 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter 1916-D Mercury Dime There are quite a few more that are very expensive but these two alone will set you back quite a bit for even very low grades.
This subject has always irritated me since I put all my coins in Albums. Take Whitman Albums. Why is the stupid Album full of slots for coins such as the 1922 Plain Lincoln Cent. Then too the 55 double die, the 72 Double die, even the 70S small and large date. If you really want to get silly, look up the www.coppercoins.com web site and find a double die or RPM for almost every year the coin was ever made. So just how could anyone finish a set of those coins when new ones are found every day. Not Long ago a 1982 reverse Double die of those cents was found. Imagine an Album 10 feet thick for just that coin. Nuts I say. No one will ever have a completed set at this rate.
I think a "set" is however the individual collector defines one. I wouldn't even try to put together a set with all those varieties of the Lincoln cent...I would find it boring. This is why I don't particularly like albums, I don't like it when someone else defines what a set is to me.
