Currently I'm only 5 coins away from collecting ALL the Lincoln Wheats - of course, the 1909 S VDB is still on my list so I have a heck of a way to go yet, but I'm plugging away at it. However, I was talking to a guy at the coin shop and he said my collection wouldn't be complete without the 1922 (NO) D ... He even went further to say that some of the coin books have a slot for it! I think this is just disgustingly unfair! hehehe Why should an error coin make a collection complete! If one says that the 1922 (NO) D makes the collection complete then you must add the 1955 Double D and other Doubled die errors as well. Of course, in time I wish to collect these errors as well, but me personally - I say my collection will be complete with a regular 1922 D in there. I collect circulated coins, coins that every day Joes had a chance at, not the SPECIALIZED proof stuff that nobody got a chance to touch. Of course, I'll collect that too, but come on, there has to be a limit here to collections or it'll get to a point where nobody can afford a collection. So - how many of you feel the same way? No offense will be taken if you disagree.
It's been said many times on this forum - the definition of a collectible set is what the collector makes it. You are far from alone in considering a set complete if all the basics are there, without needing errors, proofs, or other special cases.
Personally I'd call it complete once you have everything other than proofs or errors, but that's just me.
I agree about what constitutes a complete set. No errors should be required. Why stop at the 22 no D why not every variety there is. I actually think that the whole no D thing is a bit silly and the pricing is laughable. But as long as someone is willing to pay that price then that's what it's worth. Besides it's getting expensive enough to complete a set with the 1914-D and 1909 S-VDB as it is without adding another expensive coin to the mix.
Once the Whitman coin folder placed a slot for the 1922 Plain Cent, then it became an "open" slot. The logic went if Whitman made it a slot, then it must be a legit coin slot to fill. I am fortunate to own a PCGS VF30 (old slab) with a Strong Reverse. I only wish I bought this years ago when I had the chance. I have a complete set of Lincolns and I hope to add the 55 DDO someday. That is the only "major" slot in my Lincolns I have open.
I use the Dansco Albums, and if there's a spot for it in there, that's what I'm going to fill. The 22 No-D is in there, and so I will need it for my collection to feel complete. The 1955 DD is NOT in there, so I will not need it (Though it'd be cool to have!).
I've been a collector for over 60 years and I really hate that spot in my Lincoln Cent Whitman Classic albums for items like the 22 No D,55DD & 72DD. I now have 10 complete sets of them including those but I really don't think they should be in there. Why not every error and have an album about 5 feet thick? Why not all double dies instead of just a few? If you ever read a book called Looking Through Lincoln Cents you'll see that there are some type of errors listed there for every year since the 09. Why not the proofs from prior to the 70's? This is true of other coins also. What about that stupid Whitman Album with the 3 legged Buffalo spot? Mercury Dimes with the 42 over 41 stuff? Dansco, Whitman and other manufacturers are just a bit uninformed s to what should be in the albums. If enough people would get together and start sending in complaints, those manufacturers would start making an Album for collectors.
I have to agree - Who put Whitman or Dansco in charge of determining WHAT makes a complete set and what not. I can't blame most for filling what is THERE - but to be honest, those coin folders I feel are bad anyway because they store your coins so horribly! I use the 2x2 cardboard/plastic flaps with staples and then put them in the 20 pocket plastic pages within a 3 ring binder. That serves several purposes 1.) I get to look at my coins without putting finger oils all over them. 2.) It is a fairly secure way to secure your coins from other elements and again finger juices. 3.) I GET TO DECIDE the collection! hehehe although I do admit I used a Whitman folder to coordinate it. I was just bummed about the 1922 NO D because I just feel errors are NOT part of the collection. I personally feel errors ENHANCE a collection and I like errors, but there has to be a certain criteria that constitues the whole set. I feel errors weren't meant to be part of the program, the U.S. Mint discourages errors and although they have their place, it was a coin that was never intended to be minted. True it did make it to circulation, but there is a huge difference between say a 1909 S VDB and a 1922 NO D ... Big different. One was okayed for a short time to be public and then banned, but the other was NEVER supposed to happen, a pure accident of machinery. Just my opinion... don't want to make anyone mad, but I can see by the pole it's not a brutal disagreement or anything like that. Personally, I'll probably get the 1922 NO D in the long term... because I like pennies. But it will go in the ERROR section of my pages, NOT the original collection Esky
Ok...here are my thoughts. Collect how you want to...each person should pick what they want. My set doesn't have any of the DD or such and I could care less. BUT a set is normal something that has each item made from that place or with that type...so therefore a set of cents would be each DD/RPM/RPD/OMM/and anything else---but you come to a problem...if you do that then you must also have erros like off center/wrong planchet and many of that kind of error are one in a kind.....so the chances of someone doing a COMPLETE set of them is sooo slim nobody does it. So IMHO a set is up to you...do you want a 22P?...if so than it is part of the set...if you don't...it isn't part of the set and no one can tell you otherwise. Speedy
