A Registry Collection Strategy----Short Sets

Now that is an good example of what your post was about.
I think we've all been there to some extent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No, I don't think there's a chance in the world that PCGS would grade those first two coins the same.

Lehigh, First you say that we're making way too much out of the star designation, then you show to OK coins and a stunner. With the stunner -- not coincidentally -- having a * attached to it. Not sure that's the example you wanted to prove the point we were discussing earlier.

That said, I do agree wholehartedly with your conclusion -- patience is a collector's best friend, and your example shows just what happens when we don't practice it (and we all, including me, have been guilty of it, I'd wager).

Anyway, thanks again for the thought-provoking post and subsequent discussion...Mike

 

Well, one could also assert that one of your collecting tenets is to collect NGC Star coins.

I liked your post, LeHigh and I take your message of patience as an excellent piece of advice. Thanks for taking the time to post such a thoughtful thread.

 

I hear you, and I think I follow your logic, but I believe that simply planning out your set would accomplish the same goal (i.e. breaking it up into smaller sets doesn't really get you any more patient).

Said another way, why couldn't you, when contemplating your set, simply decide what grade/value you were going to collect and go execute against that?

But then again, if looking at sets as a group of mini-sets helped you, then who am I to say otherwise?

 

WHY?

Well, everyone did get stuck on the star designation in the Washington quarter example. Just because NGC already noticed the difference that I am trying to illustrate does not make it a bad example. I wish I could give a ringing endorsement to the star designation but unfortunately it is very inconsistent with regards to overall quality. While it does consistently identify exceptional eye appeal, that does not always translate to overall quality. I can post many examples if you like.

The purpose of the Jefferson example was to show the difference between the two different MS67's. Now of course the MS68* star overwhelms them both, but the blue toned MS67 is a much better coin than the ugly ducking. It has the ugly duckling beat in every aspect of grading. I could have proved my point without posting the MS68*, but what fun would that be.

BTW, the subsequent discussions with you are my favorite parts of my posts. Usually my posts are good. Your always insightful questions and critiques and the associated replies make these threads much more informative than just the OP.

 

It is a race, but only if you are willing to be the tortoise.

 

Paul, I agree with you post 100%. There is tons of Roosevelt Dimes that go up for auction and I pass because I don't like something about the coin. My Registry set could have been finished last year if I was just buying the slab to get the points. I just keep looking till I find a real looker to fill the slot!!

I am very picky when it comes to buying my proof roosevelts.

 

I agree with incrementally collecting some sets.
Most (All?) of us can't afford a fully high grade set of one of the older issues, and I'm including the earlier 20th century issue in that statement.
Heck, most of us can't afford full sets in any grade, never mind high.

This is why I call my IHC set a short set.
I can afford from 1895 to 1909 in MS. So I call that my "short set".
Prior to 1895 the coins will be circulated if I decide to go for the full set.
What I mean by "circulated" is still TBD.

 

Very cool idea, and a good way to keep yourself accountable for staying above a certain criteria.

 

Mike,

WHY?

 

PCGS does not like dark coins in 67, much less dark moderns in 67, in my experience.

I guess what I'm saying is that your example would be much more salient if you had compared a really pretty 66 with a less-pretty 67.

The feeling is mutual.

It is through the critiques, tough questions, and the subsequent discussion that I think we all come to a greater understanding of the issues and concerns that face us all in numismatics (and frankly, the same is true for virtually any topic).

Enjoy your weekend...Mike

 

p.s. sorry for my delay in responding -- work is kicking my rear end.

 

While I agree that NGC is more tolerant of deep toning, it only took me 30 seconds to find this.

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1129&Lot_No=695#photo

Given the hammer price, I sincerely hope that this coin looks much better in hand than it does in that photo.

You do the same.:smile

 

Touche, you found one PCGS example. Answer this: What % of PCGS 67s are dark like those two coins?

 

A lower % than NGC but I have no idea what the true answer is.

 

I'd guess less than 1 out of 100 PCGS 67s in PCGS plastic are "dark" like those two examples, and that % goes up in 66 and goes up even more in 65.

However, I would prefer if you or someone else would not believe me, and take a look at the Heritage or TT auction archives to gauge. View a few pages of coins, count the total coins, and count the dark 67's....

Rightly or wrongly, in 67 and beyond PCGS likes 'em bright, IMO.

Or at least, that was the bottom line conclusion I drew when shopping for moderns by type (i.e. 20th century type) after viewing an inordinate number of moderns online, at shows, etc....Mike

p.s. I agree, NGC is looser in this regard.

 

Well there is 3 just on the first page out of 25.
http://coins.ha.com/common/search_results.php?Ne=40&N=51+790+231+368+75+4294967176

 

Yep, I was just looking through the first 100 (4 pages). Imo here are the coins I would consider dark, and there were a few more that were on the borderline. 1935-D 25C MS67 PCGS 1950-S 25C MS67 PCGS. CAC 1952 25C MS67 PCGS 1952 25C MS67 PCGS 1953 25C MS67 PCGS. CAC. 1955 25C MS67 PCGS 1942-D 25C MS67 PCGS 1947-D 25C MS67 PCGS
1957 25C MS67 PCGS

 

1935-D 25C MS67 PCGS Agreed, that's the coin Lehigh posted.

1950-S 25C MS67 PCGS. CAC Not even close to dark like the first coin, IMO. Eye appeal off the chart, IMO.

1952 25C MS67 PCGS Borderline, IMO. Photo looks underexposed.

1952 25C MS67 PCGS Rainbow != dark like first coin.

1953 25C MS67 PCGS. CAC. Rainbow != dark like first coin.

1955 25C MS67 PCGS Rainbow != dark like first coin.

1942-D 25C MS67 PCGS Rainbow != dark like first coin.

1947-D 25C MS67 PCGS Agreed. I'm surprised this coin graded 67, to be honest.

1957 25C MS67 PCGS Borderline dark.

Giving you the borderline coins, that makes 4 out of 100. More than I would have guessed, and thank you for doing the legwork, but 4% still a very small % that tends to reinforce the conclusion that PCGS doesn't like dark coins in 67. Do you agree?

Regardless, thanks again (to you both) for taking the time to look...Mike (who is happy to stand corrected )

 

p.s. what about other series like roosies or franklins or jeffersons? I would expect Jeffersons to have the lowest % -- more because Cu-Ni is less reactive than silver. I'd also love someone with more experience submitting moderns than me to comment here....