Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="kanga, post: 583835, member: 9270"]I agree.But you included another one of those "it's up to the collector" words."Uniform"I like your application of that word to collecting business strikes only.(Never agreed that an 1895 Morgan belongs in a business strike Morgan set, for example.)Would you also consider applying it to the grades of the coins in the type set? (Rhetorical question; not meant to be answered, just considered.) When I started my type set, one of the criteria was "XF or better".Certainly not "uniform", but trying to collect all coins in XF or XF-40, would have REALLY slowed the process down.And as it stands now, three of my coins are VF because of cost. Just pointing out that the term "type set" gives the collector a LOT of wiggle room.That's why I didn't go with a Dansco 7070. I didn't agree with their definitions.I got out my Red Book and built my type set based upon its groupings.Then I compared that list to the NGC Registry.That helped me identify things I missed, like a Type 3 SLQ.But I also disagreed with the NGC list and have one coin I consider different that they don't include. A Matron Head Modified cent (1837-1839). All these comments are meant to emphasize that a type set particularly is a do-it-yourself project.As they used to say, "Whatever floats your boat."[/QUOTE]