Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mikenoodle, post: 1129250, member: 307&quot;]Doug, you eloquently make your points as always.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yes, I think you&#039;re weird, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>While I guess I am being rigid in my thinking, you are using the word &quot;set&quot; as a pseudonym for &quot;collection&quot; and I can&#039;t disagree with you interchanging the two as you have outlined your argument.</p><p><br /></p><p>I will not further argue the point any further. It&#039;s like a lot of times when you and I have a semantical argument. It comes down to a single word. I will admit that you changed my mind when it came to the numismatic definition of perfect, and you can define &quot;set&quot; as you wish. I tend to take things that I read quite literally, sometimes to a fault.</p><p><br /></p><p>I will state that your premise about markets for coins is a blanket statement and blanket statements are generally true, but not in all cases. The coin that immediately comes to mind is the 3¢ piece. They have a much larger mintage than the 1792 coins, but in comparison to many coins have a very small mintage. My point is that there is no market for them not because of a lack of coins, or that they don&#039;t belong to a set, but rather that there is almost ZERO demand for them.</p><p><br /></p><p>Demand creates markets, not rarity nor the fact that it is part of a set or not.</p><p><br /></p><p>That said, I love the arguments we have (and you know I do because I have told you on many occasions <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> ) I come away smarter almost every time.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in