Type Set questions

Type Set questions

Post by Bruce Remic » Wed, 02 Apr 2003 22:49:18



        It seems that a type set of US 21st century coins could (should?)
include silver (proof) and clad versions of each state quarter.  Do most
collectors typically include both versions of all coins produced in
silver and clad in their type sets?     And how about one-year varieties,
like the two 1976 Ike dollar types.  I'm curious as to where the
accepted "type difference" line should be drawn here.

Bruce

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bruce Hickmo » Wed, 02 Apr 2003 23:03:56



have written:

Quote:
>    It seems that a type set of US 21st century coins could (should?)
>include silver (proof) and clad versions of each state quarter.  Do most
>collectors typically include both versions of all coins produced in
>silver and clad in their type sets?         And how about one-year varieties,
>like the two 1976 Ike dollar types.  I'm curious as to where the
>accepted "type difference" line should be drawn here.

>Bruce

Draw the line whereever you darn well please! Don't let NOBODY tell you what you
should have in your collection. That said...

My proof type set does not include any of the silver strikes. It may someday,
but I haven't decided. It does include both types of Ikes, but does not include
the near and far date SBA's. I also include the Lincoln hub change that occured
around 1971 (?) as the coins struck afterward are visably different coins. I
don't include either of the recent matte proof issues as a matter of protest,
but I probably should.

Bruce

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bruce Remic » Thu, 03 Apr 2003 01:48:59


Quote:


> have written:

> >       It seems that a type set of US 21st century coins could (should?)
> >include silver (proof) and clad versions of each state quarter.  Do most
> >collectors typically include both versions of all coins produced in
> >silver and clad in their type sets?    And how about one-year varieties,
> >like the two 1976 Ike dollar types.  I'm curious as to where the
> >accepted "type difference" line should be drawn here.

> >Bruce

> Draw the line whereever you darn well please! Don't let NOBODY tell you what you
> should have in your collection. That said...

> My proof type set does not include any of the silver strikes. It may someday,
> but I haven't decided. It does include both types of Ikes, but does not include
> the near and far date SBA's. I also include the Lincoln hub change that occured
> around 1971 (?) as the coins struck afterward are visably different coins. I
> don't include either of the recent matte proof issues as a matter of protest,
> but I probably should.

> Bruce

        Thanks.  I realize there are no set rules for assembling a century type
set, unless one adheres to the holes offered in a type set album or
holder.  After forty years of collecting, I finally decided to work
toward a 20th century type set.  It seems that if I included all the
different composition Lincolns, it would somehow "cheapen" the set with
a bunch of common coins that pretty much look alike.  Yet if I include
the obvious 1943 steel cent because of it's different composition (but
identical design type), I would also have to add those 1944-46 and 1982
varieties as well for the same reason. And then the 1909-1917 cents with
no VDB initials and maybe the hub change you noted.  Just seems like too
many Lincolns displayed alongside a single Indian cent.
        I guess the 1917 Walking Liberty half with the obverse mintmark is
considered a separate design type too?  I may just take your advice and
keep the recent stuff to a minimum so they won't overwhelm the more
impressive earlier examples.  If I ever do complete this set and show it
to anyone, I'll try not to be too apologetic if I've left out a few
moderns.  
        My frustration now is that I have decided to have the type coins in
slabs.  I already have a few high grade early types in 2X2's but have
never submitted anything to a grading service and am reluctant to start
now, mainy because of the cost.  I'm considering selling the unslabbed
BU's I have to get money to put toward slabbed coins to replace them.  I
never thought I'd get caught up in the slab thing, but it looks like I'm
hooked, especially since I want the type gold coins, at least, to be
authenticated and slabbed.

Bruce

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bob Flamini » Thu, 03 Apr 2003 02:17:45


Quote:

> It seems that a type set of US 21st century coins could (should?)
> include silver (proof) and clad versions of each state quarter.  Do
> most collectors typically include both versions of all coins produced
> in silver and clad in their type sets?  And how about one-year
> varieties, like the two 1976 Ike dollar types.  I'm curious as to
> where the accepted "type difference" line should be drawn here.

For my "type" set, I'm differentiating between regular circulating
coinage and circulating commemoratives, mostly because I don't want 50
freakin' state quarters in the set. This also has the side effect of
eliminating the bicentennials, and presumably the forthcoming L&C
nickel. Not that I don't collect all that stuff -- just not in my "type"
set.

-Bob

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Alan & Erin William » Thu, 03 Apr 2003 03:08:26


Quote:


> > It seems that a type set of US 21st century coins could (should?)
> > include silver (proof) and clad versions of each state quarter.  Do
> > most collectors typically include both versions of all coins produced
> > in silver and clad in their type sets?  And how about one-year
> > varieties, like the two 1976 Ike dollar types.  I'm curious as to
> > where the accepted "type difference" line should be drawn here.

> For my "type" set, I'm differentiating between regular circulating
> coinage and circulating commemoratives, mostly because I don't want 50
> freakin' state quarters in the set. This also has the side effect of
> eliminating the bicentennials, and presumably the forthcoming L&C
> nickel. Not that I don't collect all that stuff -- just not in my "type"
> set.

A single example of a clad 21st Century SQ works for me...IL will be
just fine. ;-) But I will include the L&C nickel, when and if issued.

Alan
'arbitrary'

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Chrysta Wilso » Thu, 03 Apr 2003 11:48:43



Quote:

>    Thanks.  I realize there are no set rules for assembling a century type
> set, unless one adheres to the holes offered in a type set album or
> holder.  After forty years of collecting, I finally decided to work
> toward a 20th century type set.  

Did you see this month's Numismatist? It has a "checklist" for coins that
could be included in a 20th century type set. I wasn't sure I agreed with
all the choices, like you said...That list did include the 5 1999
Quarters, as well as counting all the different stuff done to the dies of
other coins (spaghetti hair) as separate types.

--
~~~Chrysta~~~

ANA#R-206318

My Collection: http://www.geocities.com/chrystawilson/index.html

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bruce Hickmo » Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:08:18



have written:

Quote:
>    Thanks.  I realize there are no set rules for assembling a century type
>set, unless one adheres to the holes offered in a type set album or
>holder.  After forty years of collecting, I finally decided to work
>toward a 20th century type set.  It seems that if I included all the
>different composition Lincolns, it would somehow "cheapen" the set with
>a bunch of common coins that pretty much look alike.  Yet if I include
>the obvious 1943 steel cent because of it's different composition (but
>identical design type), I would also have to add those 1944-46 and 1982
>varieties as well for the same reason

Well, if YOU have to, YOU have to. :-)

Quote:
> And then the 1909-1917 cents with
>no VDB initials and maybe the hub change you noted.  Just seems like too
>many Lincolns displayed alongside a single Indian cent.

Get the 1859 and the 1861-1864 as distinct design types. Solves that problem.

Quote:
>    I guess the 1917 Walking Liberty half with the obverse mintmark is
>considered a separate design type too?

Not for me, I just do proofs. Solves that problem. :-)
'll try not to be too apologetic if I've left out a few

Quote:
>    My frustration now is that I have decided to have the type coins in
>slabs.  I already have a few high grade early types in 2X2's but have
>never submitted anything to a grading service and am reluctant to start
>now, mainy because of the cost.  I'm considering selling the unslabbed
>BU's I have to get money to put toward slabbed coins to replace them.  I
>never thought I'd get caught up in the slab thing, but it looks like I'm
>hooked, especially since I want the type gold coins, at least, to be
>authenticated and slabbed.

Consider Coin world holders. And consider ANACS budget package.

Bruce

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bruce Remic » Thu, 03 Apr 2003 22:29:05


Quote:


> have written:

> >       Thanks.  I realize there are no set rules for assembling a century type
> >set, unless one adheres to the holes offered in a type set album or
> >holder.  After forty years of collecting, I finally decided to work
> >toward a 20th century type set.  It seems that if I included all the
> >different composition Lincolns, it would somehow "cheapen" the set with
> >a bunch of common coins that pretty much look alike.  Yet if I include
> >the obvious 1943 steel cent because of it's different composition (but
> >identical design type), I would also have to add those 1944-46 and 1982
> >varieties as well for the same reason

> Well, if YOU have to, YOU have to. :-)

That's the nice thing here.  I don't have to.  And I'm inclined not to.
Makes things simpler .

Quote:

> > And then the 1909-1917 cents with
> >no VDB initials and maybe the hub change you noted.  Just seems like too
> >many Lincolns displayed alongside a single Indian cent.

> Get the 1859 and the 1861-1864 as distinct design types. Solves that problem.

Not in my 20th Century type set

Quote:

> >       I guess the 1917 Walking Liberty half with the obverse mintmark is
> >considered a separate design type too?

> Not for me, I just do proofs. Solves that problem. :-)
> 'll try not to be too apologetic if I've left out a few

I would shudder at the prospect of what collecting 20th century proof
gold coins would do to my collecting budget, not to mention the barber
coins, walking & standing liberties, etc.  Hey, I thought your comments
had been making things easier for me!!

Quote:

> >       My frustration now is that I have decided to have the type coins in
> >slabs.  I already have a few high grade early types in 2X2's but have
> >never submitted anything to a grading service and am reluctant to start
> >now, mainy because of the cost.  I'm considering selling the unslabbed
> >BU's I have to get money to put toward slabbed coins to replace them.  I
> >never thought I'd get caught up in the slab thing, but it looks like I'm
> >hooked, especially since I want the type gold coins, at least, to be
> >authenticated and slabbed.

> Consider Coin world holders. And consider ANACS budget package.

Not a bad idea.  Would I be among the first to crack out the PGCS MS65
type coins I already have and re-slab them in a generic CW holder?
Nothing worse than mismatched holders.

Bruce

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bruce Hickmo » Thu, 03 Apr 2003 22:42:35



have written:

Quote:

>> >       I guess the 1917 Walking Liberty half with the obverse mintmark is
>> >considered a separate design type too?

>> Not for me, I just do proofs. Solves that problem. :-)

>I would shudder at the prospect of what collecting 20th century proof
>gold coins would do to my collecting budget, not to mention the barber
>coins, walking & standing liberties, etc.  Hey, I thought your comments
>had been making things easier for me!!

If you spend $6k for a gold proof and then sell it later for $6K, how much did
that coin cost you? That's how I rationalize it! I was trying to give you a
greater challenge, not make it easier. I'm cruel like that. :-)

Quote:

>> Consider Coin world holders. And consider ANACS budget package.

>Not a bad idea.  Would I be among the first to crack out the PGCS MS65
>type coins I already have and re-slab them in a generic CW holder?
>Nothing worse than mismatched holders.

Geez, you'd HATE my collection. I have slabs from every service except ICG and
some of the bottom feeders. Some coins are in snaplocks, some are in cotton
pouches, some are in 2x2's. Heck, some are in 1x1's! I've got a couple in old
Max Mehl boxes, some plastic coin tubes and a bunch of 1800's foreign coins that
sit lose in my junk box for the kids to play with.  Intercept shield. CW
holders. Flips.

Bruce (You probably shudder just thinking about it)

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bob Flamini » Fri, 04 Apr 2003 01:46:19


Quote:

> If you spend $6k for a gold proof and then sell it later for $6K, how
> much did that coin cost you? That's how I rationalize it!

For some reason, my wife doesn't buy that argument. I know, I've
tried...

-Bob

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bruce Remic » Fri, 04 Apr 2003 01:49:29


Quote:


> have written:


> >> >       I guess the 1917 Walking Liberty half with the obverse mintmark is
> >> >considered a separate design type too?

> >> Not for me, I just do proofs. Solves that problem. :-)

> >I would shudder at the prospect of what collecting 20th century proof
> >gold coins would do to my collecting budget, not to mention the barber
> >coins, walking & standing liberties, etc.  Hey, I thought your comments
> >had been making things easier for me!!

> If you spend $6k for a gold proof and then sell it later for $6K, how much did
> that coin cost you? That's how I rationalize it! I was trying to give you a
> greater challenge, not make it easier. I'm cruel like that. :-)

Yeah, but there are ten different gold type coins in a 20th century type
set.  Unc examples alone would run about $5K total-- I don't know if
I'll live long enough to scratch up enough to handle that, never mind
what ten proofs would cost, plus the three proof Barbers at another
$2K.  Wish I had your resources available and had a chance to see your
coins, too.

Quote:

> >> Consider Coin world holders. And consider ANACS budget package.

> >Not a bad idea.  Would I be among the first to crack out the PGCS MS65
> >type coins I already have and re-slab them in a generic CW holder?
> >Nothing worse than mismatched holders.

> Geez, you'd HATE my collection. I have slabs from every service except ICG and
> some of the bottom feeders. Some coins are in snaplocks, some are in cotton
> pouches, some are in 2x2's. Heck, some are in 1x1's! I've got a couple in old
> Max Mehl boxes, some plastic coin tubes and a bunch of 1800's foreign coins that
> sit lose in my junk box for the kids to play with.  Intercept shield. CW
> holders. Flips.

Well, that's how my collection is now.  I've still got an orange crate
full of Lincoln rolls by date back to 1909 that I started saving in the
early '50's.  Can't lift it by myself.  Most singles are in 2X2's in
3-ring binders and in a great-looking 10-drawer walnut cabinet I found
on Ebay.  I collected a bit of everything over the years and could never
bring myself to sell any of it.  I still have the foreign commons that
were prizes in Wheaties boxes in the 1950's, and my 1954 Cheerio's
premium folder with Confederate bill reproductions.  My heirs won't know
what to do with it all, but then that'll be their cross to bear once
they finish bearing mine.

Bruce

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bruce Hickmo » Fri, 04 Apr 2003 02:57:21



to have written:

Quote:

>> If you spend $6k for a gold proof and then sell it later for $6K, how
>> much did that coin cost you? That's how I rationalize it!

>For some reason, my wife doesn't buy that argument. I know, I've
>tried...

My wife's answer "Then SELL it".

Bruce

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bruce Hickmo » Fri, 04 Apr 2003 22:30:43



have written:

Quote:

>> If you spend $6k for a gold proof and then sell it later for $6K, how much did
>> that coin cost you? That's how I rationalize it! I was trying to give you a
>> greater challenge, not make it easier. I'm cruel like that. :-)

>Yeah, but there are ten different gold type coins in a 20th century type
>set.  Unc examples alone would run about $5K total-- I don't know if
>I'll live long enough to scratch up enough to handle that, never mind
>what ten proofs would cost, plus the three proof Barbers at another
>$2K.  Wish I had your resources available and had a chance to see your
>coins, too.

Oh, you're one of those food/clothing/shelter first types, Eh? I love to display
my coins, maybe someday we'll end up at the same show and we can have a show and
tell session.

Quote:
>> Geez, you'd HATE my collection. I have slabs from every service except ICG and
>> some of the bottom feeders. Some coins are in snaplocks, some are in cotton
>> pouches, some are in 2x2's. Heck, some are in 1x1's! I've got a couple in old
>> Max Mehl boxes, some plastic coin tubes and a bunch of 1800's foreign coins that
>> sit lose in my junk box for the kids to play with.  Intercept shield. CW
>> holders. Flips.

>Well, that's how my collection is now.  I've still got an orange crate
>full of Lincoln rolls by date back to 1909 that I started saving in the
>early '50's.  Can't lift it by myself.  Most singles are in 2X2's in
>3-ring binders and in a great-looking 10-drawer walnut cabinet I found
>on Ebay.  I collected a bit of everything over the years and could never
>bring myself to sell any of it.  I still have the foreign commons that
>were prizes in Wheaties boxes in the 1950's, and my 1954 Cheerio's
>premium folder with Confederate bill reproductions.  My heirs won't know
>what to do with it all, but then that'll be their cross to bear once
>they finish bearing mine.

Right now, my heirs would sell my collection so fast even B&M would be amazed.
:-)

Bruce

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bob Flamini » Sat, 05 Apr 2003 02:09:56


Quote:

> It seems that if I included all the
> different composition Lincolns, it would somehow "cheapen" the set
> with a bunch of common coins that pretty much look alike.

Here's how I breakdown potential Lincoln types:

I. Major design changes:
1. Wheat reverse (1909-58)
2. Memorial reverse (1959-now)

II. Major design changes with major metal changes:
1. Wheat, copper (1909-42, 44-58)
2. Wheat, steel (1943)
3. Memorial, copper (1959-82)
4. Memorial, zinc (1982-now)

III. Major design changes with minor metal changes:
1. Wheat, 95% copper, 5% tin/zinc (1909-42, 47-58)
2. Wheat, zinc-coated steel (1943)
3. Wheat, 95% copper, 5% zinc (no tin) (1944-46)
4. Memorial, 95% copper, 5% tin/zinc (1959-62)
5. Memorial, 95% copper, 5% zinc (no tin) (1962-82)
6. Memorial, 99.2% zinc, 0.8% copper (1982-now)

IV. As above, with designer's initials' changes:
1. Wheat, VDB on reverse (1909)
2. Wheat, no VDB (1909-17)
3. Wheat, VDB on obverse, 95% copper, 5% tin/zinc (1918-42, 47-58)
4. Wheat, VDB on obverse, zinc-coated steel (1943)
5. Wheat, VDB on obverse, 95% copper, 5% zinc (no tin) (1944-46)
6. Memorial, 95% copper, 5% tin/zinc (1959-62)
7. Memorial, 95% copper, 5% zinc (no tin) (1962-82)
8. Memorial, 99.2% zinc, 0.8% copper (1982-now)

Usually group II above makes for a nice type set without letting
Lincolns overrun the collection.

-Bob

 
 
 

Type Set questions

Post by Bruce Remic » Sat, 05 Apr 2003 04:11:50


Quote:


> > It seems that if I included all the
> > different composition Lincolns, it would somehow "cheapen" the set
> > with a bunch of common coins that pretty much look alike.

> Here's how I breakdown potential Lincoln types:

> I. Major design changes:
> 1. Wheat reverse (1909-58)
> 2. Memorial reverse (1959-now)

> II. Major design changes with major metal changes:
> 1. Wheat, copper (1909-42, 44-58)
> 2. Wheat, steel (1943)
> 3. Memorial, copper (1959-82)
> 4. Memorial, zinc (1982-now)

> III. Major design changes with minor metal changes:
> 1. Wheat, 95% copper, 5% tin/zinc (1909-42, 47-58)
> 2. Wheat, zinc-coated steel (1943)
> 3. Wheat, 95% copper, 5% zinc (no tin) (1944-46)
> 4. Memorial, 95% copper, 5% tin/zinc (1959-62)
> 5. Memorial, 95% copper, 5% zinc (no tin) (1962-82)
> 6. Memorial, 99.2% zinc, 0.8% copper (1982-now)

> IV. As above, with designer's initials' changes:
> 1. Wheat, VDB on reverse (1909)
> 2. Wheat, no VDB (1909-17)
> 3. Wheat, VDB on obverse, 95% copper, 5% tin/zinc (1918-42, 47-58)
> 4. Wheat, VDB on obverse, zinc-coated steel (1943)
> 5. Wheat, VDB on obverse, 95% copper, 5% zinc (no tin) (1944-46)
> 6. Memorial, 95% copper, 5% tin/zinc (1959-62)
> 7. Memorial, 95% copper, 5% zinc (no tin) (1962-82)
> 8. Memorial, 99.2% zinc, 0.8% copper (1982-now)

> Usually group II above makes for a nice type set without letting
> Lincolns overrun the collection.

> -Bob

Gulp...........!  =:>|

Bruce
--
Researching REMICK worldwide.
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/r/e/m/Bruce-Remick/