What makes a collection complete?

"RAR" wrote in message
.16...
Something I have been long wavering on. I have what I consider to be
complete sets of buffalo nickels, lincoln wheats,and walking liberties.
That is I have all dates/mintes represented. But i dont have the error
coins (1922 plain, 3 legged buffalo, ...).


So, while those gaping holes in the albums bother me, am still feel that
the sets are complete?


Any opinions on what "complete" is?


To me complete absolutely has to be defined by you. I collect some Austrian
coins and my first goal
was to collect every date and denomination of issue from 1892 to present and
a type set of coins from before that.

Well financial reality rears its butt ugly head..... I decided to collect
the circulating coins and no proofs and no errors and certainly no Gold.
Consider commemoratives, I take a hit or miss approach as well as that same
approach to proofs but don't "need" them to be complete.

Well, even that goal wound up too ambitious so then I excluded the 500
Schilling series.
I have great hopes of finishing that goal this year and enjoying my
"complete" Austrian collection..

Jefferson Nickels, I consider my set complete. No proofs, all unc issues
excluding the latest commemorative issues.
There are no overdate issues in my "Complete" set and very darn few full
step strikes.

I collect US modern commemoratives upon occasion. Complete for me would be
one example of each design in either proof or uncirculated
and no Gold coins. But nooooooo! I had to define it as one each unc and
proof but no gold. I still consider selling my
proofs and collecting unc only but after over 80 coins I hate to change
horses in mid stream.

I think a type set is complete even though it only has one of each design.
Don't think they need minor varieties at all.

My US banknote collection is complete. I have a group of four uncut
uncirculated 2's and have no interest in any other issue.
Well maybe a buffalo note someday but it is not necessary for my US banknote
collection to be complete :-)

Dale

Hi

I agree with everyone else who says that you define "completeness."

There are other storage possibilities, when you have what you consider
to be complete - blank albums or even custom plastic holders come
to mind.

When it comes time to sell, whoever is considering buying will consider
a Lincoln set incomplete without the '22 plain, a buffalo set
incomplete
without the 3 legged, etc. Some purists will always consider such
collections incomplete. But, it is your collection after all.

John

RAR wrote:
Something I have been long wavering on. I have what I consider to be
complete sets of buffalo nickels, lincoln wheats,and walking liberties.
That is I have all dates/mintes represented. But i dont have the error
coins (1922 plain, 3 legged buffalo, ...).


So, while those gaping holes in the albums bother me, am still feel that
the sets are complete?


Any opinions on what "complete" is?

On Sun, 28 May 2006 18:34:45 +0000, linxlvr
wrote:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 12:48:11 -0400, Richard L. Hall wrote:

Complete is what you determine it to be. The 1922 plain, 3 legged Buffalo,
etc., are just as you described, errors. If you were to include an example
of every error coin or variety made, the collection would so huge you
probably couldn't store it in an album. I consider my Lincoln cent
collection complete and I don't have the 1922 plain or the 1955/1955. There
is actually a Dansco album that doesn't have space for these.

I agree. Varieties should not be considered as needed to complete a YR/MM
collection. You have to consider what you consider your collection. Now,
if you want to include all recognized varieties also, then you need them.

OTOH, if what you collect is a series made up of varieties, the
approach is somewhat different. I have a complete collection of Bust
Quarters by die marriage with the exception of the 1823 and 1827's.
My rationale for their exclusion is similar to the EAC designation of
"NC" for Large Cents. In other words, I will not take out huge
mortgages for those three die marriages.
Aram.

"Aram H. Haroutunian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 May 2006 18:34:45 +0000, linxlvr
wrote:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 12:48:11 -0400, Richard L. Hall wrote:

Complete is what you determine it to be. The 1922 plain, 3 legged
Buffalo,
etc., are just as you described, errors. If you were to include an
example
of every error coin or variety made, the collection would so huge you
probably couldn't store it in an album. I consider my Lincoln cent
collection complete and I don't have the 1922 plain or the 1955/1955.
There
is actually a Dansco album that doesn't have space for these.

I agree. Varieties should not be considered as needed to complete a YR/MM
collection. You have to consider what you consider your collection. Now,
if you want to include all recognized varieties also, then you need them.

OTOH, if what you collect is a series made up of varieties, the
approach is somewhat different. I have a complete collection of Bust
Quarters by die marriage with the exception of the 1823 and 1827's.
My rationale for their exclusion is similar to the EAC designation of
"NC" for Large Cents. In other words, I will not take out huge
mortgages for those three die marriages.
Aram.

OTOH, once one makes exceptions for very expensive coins, each of us has a
different definition of "expensive." Is a date set of large cents complete
without the 1793, 1799, and 1804? What about a middle-date large cent
variety set that is complete except for 1822 N-13 and N-14, 1830 N-9 and
N-11, 1838 N-15 and N-16, and 1839 N-15? What about a Redbook variety set
(not to be confused with an Overton variety set) of capped bust halves that
is complete except for the 1817 over 14? What about a set of capped bust
quarters - does a date set have to include both an 1823 and 1827, but a
Browning variety set not have to, by dint of their cost? I could go on, but
the further I go on, the muddier the water. The reason I bring all this up
is that you have laid out "your" approach, not "the" approach. 8)

Eliasberg was lucky that he formed his "complete" collection of U.S. coins
before the 1870-S half dime was discovered. Can you imagine how grossed out
he would have been at that moment, and how badly he would have coveted that
coin?

Mr. Jaggers

I think it is the holes in the book which makes it somewhat difficult to
have a "complete" collection. What I suggest is getting a book without the
individual dates and get one of those label guns and make the book look the
way you want it. If you want to have a complete collection of pennies
without the error 22-P, just don't put that lable in the book. If you want a
complete collection of Jefferson Nickels to include the proofs, just add the
proof labels where you want them. The extra cost is the lable maker and the
book without the preprinted dates....but you have the book you want. I hope
this helps.


"RAR" wrote in message
.16...
Something I have been long wavering on. I have what I consider to be
complete sets of buffalo nickels, lincoln wheats,and walking liberties.
That is I have all dates/mintes represented. But i dont have the error
coins (1922 plain, 3 legged buffalo, ...).


So, while those gaping holes in the albums bother me, am still feel that
the sets are complete?


Any opinions on what "complete" is?

"John" wrote in message
...
I think it is the holes in the book which makes it somewhat difficult to
have a "complete" collection. What I suggest is getting a book without the
individual dates and get one of those label guns and make the book look the
way you want it. If you want to have a complete collection of pennies
without the error 22-P, just don't put that lable in the book. If you want
a complete collection of Jefferson Nickels to include the proofs, just add
the proof labels where you want them. The extra cost is the lable maker and
the book without the preprinted dates....but you have the book you want. I
hope this helps.

There's nothing at all wrong with doing just that, if that is what satisfies
you. There are a lot of collectors, though, that like the pre-printed
openings, as they represent, at least in their view, a notion of what
completeness is in the opinion of someone they see as more knowledgeable
than they.

I don't know if it is still true, but in the early days of Whitman folders,
there were no "varieties" called for, just date/mint combinations. But if
one then "graduated" to the Bookshelf album, it called for the 1922-P and
the 1955 Doubled Die. Completeness, then, can often be seen as a function
of sophistication and maturity of the collector. I do not say this to sound
like an elitist, that's just the way it is. All kinds of exceptions abound,
so there is no final, definitive answer.

Mr. Jaggers

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"John" wrote in message
...
I think it is the holes in the book which makes it somewhat difficult to have
a "complete" collection. What I suggest is getting a book without the
individual dates and get one of those label guns and make the book look the
way you want it. If you want to have a complete collection of pennies without
the error 22-P, just don't put that lable in the book. If you want a complete
collection of Jefferson Nickels to include the proofs, just add the proof
labels where you want them. The extra cost is the lable maker and the book
without the preprinted dates....but you have the book you want. I hope this
helps.

There's nothing at all wrong with doing just that, if that is what satisfies
you. There are a lot of collectors, though, that like the pre-printed
openings, as they represent, at least in their view, a notion of what
completeness is in the opinion of someone they see as more knowledgeable than
they.

I don't know if it is still true, but in the early days of Whitman folders,
there were no "varieties" called for, just date/mint combinations. But if one
then "graduated" to the Bookshelf album, it called for the 1922-P and the 1955
Doubled Die. Completeness, then, can often be seen as a function of
sophistication and maturity of the collector. I do not say this to sound like
an elitist, that's just the way it is. All kinds of exceptions abound, so
there is no final, definitive answer.

Mr. Jaggers

My older Lincoln Cent Whitman folders (copyright 1949 and 1963) have no hole for
a 1922-plain. Somehow, I can't imagine a collector pressing the hell out of a
1922 or 1955 DDO to make it stay snug in a 35 cent (in my day) Whitman folder.
The Whitman Bookshelf albums (copyright 1960) do have spaces for both the 1922
and 1955.

My original goal was to assemble a complete collection of Lincolns to fill all
the holes in the bookshelf albums. That was before I saw what a nice 1922 was
going for. I still don't have one and would have a hard time paying $3-5,000
for the worn-looking obverse that comes with an XF or AU just to match the grade
of the others in my set. So, I'm satisfied that my set is as complete as I can
afford. If anyone should question why I lack the 1922, I simply say I didn't
want it in my set. Too ugly.

Bruce

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
news:9rNeg.18112$8q.9788@dukeread08...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"John" wrote in message
...
I think it is the holes in the book which makes it somewhat difficult to
have a "complete" collection. What I suggest is getting a book without
the individual dates and get one of those label guns and make the book
look the way you want it. If you want to have a complete collection of
pennies without the error 22-P, just don't put that lable in the book. If
you want a complete collection of Jefferson Nickels to include the
proofs, just add the proof labels where you want them. The extra cost is
the lable maker and the book without the preprinted dates....but you have
the book you want. I hope this helps.

There's nothing at all wrong with doing just that, if that is what
satisfies you. There are a lot of collectors, though, that like the
pre-printed openings, as they represent, at least in their view, a notion
of what completeness is in the opinion of someone they see as more
knowledgeable than they.

I don't know if it is still true, but in the early days of Whitman
folders, there were no "varieties" called for, just date/mint
combinations. But if one then "graduated" to the Bookshelf album, it
called for the 1922-P and the 1955 Doubled Die. Completeness, then, can
often be seen as a function of sophistication and maturity of the
collector. I do not say this to sound like an elitist, that's just the
way it is. All kinds of exceptions abound, so there is no final,
definitive answer.

Mr. Jaggers

My older Lincoln Cent Whitman folders (copyright 1949 and 1963) have no
hole for a 1922-plain. Somehow, I can't imagine a collector pressing the
hell out of a 1922 or 1955 DDO to make it stay snug in a 35 cent (in my
day) Whitman folder. The Whitman Bookshelf albums (copyright 1960) do have
spaces for both the 1922 and 1955.

My original goal was to assemble a complete collection of Lincolns to fill
all the holes in the bookshelf albums. That was before I saw what a nice
1922 was going for. I still don't have one and would have a hard time
paying $3-5,000 for the worn-looking obverse that comes with an XF or AU
just to match the grade of the others in my set. So, I'm satisfied that
my set is as complete as I can afford. If anyone should question why I
lack the 1922, I simply say I didn't want it in my set. Too ugly.

Bruce

One of my collector friends back in the 50s always said "I don't collect
freaks."

Mr. Jaggers

[Default] On Sun, 28 May 2006 19:38:45 GMT, "Bruce H (BoxTurtle)"
climbed to the top of the minaret and
sang out:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:13:23 -0400, WheatPenny
is alleged to have written:

I have a set of 2 cent pieces missing only the 1873 proofs, and i
consider it to be complete.

Do you have a copy of Flynn's two cent book? Best out so far, though
lots more varieties have been discovered since then.

No, I don't have that yet.

I've got a spare I'd send you for the price of postage. Drop me an
email if you're interested.

No, that's ok. I'm not looking to make a specialty out of it, I'm only
interested in collecting the major (red-book listed) varieties.
Thanks, though.

On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:17:32 GMT, in (e) is alleged
to have written:
In article , WheatPenny wrote:

[Default] On Sun, 28 May 2006 19:38:45 GMT, "Bruce H (BoxTurtle)"
climbed to the top of the minaret and
sang out:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 14:13:23 -0400, WheatPenny
is alleged to have written:

I have a set of 2 cent pieces missing only the 1873 proofs, and i
consider it to be complete.

Do you have a copy of Flynn's two cent book? Best out so far, though
lots more varieties have been discovered since then.

No, I don't have that yet.

I've got a spare I'd send you for the price of postage. Drop me an
email if you're interested.

No, that's ok. I'm not looking to make a specialty out of it, I'm only
interested in collecting the major (red-book listed) varieties.
Thanks, though.
i'm interested. how about a trade so that you get something,
too? tell me what you like.

Well, there's the rub. I actually have the remains of a case of these
books that Kevin left at my house by mistake a few years ago. Rather
than hassle with the shipping costs, etc, we came to a deal. I keep
the books, I distribute them to Those Who Are Worthy, but I must not
profit from them.

I've given several away in RCC swaps, others as contest prizes, some
at coin shows, and at YN auctions too. All you have to do is express
even the mildest interest in Deuces, and you're Worthy.

But that makes taking trades for one iffy, in my archaic morals. If
the thought of getting something for just the price of shipping REALLY
bothers you, you can offer the "repayment" here as a contest and let
us all fight for it. We like contests. Or take a bag of
non-perishables down to your local food bank and tell 'em it's from
me.

So if my holier-than-thou attitude hasn't already got me plonked (my
wife looked over my shoulder and made a gagging noise), drop me an
email with your snailmail and your preferred delivery method.

Btw, the above is open to ANYONE who reads this and likes deuces
enough to email me. But when I'm out, I'm out.

Bruce (I love deuces, I think others should too)



*************************************************
ANA R162074
EAC 3606

To email me, remember that RoadRunner
and Coyote do not mix.
*************************************************