What makes a collection complete?

On Mon, 29 May 2006 16:16:30 -0700, Aram H. Haroutunian wrote:

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.

I CERTAINLY am not questioning the quality of your collection, especially
since I'm struggling to afford one bust quarter for my type set. :-)

None the less, I think your sentence modifies complete w/ the word except.
Then even you acknowledge it is not actually complete, but rather meets
some other standard.

--
dw

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?

There is an old saying: "A man isn't complete until he is married. Then
he is finished!"
TD

RAR wrote:
........

Well, it's not really too important what RAR wrote because I'm not
really replying to him/her.

What I am doing is commenting on the recent quite poor postings by
people in various forums on the new Samuel Beckett gold and silver
coins commemorating the centennial of his birth. Many of these people
have a link or two to pictures of the coins, all of which are... well,
poor.

So here's a link to the very best picture, showing the silver coin in
great detail and the gold in... well, rather poor detail:

http://www.centralbank.ie/data/CoinF...Boxedlarge.jpg

Finally, the engraving of Sam on the silver coin is... well, rather
poor, and the drawings of Vladimir and Estragon (Waiting for Godot)
are... well, absolutely lousy. IMHO, of course.

I'm posting this here because all the postings on Samuel Beckett topics
were too old to reply to. So now people doing a search for "Samuel
Beckett" will hopefully find this page.

On Mon, 29 May 2006 16:16:30 -0700, Aram H. Haroutunian
wrote:

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.

That's rationalization. The S-79 (1795 reeded edge) is many
times more rare than say, the 1796 NC-4 or the 1803 NC-1. Yet it
is the S-79 which is needed for a "complete" collection.

If "Sheldon" completeness were to be applied to early quarters,
you would still need the 1823. In any case, how difficult can
the 1823 be after two 1796's and two 1804's? The 1827's can be
rationally excluded as they are proof-only varieties, so you
don't need those. Besides, what would be more expensive, a low
grade 1823 or the 1837 B-6?


--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 05:44:57 GMT, Ed. Stoebenau
reverse-ude.rcu@sdrawde wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 16:16:30 -0700, Aram H. Haroutunian
wrote:

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.

That's rationalization. The S-79 (1795 reeded edge) is many
times more rare than say, the 1796 NC-4 or the 1803 NC-1. Yet it
is the S-79 which is needed for a "complete" collection.

If "Sheldon" completeness were to be applied to early quarters,
you would still need the 1823. In any case, how difficult can
the 1823 be after two 1796's and two 1804's? The 1827's can be
rationally excluded as they are proof-only varieties, so you
don't need those. Besides, what would be more expensive, a low
grade 1823 or the 1837 B-6?

Of course it is rationalization. All approaches are. I own an 1837
B6. I was offered an 1823 in VG for "18." At the time, I thought he
meant "$1,800." He meant "$18,000." That was the basis for my
"rationalization." There are two known examples of the 1837, B6.
There are at least 6 examples of the 1823 known, I do appreciate the
reminder about the 1827's. Makes that part easier. :-)
BTW, I own the three 1796's (The B2b is the rarest by die state) and
the 1804's. Those would be in my "NC" category if I didn't already
have them. :-) (BTW, I traded 125 Bust Quarters for the 1837, B6.)
Aram.