Home PCGS Set Registry Forum

What's up with the set ratings?

Finest possible 67.974? Two points higher than an almost perfect set? Say what?

trade dollars

Comments

  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Because of the extra bonus points for top pops.
  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think they have opened a can of worms with this new enhancement.
  • onlyroosiesonlyroosies Posts: 3,281 ✭✭✭✭
    Dear PCGS Set Registry Members,
    Last year at the Chicago ANA PCGS Set Registry luncheon, PCGS President, Don Willis, announced we would be adding bonus points for coins in sets that are the best possible grade with none graded higher. The time has come and this change has been made.
    For many years, we’ve received feedback from members about our 1-10 weighting scale. For the most part, this scale has serviced us well. Generally, it takes into account the grade and rarity. However, in certain instances, specifically with coins that are the single finest or tied for the finest graded, the 1-10 scale doesn’t account for the premium most collectors must pay to own the very best.
    To reward the owners of these very special coins, we are adding 2 bonus points for items with populations of one, none graded higher, and 1 bonus point for coins that are tied for the very best with none graded higher. These points will be added to the grade of your coin as shown in the examples below:


    Your Coin Status Your Grade Points

    67 Highest graded (PCGS Pop 2) 68
    67 Highest graded (only one graded) 69
    66+ Highest graded (PCGS Pop 2) 67.5
    66+ Highest graded (only one graded) 68.5


    Should the population change for your item and it loses either the "highest graded" or "highest graded, only one of that grade" status, the bonus points will be adjusted or dropped accordingly.
    We are always amazed at the tremendous job our Set Registry participants do with building their collections and we feel the added points for "Pop Tops" will appropriately reward the "best of the best" and the collectors that pursue them. As always, we appreciate your participation in the Set Registry. Happy collecting!

    BJ Searls
  • winkywinky Posts: 1,671
    Sounds OK to me. image
  • cointimecointime Posts: 2,013 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I guess this email was sent only to collectors that have a coin in a pop 1 or pop 2 only condition. I am a member and did not get the email and did not find out about it until reading it here on the forums. As I read the email, I am not clear as to how it works. It talks about top pop so I would think any coin with a 0 higher pop would get 1 point, yet looking at sets It appears only the pop 1 or 2 / 0 higher coins are targeted. Either way is fine with me. The sets with uber coins and grades will benefit, but I am sure looking in the rear view mirror that no one was even close. i.e. TDN set image

    Here is my thoughts on the weights and what should be done. The same coin should be given the same weight across all sets. I'll take one of mine as an example and you can find other examples. In the Washington Complete Variety Set the 1964-D type C reverse has a weight of 4, while in the Washington Type B and C Reverses the same coin only get a 3. The same coin in a mint set should get the same weight as the same coin in a series set. This could even be used in the cert look up as a PCGS Weight / rarity scale (bet they like this idea image JMO

    On a side note there are a couple programing bugs with TruViews that need to be fixed, and no I have not sent any notes to them about the fixes - Really, my bad for bringing them up right now image

    Ken
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,145 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Because of the extra bonus points for top pops. >>



    Yes, but you miss the point. I have pop 1/0s for most of that set so my set rating should be very close to the max - not 2 points below
  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    >>>Yes, but you miss the point. I have pop 1/0s for most of that set so my set rating should be very close to the max - not 2 points below <<<

    In your OP you stated that your grade was HIGHER than the possible high???

    I re-read your OP. Maybe they added those 2 extra points into the highest possible.......otherwise you could go over it.

    Like I said before......"they have opened a can of worms".
  • dbldie55dbldie55 Posts: 7,717 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>Because of the extra bonus points for top pops. >>



    Yes, but you miss the point. I have pop 1/0s for most of that set so my set rating should be very close to the max - not 2 points below >>



    That single 1878-S must really have a bunch more points associated with it.
    Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
  • onlyroosiesonlyroosies Posts: 3,281 ✭✭✭✭
    TDN

    I don't think your set has been updated yet with the bonus points calculated in. Your set rating should be a lot higher.

    One of the flaws I see with this system is PCGS is targeting all pop 1/0 & 2/0 coins. Since my 1951D/D MS67FB Roosevelt variety
    is a pop 1/0 it will be calculated as if it's an MS69FB. It can be used in the regular 46 - 64 registry set and bumps the set
    with a higher rating than my MS68FB coin. A $500 coin gets a higher rating than a $3500 coin. The program just sees a pop 1/0
    coin and adds 2 bonus points. The simple fix would be that you cannot use a variety in a regular coin slot in any registry set.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,719 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Does this apply to World coin registry sets too?

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • WaterSportWaterSport Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Actually, I bet all of you at one time or another have looked at the assigned weighted point values in our sets/series and said to yourself - "that is not right--X coin is far scarcer/common than the value assigned". Which brings me to my next thought which is those values needed to be looked at first IMHO>

    WS
    Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
  • DAMDAM Posts: 2,410 ✭✭


    << <i>The simple fix would be that you cannot use a variety in a regular coin slot in any registry set. >>


    That could seriously restrict entering a lot of coins. Example: wouldn't that complicate things in a Morgan Dollar set, when a coin has been given a VAM designation and be a pop 1 or 2?

    Seems what they did is a neat idea, but not necessary, IMO. Let the low pop coins stand on their own merit, without additional weight.
    Dan
  • FullStepJeffsFullStepJeffs Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭
    I'm very disappointed in this decision by PCGS to use this new multiplier. Someone that used to be under me in one set and less than 3/100's above me in another, is now so far above me it will take an additional 20K to catch them and probably another decade to find the coins to get it done. Therefore, after almost 20 years of dealing with this, I'm reassessing my involvement in this charade.

    Peace!

    Steve
    U.S. Air Force Security Forces Retired

    In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    >>>One of the flaws I see with this system is PCGS is targeting all pop 1/0 & 2/0 coins. Since my 1951D/D MS67FB Roosevelt variety
    is a pop 1/0 it will be calculated as if it's an MS69FB. It can be used in the regular 46 - 64 registry set and bumps the set
    with a higher rating than my MS68FB coin. A $500 coin gets a higher rating than a $3500 coin. The program just sees a pop 1/0
    coin and adds 2 bonus points. The simple fix would be that you cannot use a variety in a regular coin slot in any registry set. <<<

    This is a problem I complained to BJ about several years ago. I didn't want variety coins in regular slots, but she said no to that request.

    This new bonus points for top pop's is just plain bad. I have many top pop's and like seeing "0" in that last column on the right, but you should not get extra points for it. The points should be based on grade.

    I don't even like the extra points given for FB and such. But at least they have separate sets for both FB and NON-FB.

    To me it's all about coins and completeness and not points.
    image
  • DrPeteDrPete Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭
    I got the email, and watched the before and after for my registry barber half set.

    Several observations I have made:

    1. If you hover the pointer over the gpa score on the web page that gives the list of sets in a series, it shows numbers that often include the before and after score, at least right now.
    2. My set is all-time number two, and was about 0.6 gpa points behind before the change. Now it is 1.2 average points behind. That is a huge chasm now.
    3. Certain retired sets get the bonus point upgrade, too. In my case, the number one set of Dr. Steve Duckor got the big point upgrade (his set is retired and he had 23 of the 73 coins in his set as single top pop, and another 26 of the coins as tied for top pop. That exploded the score up on a set that no longer exists, and which would be virtually impossible to beat without obtaining every single coin in top pop.
    4. Collecting and listing on the registry are all about fun. I will continue to have fun and enjoy the registry. I did get point upgrades, too.
    5. Eliasberg sets did not get the upgrades, at least for the barber halves.

    Others can chime in with observations.
    Dr. Pete
  • DMWJRDMWJR Posts: 5,974 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>TDN

    I don't think your set has been updated yet with the bonus points calculated in. Your set rating should be a lot higher.

    One of the flaws I see with this system is PCGS is targeting all pop 1/0 & 2/0 coins. Since my 1951D/D MS67FB Roosevelt variety
    is a pop 1/0 it will be calculated as if it's an MS69FB. It can be used in the regular 46 - 64 registry set and bumps the set
    with a higher rating than my MS68FB coin. A $500 coin gets a higher rating than a $3500 coin. The program just sees a pop 1/0
    coin and adds 2 bonus points. The simple fix would be that you cannot use a variety in a regular coin slot in any registry set. >>




    I understand your point, but I don't see you logic since a 1955 DDO is still a 1955.
    Doug
  • winkywinky Posts: 1,671
    After thinking about this I am not sure it will make many folks happy. I have a 1/0 XF45 coin and it has been that way for over 2 years so it will get additional 2 full points, is that what I understand about the point rating. I agree with FullStepJeff in that his set is almost history now so I understand his thoughts. Really tho is there a madness to this?

    Now I guess that #1 sets will stay #1 for eternity as they will get a lot of points and to me that is OK I guess because they have earned that position over years of collecting and a lot of money but it is the little guys that will hurt and may drop out. I guess time will tell once again.

    Just remember NOTHING is FOREVER.
  • PerfectionPerfection Posts: 180 ✭✭✭
    Hello Registry People!

    This is Perfection. I have a handful of sets in the registry. I have never posted on any blog anywhere. Before I comment on the new scoring system I want to think BJ and Cosetta for the outstanding service they
    have provided over the years. My questions and comments and removal requests are handled fast. They also listen to my ideas to improve the registry and even act on a few
    here and there. Thank You!

    I believe the new scoring system is totally against what the registry stands for. It rewards the very top people who already have the best coins and the top sets. Why was there a
    need to do this? Rewarding a handful of people at the expense of others makes no sense to me. Very few sets under the top handful have pop 1 or 2 coins. Why give even more points to the top sets and therefore distance them from people trying to compete with them? I have lots of top pops but I am still against this change. I have ideas on how to slightly modify the scoring that would effect the 99% of the registry and not the 1% of the top sets.

    In business many times changes are made that seem to be "no big deal". However at times, years go by and the business realizes that a change they made in the past substantially changed
    their business. I do not believe the new scoring is as trivial and "no big deal" as it sounds. I will explain.

    First there is absolutely NO WAY that this change should have been implemented until July 1 which is after this years sets awards are chosen. I have I think three sets that would have been number 1
    for the year but are no longer. The timing of this change was totally unfair to people who wait until the end to post. If you are a set builder you will agree that it is like stabbing you in the heart!

    The idea of the registry is competition. Sure the top sets are made by a small number of people. However these people compete with the intention of getting to the top. The new scoring change makes
    it impossible to do this. I have 4 examples, I will name two. My Proof Morgan set is/was the number 1 set of all time before this change. (with two coins that I would add in June)
    Mr. Simpson who we all admire and respect somehow recently got five 69's. However, I was STILL able to compete by acquiring 68CAMS and 67DCAMS and my set was #1. Now with the new scoring it is impossible to compete. The 69's are of course Pop 1 so sadly the game is over. I will not buy another Morgan for the reason of improving my set. Why should I?

    One other example is the Duckor MS Barber Half set. I am about three coin upgrades from topping his amazing set. It took seven years and well over 1M to do this along with considerable time and effort. Now that is all wasted. I no longer have a reason to upgrade this set. I can go on but you get the point. Sadly I will post the sets I have been working on this June and I am done with the registry. If I can no longer achieve my goals due to the new scoring that rewards the wrong people why bother to improve sets? Sure if I see an amazing coin that is priced right and fits I will still buy it but not for the score. How does this effect the coin business in general?

    It effects the top players and the competition from people like Duckor, Link, Simpson, Gardener, Coronet myself and many more. There is no reason to chase and bid up many coins since building most top sets
    is now impossible unless someone sells or passes away! These people paid the price for the best to try and build top sets. No more. They were not looking to be number 2,3 or 4!
    I bought Barber Halves for seven years with the intention of building the top set. If I knew in advance that it was not achievable I would have purchased other coins. Sure they would include some Barbers but certainly
    there would be no need for all the dates and mint marks.

    The registry will still thrive but the top end has been crushed. People like me will not build sets. Of course I love coins and will still be buying. However my direction has been changed. I will be buying
    beautiful coins in general that are not set related. It is not easy for a company to admit that what they did was a mistake so I doubt that the scoring will be reversed.
    Look at the top sets five years from now and remember this post. You will see many fewer high scoring sets. This scoring change will stop most of the high level competition. It is a "big deal".
  • DMWJRDMWJR Posts: 5,974 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This may or may not be true, but I don't think all of the sets are updated in the rankings, unless they have been manually changed by deleting and adding back a coin. I went through my sets and hit the "add best coins" button on the edit page. It shows the "in progress" score as being higher, and a rank of #1 on that page, but when I look at the main set page, it shows my set as #3. I looked at one set (Simpson) which still shows as #1, and I know his will still be #1 based on his grades vs. mine. I would love to be #1, but I know it's not going to be once they are all updated.

    I'm going to withhold judgment until I see that all sets have been automatically updated by the program.
    Doug
  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    These post's by perfection and allcoinsrule show what I believe to be true. Even thought I have many top pop's......I feel this scoring change should be retracted.

    I hope some of you with more pull than I have present these concerns to PCGS top people.
  • keyman64keyman64 Posts: 15,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It is just another example of the Registry being a competition of bank accounts, in most cases....BUT, when it comes to complete variety set competitions, like the Mercury Dime set with about 27% of the set composed of varieties....BRAIN POWER, NOT BANK ACCOUNT POWER, can help level the playing field a bit. I had 13 TOP POPS, most of which were obtained with little funds and a lot more BRAIN POWER and HARD WORK. That still has the potential to help even the playing fields a little....but unfortunately, less so now with the new system in place. This new system also has the potential to encourage crack-outs, further destroying the POP REPORT. The + grading system had a huge impact on the POP REPORT and now this will also have an impact. It will serve PCGS' bottom line well when it comes to some sets...and that, my friends, is why I doubt the system will be retracted.
    "If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64
    Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners. :smile:
  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,719 ✭✭✭✭✭
    When the registry set concept was introduced, I did not think it was a very compelling idea in that the focus was about rankings and numbers. Well, it does not have to be about competition. There can be some benefit to just sharing a collection just to show what is possible at many levels.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • OriginalDanOriginalDan Posts: 3,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Something is wrong in how they are calculating your score TDN. Even without the bonus points it should be higher (66.3). Looks like a bug.
  • ConnecticoinConnecticoin Posts: 12,470 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>These post's by perfection and allcoinsrule show what I believe to be true. Even thought I have many top pop's......I feel this scoring change should be retracted.

    I hope some of you with more pull than I have present these concerns to PCGS top people. >>



    I agree with perfection as well -- this will discourage many set builders such as him. Before the change I think the system worked well -- you have to assemble the best "team", not necessarily have the most money. Now the well heeled folks can be like the Yankees and buy a few top-pop "free agents" instead of working hard to assemble the best "team".
  • OldIndianNutKaseOldIndianNutKase Posts: 2,700 ✭✭✭✭✭
    <<The registry will still thrive but the top end has been crushed. People like me will not build sets. Of course I love coins and will still be buying. However my direction has been changed. I will be buying
    beautiful coins in general that are not set related. It is not easy for a company to admit that what they did was a mistake so I doubt that the scoring will be reversed.
    Look at the top sets five years from now and remember this post. You will see many fewer high scoring sets. This scoring change will stop most of the high level competition. It is a "big deal".>>

    image

    At the upper end of the grqading scale absolutes do not seem to exist. There can be a lot of scrutinity as to 67 vs. 68 or 68 vs, 69. And thus, assigning a one or two point preferrence for TOP POP, over and above other designations such as CAM, will unreasonably skew collection score to subjective coin ratings. I find issues of CAM vs DCAM vs RD. I collect IHC proofs and the differential between RD/CAM/RB and the prices is all subject to definiation by the registration committee.

    For me, I never made a goal of having the best of all time set. I just admire great and natural toning for BN or RB, but RD or CAM will score registry points more because of their "natural" color. That is OK with me as I do not share that RD and CAM is genuine for coins over 150 years old. I will just work on my set of IHC proofs that exhibit nice and natural toning knowing that I will never be number 1. And for me that is really OK. A few hundred years from now, who might even know the difference? I would likely have lost the top pop point battle, but my collection will have greater eye appeal, an issue not addressed by the current rating system. Funny how many of the greatest registry sets consist of coins of great eye appea thoughl.

    Perhaps eye appeal should be a much more denomitative factor than is TOP POP.

    OINK


    OINK
  • wondercoinwondercoin Posts: 16,647 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Manofcoins: I recently lot viewed a major auction and was saddened by the quality of the slabbed Silver Washington Quarters. Let's just leave it at that.

    Your coins should do nicely when resubmitted and I will be "all over" some of them at auction as you have world class coins in your collection. I would not be surprised to see some record prices when your set sells.

    Wondercoin.

    Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
  • winkywinky Posts: 1,671
    Anymore news on this subject? It should be left alone and that is why it is taking so long because they can't figure out how to do it.
  • WaterSportWaterSport Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I have said many times on this forum, that while it is PCGS sand box we play in, they could build better public relations by being open and invovling we collectors in some of if not all of the decisions regarding the registry program. Collectively we have a wealth of knowledge and insight on building the sets, the coins in the sets, and the effects of changes to coins added or deleted, sets added or deleted, weighted criteria, etc. There have been numerous changes made - mostly good, many with flaws. There have been many request made to change things ( satin issues come to mind ) that fell on deaf ears. Now - once again we see a change that I can see was well intended, while others criticize.

    Frankly - any change that changes the score of a top player is most likely going to tinkle him/her off. For me the change was advantageous it gave me a couple of points but did not move any of my standings and I have no problem with it. I think it was intended to level the playing field. But historically PCGS has never publically discussed, apologized, or justified a decision that they had made. So don't hold your breadth.

    WS
    Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
  • winkywinky Posts: 1,671
    Thank you for the information, it is helpful. All I wish is that they would do what they said they were going to do. It will add points to my sets also and that will be good. Top sets will always be top sets.
  • onlyroosiesonlyroosies Posts: 3,281 ✭✭✭✭
    TDN

    Your set has updated 67.94 is that better
  • winkywinky Posts: 1,671
    I thought for a moment OR was talking about my set but my sets have never been that high.

    I am tired of all of this and I have deleted 3 of my sets on the registry. I will keep one set just for me to look at and go on with my life as I once knew it to be.

    This way I have allowed someone else to move up and keep up with their set with all the changes that really make no sense to me.

    Have a good day.

    Ken

  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,145 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>TDN

    Your set has updated 67.94 is that better >>



    Ok cool
  • PerfectionPerfection Posts: 180 ✭✭✭
    I do not agree with some of the comments made on this thread. The new scoring was not done to level the playing field. It was done to help
    people with top sets stay at the top. The top set people including myself usually have the lowest pop coins. This is what makes a set a top set.
    Giving top set people more points makes it nearly impossible for someone regardless of how much money they have to compete.

    After this June I am pretty much done with sets. The new scoring took the competition and challenge away. Yes this only applies to the top few sets
    as the lower ones usually do not have many pop one or two's so the new scoring is mostly irrelevant.

    I will restate what is hard to believe: How is it fair for a set with higher average graded coins to be scored lower just because it does not have as many top
    pops as the set above it? This is absurd. The opposite should apply. It is VERY difficult to build a top set when someone else has so many top pops. It means that
    the majority of the other coins in the set have to be better than the set above it. I have three top sets of all time that are no longer top because of this new
    scoring. The coins in them are on average higher than the sets above them. I still cannot believe this has happened and how fair it is.
  • DrPeteDrPete Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭
    Perfection, I feel your pain, but have no answers for you. As you state, the new scoring methodology will hurt collectors like you that are chasing the highest sets. Perhaps PCGS could add a column in the scoring that is based on raw scores of grades without the bonuses, and the current column with the bonuses, but I am not sure that really solves the issues you are having. I had already figured for myself, before the recent scoring changes, that I would never catch Dr. and Mrs. Duckor's set of Barber halves. With the new scoring system, there is no way I will be able to reach number 1 (I don't have over a million dollars to spend upgrading, and many of the pop one coins needed are likely put away, and not available anyway).

    I do look forward to when you post your mint state Barber half set in the next month, and based upon your information, you will put me in second place currently, and third place all-time. That's OK. I love collecting and have fun with it. Good luck with whatever you do.
    Dr. Pete
  • winkywinky Posts: 1,671
    I'm with Perfection, I'm done also right now with the registry. image
  • PerfectionPerfection Posts: 180 ✭✭✭
    Hello Dr. Pete!
    Thanks for your post.
    I had the same idea that you describe which would be to show the score with and without the bonuses. I contacted BJ Searls at PCGS. She has always been wonderful to me.
    She and Cosetta answer my emails fast, fix bugs and are very informative on whatever I ask.

    She said that whoever decided on the scoring changes would not display both scores.
    However they are going to display the scores with and without the bonuses on retired sets only. As of 5/21 some of the retired sets show
    two scores and some do not. Some have both scores the same so they need to fix the code. Hopefully they will do this soon.
    I was close to topping Dr. Duckor but as you state, it is impossible now. I believe I will top his OLD score. I never believed it was possible and now I will not
    be rewarded for it. I try and buy great coins. There are many Barbers that I do not need or might not have purchased if I knew that I could not compete with the
    set above me. I love coins but would rather put the same money into various great coins and not all the dates and mint marks needed for a set if there is no competitive factor.
    I can only spend X, so I concentrated on building my sets. Since that is over I can now buy a gem Buffalo Nickel or a Walking Liberty Half.

    I think am going to post five sets next month and be done with improving them. Of course if I see a great, toned, barber I would still buy it! I also love collecting and would never
    stop.
    ____________________
    P

    .
  • coinman1889coinman1889 Posts: 89 ✭✭
    I can try to understand your point but there may be another point in all this. First of all "No" high grade rated set has all the Top Pop Pop 1 or Pop 2 coins in it. Aside from modern coins that is virtually impossible. Jack Lee was No. 1 Morgan Dollar Basic circulation set for some time now and if you look at his set it has been superseded by two others in one category. In Jack's set although No. 1 he had almost (40+) coins graded above his set. Granted some of the coins were discovered during and afterwards when his set was retired after his passing. The key to the new rating points as I see it is anyone with a Top Pop Pop 1 or Top Pop Pop 2 coin(s) in their set will be awarded extra points for their efforts. So that includes some one's set in say 5th place on the Everyman Morgan dollar basic set (1904-O AU58+) Top Pop Pop 1 coin.
    On the DMPL, PL and First Strike coins I personally think new registry set(s) should be created so as not to force out those previous No. 1 sets just because they don't load up or have loaded up with ultra premium coins back when the sets first started out. As I see it one collector who was tied in First Place has one of his perfect PR70 sitting in No. 6th place all by himself. There needs to be some tweaking done and I'm sure PCGS registry has heard and seen your concerns as well as all mine. I have (21) registry sets and less than 1/2 will be and currently are being rerated. The remaining sets will stand the way they are. Again not every Top Pop set has all the coins that can generate these additional rating points except possibly three sets and those sets in no way effects any sets referred to on this forum. MWH aka: Sourdough image
  • BGBG Posts: 1,762 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • PerfectionPerfection Posts: 180 ✭✭✭
    Hello Coin Man and thanks for your reply.

    Sure there are other top pop coins in sets other than the top set. However there are never enough to overcome the top set's score. Also most of the top pops are of the better dates so you could need 3-4 other top
    pops just to equal a top pop of a better date. Most top sets have enough top pops so that no matter what you can buy you will never beat them. Show me some sets where the 2nd 3rd or 4th set has more top pops than the top set.
    There are not that many top pops where there are one or two coins either.

    This change was done to solidify the current top sets and make sure they could not be beaten. If you do not agree tell me why this change was done? All it does it to reward the already top people.

    Here is another things that makes NO sense. Before the change a deep cam was usually given 2 extra points and a plus a half a point.

    So you could purchase a 67+DCAM and it would be the same as a 69.5 because it got 2.5 extra points. In most cases a 67+DCAM costs more than a 68 and is actually rarer.
    With the new system in most cases a top pop 68 gets extra points and makes it worth more that a 67+DCAM even if it IS a top pop. The 68 trumps it. This makes NO sense.
    So in the past I was able to buy 67DCAMs and beat sets that had 68's or 68cams, No more. PCGS was smart in valuing the DCAMs more but they stopped that.

    I do not know why BG reposted my post. Again this issues only applies to the very top sets. BUT do you think Simpson, Link, Duckor, Coronet and others would have built the sets they did if they did not think they could
    achieve top set status? Probably not. Sets are about the challenge of finding the coins. The only thing I have left that make my sets different is that they are all CAC. Regardless if you are or are not a fan of CAC it is much more
    difficult to build a top 5 set with all CAC coins.
  • DMWJRDMWJR Posts: 5,974 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If I understand you correctly, you are upset because you can't mathematically beat the person in your series who has the best set? Well, join the multitudes. We have often discussed the fact that it takes the right combination of money and opportunity to have finest sets. One of those alone will never get you there.

    I seriously hope you are enjoying the coins you own. It sounds like you have put together some fabulous sets. Do you have a link to them with pictures?
    Doug
  • BarberFanaticBarberFanatic Posts: 671 ✭✭✭✭
    EDIT - Problem has been fixed, thank you PCGS! However, I still wish they wouldn't have made the addition of a Top Pop Bonus as it does nothing but reward the size of one's bank account.
    My current coin collecting interests are: (1) British coins 1838-1970 in XF-AU-UNC, (2) silver type coins in XF-AU with that classic medium gray coloration and exceptional eye appeal.
  • StoogeStooge Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I can completely understand the 2 point bonus for a coin strike designation such as Full Bands, Full head, Full Steps, etc... Even the 1 point for CAM and 2 points for DCAM, but I fail to see the bonus for the First Strike for the basic sets. Here is an example:

    Take the 2008 Silver American Eagle (ASE). There have been a total of 375,000+ graded, of which there are 370,000 in a First Strike labeled holder. I find it to be a head scratcher that there are 98.6% of the total graded eagles to be in a First Strike holder. Don't ya think that is kinda defeating the point in having a First Strike label, not to mention it is basically the same coin.

    My question is this: Why does there need to be a change to any of the registry point systems from what has been working and in place for going on 15+ years?


    Later, Paul.
  • BarberFanaticBarberFanatic Posts: 671 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I can completely understand the 2 point bonus for a coin strike designation such as Full Bands, Full head, Full Steps, etc... Even the 1 point for CAM and 2 points for DCAM, but I fail to see the bonus for the First Strike for the basic sets. Here is an example:

    Take the 2008 Silver American Eagle (ASE). There have been a total of 375,000+ graded, of which there are 370,000 in a First Strike labeled holder. I find it to be a head scratcher that there are 98.6% of the total graded eagles to be in a First Strike holder. Don't ya think that is kinda defeating the point in having a First Strike label, not to mention it is basically the same coin.

    My question is this: Why does there need to be a change to any of the registry point systems from what has been working and in place for going on 15+ years? >>



    +1
    My current coin collecting interests are: (1) British coins 1838-1970 in XF-AU-UNC, (2) silver type coins in XF-AU with that classic medium gray coloration and exceptional eye appeal.
  • morgandollar1878morgandollar1878 Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I'm very disappointed in this decision by PCGS to use this new multiplier. Someone that used to be under me in one set and less than 3/100's above me in another, is now so far above me it will take an additional 20K to catch them and probably another decade to find the coins to get it done. Therefore, after almost 20 years of dealing with this, I'm reassessing my involvement in this charade.

    Peace!

    Steve >>



    I understand how you feel, but the way the registry has been is the same as it always will be. The person that has the most money and best resources is the one that wins. I don't and won't compete to have a "best" set because I never will. I just list my stuff because it let's me see where I compare to other collectors with similar interests. image
    Instagram: nomad_numismatics
  • coinman1889coinman1889 Posts: 89 ✭✭
    I think the concept started out with good intensions but there are a lot of holes causing more questions than answers right now. If First Strikes, Full Bands and DMPL and PL as well as other type condition coins deserve bonus points then why not create a set where only these type coins can compete and give bonus points to Top Pop Pop 1 and Top Pop Pop 2 coins? As stated earlier not every No. #1 set has all the premium coins in them. They have enough high-end coins some of which are Top Pop Pop 1 & 2s but new discoveries as seen in other sets proves they found coins worth bonus points too. At this point it looks like PCGS is back to square one. The concept is great for those with these type coins but it is also allowing other sets to advance themselves upward too. Maybe after all the dust settles down the registry will look a little different from what is posted today (05/31/2015). In the mean time keep asking questions. MWH
  • PerfectionPerfection Posts: 180 ✭✭✭
    To Coinman: It does not matter that sets lower than the first two can buy top pop coins. To be a top set means that the set usually has MANY of them. A top set gets to the top by having
    the rarest low pop coins. Giving them even more points make absolutely NO sense. It was done to help people who do not need the help. If you are number two or three there is almost NO chance to get to number one. Sure you can get some tops pops but NEVER enough. I should know.
    Look at MS Indians, Proof Indians, Proof Lib Nickels, MS Barber halves,.............I can go on and on. No shot to beat them regardless of how much money you have.

    To: Morgan Dollar: Not exactly true. I have three sets that have overall higher scoring coins that the sets above me. However because PCGS gave the new bonuses, my better
    sets are now worth less. Seems to be a major contradiction. How can a set with better coins be worth less than another set?

    To Barber Fanatic: There did not need to change after 15 years. The registry was great. The change ONLY HELPED the very top people. Senseless.
    You are correct. PCGS made certain parts of the registry now meaningless. I am also done buying coins to increase scores after June. Sure if I love a coin
    and it happens to fit into my sets so be it. There is no longer a reason to buy all dates, mint marks and plus coins just to make sets.

    To DMWJR: I respectfully do not agree with you. It is not about money or ego. I will repeat what I said above. A set with higher coins should be number one. Bonuses
    for top pops alters this. I understand bonuses for cams, dcams etc, These coins are different. The pop bonus is for the SAME coin. Makes no sense.
    Another example is the 67DCAM two point bonus making it like a 69. PCGS did this because they realized that a 67DCAM in many cases is harder to
    find and more expensive than a 68. However now the 68 gets more points if it and the 67DCAM are both pop 1's. Again it makes no sense. The DCAM two point
    bonus should be applied first and therefore the 67DCAM if POP 1 should get the bonus.

    One posted set example is my PR Morgan set. Without the top pop bonuses it is higher than the Simpson set. So it is fair that I worked for eight years to
    build the top set of all time and off of a sudden they give people top pop bonuses and I am now second? Mr. Simpson even has five 69's that I was
    still able to beat but they all got the top pop bonuses. At the very least PCGS should display both scores, with and without the bonuses.



  • RadioContestKingRadioContestKing Posts: 3,002 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>To Coinman: It does not matter that sets lower than the first two can buy top pop coins. To be a top set means that the set usually has MANY of them. A top set gets to the top by having
    the rarest low pop coins. Giving them even more points make absolutely NO sense. It was done to help people who do not need the help. If you are number two or three there is almost NO chance to get to number one. Sure you can get some tops pops but NEVER enough. I should know.
    Look at MS Indians, Proof Indians, Proof Lib Nickels, MS Barber halves,.............I can go on and on. No shot to beat them regardless of how much money you have.

    To: Morgan Dollar: Not exactly true. I have three sets that have overall higher scoring coins that the sets above me. However because PCGS gave the new bonuses, my better
    sets are now worth less. Seems to be a major contradiction. How can a set with better coins be worth less than another set?

    To Barber Fanatic: There did not need to change after 15 years. The registry was great. The change ONLY HELPED the very top people. Senseless.
    You are correct. PCGS made certain parts of the registry now meaningless. I am also done buying coins to increase scores after June. Sure if I love a coin
    and it happens to fit into my sets so be it. There is no longer a reason to buy all dates, mint marks and plus coins just to make sets.

    To DMWJR: I respectfully do not agree with you. It is not about money or ego. I will repeat what I said above. A set with higher coins should be number one. Bonuses
    for top pops alters this. I understand bonuses for cams, dcams etc, These coins are different. The pop bonus is for the SAME coin. Makes no sense.
    Another example is the 67DCAM two point bonus making it like a 69. PCGS did this because they realized that a 67DCAM in many cases is harder to
    find and more expensive than a 68. However now the 68 gets more points if it and the 67DCAM are both pop 1's. Again it makes no sense. The DCAM two point
    bonus should be applied first and therefore the 67DCAM if POP 1 should get the bonus.

    One posted set example is my PR Morgan set. Without the top pop bonuses it is higher than the Simpson set. So it is fair that I worked for eight years to
    build the top set of all time and off of a sudden they give people top pop bonuses and I am now second? Mr. Simpson even has five 69's that I was
    still able to beat but they all got the top pop bonuses. At the very least PCGS should display both scores, with and without the bonuses. >>

    image I am just stopping in to say I agree with everything you have said. I have shut down over 10 of my MS sets and have not bought another coin since January.

    I will no longer spend any money sending in coins to be graded. I would also like to add that without the number 2 thru whatever sets Number 1 will mean nothing. Also its funny that not one person from pcgs has tried to explain there reasoning in changing the rules before the awards in June.

    Its sad that they feel that the rest of us collectors mean nothing to the registry program. Why they did not take the time to review the weight of each coin in these sets and change those they took the easy road and just awarded more points to Top Pops.

    After reading there going to give bonus points for First strike coins its time to move on. When I can send a coin in and it comes back a MS 64 and crack it out and resubmit 3 weeks later and it goes up two points my suggestion is to maybe spend more time teaching the graders how to grade instead of these Wild changes.

    I would also suggest to any newbies collect what you like and do not get caught up in the registry program. Spend the money on Family and Friends and enjoying lifes many other pleasures. image
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=UayFm2yCHV8
    I used to be famous now I just collect coins.


    Link to My Registry Set.

    https://pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-specialty-sets/washington-quarters-complete-variety-set-circulation-strikes-1932-1964/publishedset/78469

    Varieties Are The Spice Of LIFE and Thanks to Those who teach us what to search For.
  • PerfectionPerfection Posts: 180 ✭✭✭

    To 1Tommy:

    Sorry to hear you will no longer be working on sets. You are correct in that what PCGS did was to cement the top sets and stopped
    almost all competition to catch them. I would have tried to come up with changes to help the masses and not just a few dozen
    people who were already on top. I still cannot comprehend why they spent the time and resources do change the top pop scoring.
    Unless there is more and more gradeflation no one will ever be able to build a top set in most categories.

    You mention crack out issues. Grading services make a good part of their money on grading so it is not in their bests interest to stop the crack out game.
    It is 100% possible to know if a coin has been graded before as each coin is unique. Software and the right scanner can do this. However that
    would stop thousands of submissions each month. I almost only buy CAC or plus graded coins as I want coins at the top end of the grade scale.

  • WaterSportWaterSport Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well said 1tommy. If Anybody goes to the PCGS Luncheon and they discuss this topic, we would love to hear from you. BTW, in case no one noticed, I see that even retired sets got extra points and moved them ahead active sets.

    WS
    Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
Sign In or Register to comment.