What's the limit?

DAM

Oops! Stupid enter key!

In the past few months there have been a large number of sets added. What do you think the high mark for sets will be? 5000? 7000? 10,000?

I remember watching the number approach 2000 and thought that was high. Now we're lookin toward the 3500 level.

DAM

STOCKFORD

WELL, right now it only takes one coin to make a set be registered. At that mark 10,000 sets will be easy to obtain.

CarlWohlforth

Plus there are lots of new sets. It is easy to slice and dice my type set into 5 or more registries, though I don't list all that I could.

DAM

I wonder if the question would be better put... How many Complete Sets either All Time Finest or Current Finest do you invision, say within a two year period. Are collectors content listing "works in progress" or are the large percentage trying to complete their sets?

CarlWohlforth

We see lots of people working on sets in progress. Every once in a while up pops a complete or nearly complete set. So there are both kinds of people. My gut feel is there are more people posting partial sets than those holding back. I guess many of them don't finish before demands of life force them to sell or they change interests.

Over time I guess we should see a steady increase in sets registered. I agree with those who say changes in our pocket change are still creating new collectors. New collectors might be more computer savy so might be more inclined to register. Old time collectors may also become more computer savy so may also register new sets in the future.

So my guess is there will be 7,000 sets by the end of 2003. Why? Why not? I just pulled a number out of the air...

braddick

The bigger question: What will be the high mark of "meaningfull" sets?
No flames! I'm intitled to ask as most, if not ALL my Registries are anything but meaningful!

Fairlaneman

Pat:

You Seem a Little Gun Shy Lately.

Any way I agree with You. Some of these Sets that have seen No Additions, Up-Grades or Anything should get Deleted. Seems a Person just Stopped By and Added One Coin never to Return Again. Clutter in My Book.

Ken

dbldie55

Two ways to define meaningful. Of course, using quality of coins in the set for the definition is dependent on the person choosing what is meaningful. (while my sets will never be the finest, they will be meaningful to me) I like to think of percent completed as a measure of meaningful sets. Of the 3100+ sets, how many are 50%+, 75%+ etc. This is a better measure than raw number of sets listed.

DAM

Ken,

Do you know if PCGS imposes a "use it or lose it" policy regarding inactive sets? That would clean up some of the clutter, eventually. If they don't, perhaps they should consider it if a set has been inactive for say, 12-18 months. Some collectors might need that long to gather funds to make their next purchase. A courtesy email notifying the Set owner should precede any removal, too.

Fairlaneman

IMO any Set that has Seen Additions or Up-Grades is a Meaningful Set. Young Collectors on the Whole probably Do Not have Ton's of Money so of course Sets with Small Completion Numbers will show up. We for sure should Not discourage Collectors just because a Set is Not 50% or 75% Complete.

A Set that is Not Meaningful is One that has Sat with One Coin Period for a Year or Longer. IMHO.

howie08

DAM : I don't think there's a time period for dis-solution . The reason I say this is that I have quite a few different sets listed , although most are over 30% complete , and quite a few 100 % complete. To upgrade a 100 % complete set is often difficult ( finanacially ) especially when you're working on other sets. Also , when you're working on gold sets , it may take some time to be able to add to these sets. Basically , I watch the trends of the coins I'm collecting , and if I can find " good " deals in some sets , I pursue those and let the others sit until the market swings back for them. I think many new collectors are doing works in progress , and may not pursue this hobby as avidly as some of the rest of us do , so their sets may look inactive. In the long run , what does this hurt ? The pages may be cluttered , especially towards the bottom 1/4 , so the list just gets longer. Personally , I wouldn't want to see a time limit. If nothing else , it gives you a record of your coins, grades and cert numbers that's removed from your home , so in case of a catasrophe , you could still retrieve them. Just a thought .
Howie

Russ

Why would a humble set with a handful of coins be any less meaningful then a 100% set of rich person coins?

Russ, NCNE

braddick

Fairlaneman- I'm trying not to be gun shy. I just know whenever it is brought up about somehow regulating the Registry (sets registered/ minimum requirements for Registry/ and on...) it is a touchy subject.

Registries should be fun. Each individual defines "fun" the way they see fit. Of course, having a top five All Time Finest is the ultimate fun (!), others, like me, don't mind being mid pack with coins we find to be challenging (like the colorfully toned Ikes and such) yet don't register the largest 'points' on the Registry scale.

I'd hate to see limitations placed on this, but the closest idea I've seen is the one supported on this Thread and that is inactive sets, over a period of time, could be eliminated by PCGS (after warning letters/emails to the Registrant).

Fairlaneman

Pat:

Your Question was Very logical to Me and I can Give a Example of a Non-Meaningful Set. I have been here for 9 or 10 Months and One Set (???) in the Merc Registry has One Coin and has Just been Sitting there. IMO with the Lack of Participation Shown the Owner Should Receive a Email to See if He wants to Continue Being a Registry Member.

Russ:

I do not think that is what is being Referred to with some of these Posts. The One Coin Sets that Stay Idle for a Year or Better are the One's being Talked about.

Ken

Russ

Ken,

The problem with that is that there can be an infinite variety of reasons why a set might sit with one coin for an extended period. Perhaps other interests have taken precedence, and the owner will be coming back to the set. Perhaps they are only able to afford a coin or two a year. Perhaps they are brand new to collecting and have several sets going.

There are just too many variables to establish some arbitrary rule that might preclude some from participating. Unless, of course, that is the goal of the registry? To only allow those deemed "worthy" by the experienced collecting community? The idea smacks of elitism, and it occurs to me that this is not helpful to the growth of the hobby.

Russ, NCNE

braddick

Russ, I get where you are coming from, but like milk, the Registry should have an expiration if after an extended period of time NOTHING is going on with the "set".
Remember too, after multiples of emails from PCGS warning of the pending deletion there is nothing stopping the individual from spending the two minutes (or less) to re-register the coin if he is still interested.

Again, this is from someone who has pretty humble Registries. There is no distinction between the "rich man's sets" and all the rest of us. It is the "set" that is not and has not been active for a long (read: 18 months!) period of time that is being referenced and spoken of here.

gmarguli

Given the rate at which PCGS is breaking real sets into subsets, the number of sets is unlimited. Probably 90% of the registered sets could be removed without anyone other than the owners noticing.

Russ

As a newbie to the hobby, I look at everything from a newbie perpective. Now, if, as a newbie, I registered a coin or two for a set and, for one reason or another, didn't get back to the set for an extended period of time, then received a "we're dumping you" letter from PCGS, I just might say screw this hobby, and never come back.

Now, frankly, in my case, I wouldn't run off because that's not the way I react. But, I'm sure there are plenty that would and would so so with a long-term bad taste in their mouth.

Russ, NCNE

izzy452

I feel that if a set is not upgraded in 12 months and is less than 20% complete should be moved to an inactive registry set


Walt

dbldie55

If you are going to dump the hobby because you had a one coin set sitting for over a year and it was removed, then the hobby is probably better off without you.

But, it is not in the best interest of PCGS to remove these sets, in fact they should encourage them. Then they can claim x number of sets with y rate of growth. Look at the current climb in number of sets, most of which are meaningless to anyone other than the owner. Plus, as they add the new sub-sets, the number of overall sets grow, but the actual number of coins registered does not. PCGS can market the numbers without ever disclosing that the sets mean nothing to the actual growth of the hobby.

Besides, who cares how many one coin sets there are? I would like to know how many sets fall in the 50%+ and 75%+ completed range for each of the different registry sets (perhaps after the registry set has been in existance for a while, as the new sets this would not apply)

It would also be nice to know how many coins are registered and how many unique coins are registered (so many can be in multiple sets).

DAM

Russ

<< <i>If you are going to dump the hobby because you had a one coin set sitting for over a year and it was removed, then the hobby is probably better off without you. >>



That attitude will certainly encourage growth.

Russ, NCNE

DAM

I don't think the Registry needs to establish collectors by "class". If you have the money you'll finish your set(s) long before, and in higher grades than someone who doesn't have the available funds. I sense there is frustration toward a set that contains one coin and sits there for months and months, without additional coins added.

This all started with a discussion about the number of sets currently listed and it was said that a number of sets only contained one or two coins. And it was never said, or implied that those sets were any less important. At least I didn't take it that way.

DAM

gmarguli

Those sets are less important. They are meaningless. They aren't even sets. ONE coin is a set? Since when?

Russ

<< <i>And it was never said, or implied that those sets were any less important. >>



I think you need to read the thread again.

Russ, NCNE

dbldie55

I thought the registry was a subset of the hobby (a small one at that), I guess it is now to the point where people feel it is the other way.

DAM

Russ,

I did reread the thread, and I don't see it. There was mention of one coin sets, and what collectors were going to do with them. But I didn't see what I would consider anyone making a claim that anyone's set, with consideration to number of coins, was less important than someone elses. Unless you're refering to what Greg said. And perhaps "I" misunderstood. I took it as a joke. Maybe it wasn't. If it was or wasn't isn't for me to say.

DAM