Should Simpson's Registry Sets have been retired and recreated anew?

Zoins

I was recently looking at the PCGS Registry Set and was surprised to see Bob Simpson's set with less completion than John Wilkison's even though Bob purchased John's sets.

Bob's set is currently at just 30.65% completion while John's is retired at 56.45% completion.

Now, we know Bob has been cutting back, but should his Registry Set collections been "frozen" at their height for the "All-Time Highest" rankings?

https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-patterns/complete-sets/complete-gold-patterns/1127

Zoins

Also of note is that Wilkison's set is missing a lot of cert numbers and TrueViews. For example, this listing has a TV for Simpson but not Wilkison.

Ideally, it seems like there should be some effort to add back the images / certs for Wilkison's coins, but it seems like that would need to be a labour of love type of activity.

Floridafacelifter

I agree that under “All-Time Finest” any set should be frozen at their all time highest status, and that the “Current Finest” category could show the dwindling collection.

Even more of a mess over at the NGC Registry- Simpson’s Proof Morgan set has not been changed and show all of his coins in NGC holders even though all of these coins were crossed to PCGS many years ago.

I pointed this out to NGC- how can he have the #2 set if all of these coins have been crossed to PCGS and don’t exist in NGC holders any more? They didn’t care- which is one of the many reasons I made the switch to PCGS.

Example- coin as it exists in current holder

And as it appears today in the NGC Registry

Zoins

@Floridafacelifter said:
I agree that under “All-Time Finest” any set should be frozen at their all time highest status, and that the “Current Finest” category could show the dwindling collection.

Even more of a mess over at the NGC Registry- Simpson’s Proof Morgan set has not been changed and show all of his coins in NGC holders even though all of these coins were crossed to PCGS many years ago.

I pointed this out to NGC- how can he have the #2 set if all of these coins have been crossed to PCGS and don’t exist in NGC holders any more? They didn’t care- which is one of the many reasons I made the switch to PCGS.

Example- coin as it exists in current holder

And as it appears today in the NGC Registry

I somewhat think this is ok.

Conceptually, I think a coin should be able to have multiple grades from multiple TPGs at one time. Having a single slab is a physical issue, but grades are a number and not physical. I don't see a reason to not use the NGC grade even though the coin is no longer in a NGC slab.

Of course, I'm a "more information is good" kind of person.

Floridafacelifter

I somewhat think this is ok.

Conceptually, I think a coin should be able to have multiple grades from multiple TPGs at one time. Having a single slab is a physical issue, but grades are a number and not physical. I don't see a reason to not use the NGC grade even though the coin is no longer in a NGC slab.

Of course, I'm a "more information is good" kind of person.

My biggest problem with it is that it messes with the population reports. PR69 Morgans are rare birds indeed- and these five 69s are counted in the NGC population and in the PCGS population, inflating the number of 69s well above the true number out there. I think in the spirit of transparency he should have reported the crossovers and they should have been removed from the NGC population reports and thus from the Registry.