Let Us Discuss The PCGS Ratings System and Coins Within Which Have Ratings That Are Near Insanity

JonJet

I cannot imagine or come to a conclusion the explain the PCGS Ratings on some coins

Why doesn't the same exact Certification Number have the same Rating in every Proof Set it appears?

The Best possible Grade is PR70DCAM - which we will almost certainly agree deserves a 71 Rating...simply because there are PR70 rated coins and there needs to be a distinction and rating separation for the variety of Grades

However...there are Proof Sets where a single PR70DCAM coin gets a Rating of over 200 - this seems entirely subjective and near insanity - the exact same Cert gets a 71 or 74 in a different Proof Set

No single coin deserves a Rating above 71 - so a Perfect Proof Set containing coins that are all PR70DCAM should get a Perfect Rating of 71.0000 - Add the coin Ratings - Divide by the number of coins in the Proof Set - the result is the Set Rating

Simple and Mathematical

No Drama - No Cost Bonus - No Production Value Added - No Availability Bonus - No Specialty Label Value

wondercoin

I have never formally asked PCGS to do so, but I believe PCGS should probably award an extra point for First Strike and either and extra point or two points for FDI. Why? Because these designations are highly desirable to PCGS collectors, and collectors (and dealers) jump through many hoops (submitting sealed boxes, etc) to get these designations; including paying PCGS substantially more money for the assigned designations. If these designations are tough to obtain (as they are) and PCGS charges more money to obtain them, why shouldn’t PCGS make the coins more desirable in their Registries? Frankly, it’s a no brainer for PCGS. YES?

Just my 2 cents.

Wondercoin

edited to add- an extra point for a signature label would be great marketing for PCGS as well for the same idea- they charge an extra fee for these signature labels. Make them more desirable for registry purposes too!

JonJet

I believe that FDOI and FS should get a bit of an edge...but it should be a system that allows "the math" to reign supreme

There is no formal mathematical formula...and we just have to "guess and by golly pray" that the decimal fractions are correct in every Rating

wondercoin

Jonjet- that seems very reasonable.

Wondercoin

JonJet

If the Rating System was purely mathematical...it would award the same value to every Grade...and only the FDOI and FS coins would get a "label advantage"

It's pretty simple too...assign a decimal equivalent to every grade and be done...the math gives the resulting rating for each coin and the Set

Complete Sets in PR70DCAM/PR70 Rev PR should get the Top Rank regardless of label...but the added decimal calculations could be used to determine the earned position/spot in the Rankings

WAYNEAS

IMHO,
PCGS should only grade the coin and not the label attached to it.
A PR70DCAM would and should garner a 71.0 rating in all cases and registry sets.

FDOI, FIRST STRIKE and Signature coins already carry a premium in the selling and buying price.
By adding additional points for these labels, it becomes a marketing ploy to drive up profit for sellers.
The everyday collector has no ability to purchase FDOI coins directly from the mint and shipped to our host for grading.
They can only acquire them from a second party selling them.

I buy the grade and not the label.

My PR70 DCAM is the same as your PR70 DCAM in set rankings.

Adding label points opens Pandora's Box.
Next, we will be giving extra registry points for vintage holders.
We have just seen what a special label can do to registry set rankings.
The 2021 proof set had a pop 1 Label and was awarded a .053 increase in rankings tanking the other #1 sets to the #2 position. The coin was a 2021 S North Carolina Innovation dollar that was graded PR70 DCAM.
Where do we stop?
Wayne

JonJet

@WAYNEAS

The issue with the 2021 Proof Set was not because of a FS or FDOI Label...it was a Specialty Label and not a standard issue for coins each year

The FDOI and FS labels are standards for the coins presented for grading within 30 days each year...and I solidly believe those coins do deserve some type of recognition within Set Registry

I believe that awarding a numeric value to every coin is the best way to eliminate these silly bonuses that have invaded the Set Registry with inflated Rating numbers and jumbled the ATF Rankings

Personally...I prefer and strive to buy the First Strike label...but I have a handful of FDOI labels too

Regardless of the label...any Set that achieves perfection should receive the #1 Rank

I am currently working on a presentation to fix this...which is why I started this topic

Your comments have made Me realize that I need to revise it slightly

Martin

Registry sets SHOULD be about the coin not the holder. A coin graded at any grade should be the same quality regardless of when I was submitted. Or perceived to be first strike. It could be the last coin struck on a Particular set of dies. And a coin struck months later could actually be the first coin off a die set. Grade the coins how they are. Put what ever you want on a the label but when you are ranking coin sets by quality the only thing that counts in the quality of the coin is the grade

Martin

JonJet

@Martin said:
Registry sets SHOULD be about the coin not the holder. A coin graded at any grade should be the same quality regardless of when I was submitted. Or perceived to be first strike. It could be the last coin struck on a Particular set of dies. And a coin struck months later could actually be the first coin off a die set. Grade the coins how they are. Put what ever you want on a the label but when you are ranking coin sets by quality the only thing that counts in the quality of the coin is the grade

Martin

And I agree...however...there are many many PR70DCAM coins that have Ratings above 200 - that is the whole purpose of the topic

I can see no reason at all for any coin to get a Rating above 71 - and the same coin in another Proof Set has a different Rating

FDOI and FS labels are a sidetrack here...with reference to a recent issue in the 2021 Proof Set that just got fixed a few days ago with the addition of a Pop 1 coin Specialty Label taking the Top ATF Spot

The Whole Point - the Rating system is flawed and no PR70DCAM should have a much higher Rating - because it's the Rating that determines the Ranking - and that is the major issue

Martin

@JonJet i was mainly commenting on wondercoins opinion of grade inserts have weigh in the sets. I don’t do the modern collecting. So I’m not sure how a pf70dcam scores over 71 in some sets o know there are weights and bonus for certain things. But like I said I don’t collect modern proofs

Thanks
Martin

WAYNEAS

@Martin
Here is what we are trying to get fixed.

Note that the serial number used is the same for different sets.

The coin rating is in bold type.

Kennedy Half Dollars with Major Varieties, Proof (1964-Present)
83677164 1992-S SILVER 96834 1992-S 50C Silver PR70DCAM 71.00 1363 0

Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Silver Set, Proof (1964, 1992-Present)
83677164 1992-S SILVER 96834 1992-S 50C Silver PR70DCAM 74.00 1363 0

Here is another coin with at least two different ratings.

Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Silver Set, Proof (1964, 1992-Present)
83473090 1997-S 96848 1997-S 50C Silver PR70DCAM 222.00 1259 0 1259 0

Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Set, Proof (1964-Present)
83473090 1997-S Silver 96848 1997-S 50C Silver PR70DCAM 71.00 1259 1259 0

Hope this helps.
Wayne

MetroD

@JonJet

Interesting topic. Thanks for posting about it.

I am NOT a 'registry set' guru, but am trying to learn. If I understand correctly, you are in favor of eliminating "weighted sets".

JonJet

We are trying to get every coin that is PR70DCAM given a Rating of 71 - in any Set the Cert appears

Anything less earns a lesser amount

MetroD

@JonJet said:
We are trying to get every coin that is PR70DCAM given a Rating of 71 - in any Set the Cert appears

Anything less earns a lesser amount

Got it.

So, in the case of:
~ 83677164, no "DC Bonus" in Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Silver Set, Proof (1964, 1992-Present);
~ 83473090, no "DC Bonus" and no "weight = 3.00" in Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Silver Set, Proof (1964, 1992-Present)

Thanks for the response.

JonJet

Here's a snip of just a few of the numbers we are trying to get changed

WAYNEAS

Simplifying further,

Kennedy Half Dollars with Major Varieties, Proof (1964-Present)
Cert#83677164 in PR70DCAM has a rating of 71.0.

and in this set the same coin has a different rating

Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Silver Set, Proof (1964, 1992-Present)
Cert#83677164 in PR70DCAM has a rating of 74.00.

In these sets

Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Set, Proof (1964-Present)
Cert#83473090 PR70DCAM has a rating of 71.00.

and in this set the same coin also has a different rating

Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Silver Set, Proof (1964, 1992-Present)
Cert#83473090 PR70DCAM has a rating of 222.00.

They should have the same ratings of 71.00 no matter what set they are included in.
They have extreme differences set to set.

Wayne

JonJet

In much simpler terms...here's an example far easier to understand the issue we are trying to correct...

2014 Proof Set With Gold
24 coins - all PR70DCAM
23 coins are Rating 71
1 Coin (the gold) is rating 142

23 x 71 = 1633
142 x 1 = 142

1775 divided by 24 = 73.958333 ?????

The Finest Possible Set Rating is 71.000 - cuz the "Divisor" is 25 ??? There are only 24 coins !!

How can the math be correct if the resulting computation is flawed?

How can we trust that ANY rating numbers we see in Set Registry are correct if simple math is incorrect?

The system of Ratings needs to match the Math - so we can check/verify/confirm the Rating

Coins x Rating / Coins = Set Rating - Period - End Of Story - Presto Finito - Finished

MetroD

@WAYNEAS said:
Simplifying further,

Kennedy Half Dollars with Major Varieties, Proof (1964-Present)
Cert#83677164 in PR70DCAM has a rating of 71.0.

and in this set the same coin has a different rating

Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Silver Set, Proof (1964, 1992-Present)
Cert#83677164 in PR70DCAM has a rating of 74.00.

In these sets

Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Set, Proof (1964-Present)
Cert#83473090 PR70DCAM has a rating of 71.00.

and in this set the same coin also has a different rating

Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Silver Set, Proof (1964, 1992-Present)
Cert#83473090 PR70DCAM has a rating of 222.00.

They should have the same ratings of 71.00 no matter what set they are included in.
They have extreme differences set to set.

Wayne

Yes, sir. Same examples from your prior post (i.e., coins, sets, and ratings).

My last post was designed to highlight the 'adjustments' that yielded the different ratings. If I interpret the information correctly, it is "Weight" and/or "DC Bonus" for your examples.

Consider '83473090/1997-S'. In:
~ "Basic Set, Proof (1964 - Present)", "Weight" = 1.0 and "DC Bonus" = 0. Link
~ "Basic Silver Set, Proof (1964, 1992 - Present)", "Weight" = 3.0 and "DC Bonus" = 3. Link

The former rating is 71. { (Base + "DC Bonus") * "Weight" = (71 + 0) * 1 = 71}
The latter rating is 222. { (Base + "DC Bonus") * "Weight" = (71 + 3) * 3 = 222}

I understand that you would like the same coin to have the same rating regardless of set. Since this is not currently the case, I thought that exploring the causes of the differences would be beneficial.

Again, I am a registry set novice, and am attempting to learn. As such, my analysis could be totally wrong. Notwithstanding, I believe that attempting to understand the current approach is value-added. In short, this knowledge could help you make a case for a change.

Best of luck with your efforts.

MetroD

@JonJet said:
In much simpler terms...here's an example far easier to understand the issue we are trying to correct...

2014 Proof Set With Gold
24 coins - all PR70DCAM
23 coins are Rating 71
1 Coin (the gold) is rating 142

23 x 71 = 1633
142 x 1 = 142

1775 divided by 24 = 73.958333 ?????

The Finest Possible Set Rating is 71.000 - cuz the "Divisor" is 25 ??? There are only 24 coins !!

How can the math be correct if the resulting computation is flawed?

How can we trust that ANY rating numbers we see in Set Registry are correct if simple math is incorrect?

The system of Ratings needs to match the Math - so we can check/verify/confirm the Rating

Coins x Rating / Coins = Set Rating - Period - End Of Story - Presto Finito - Finished

Per the registry set rules, the divisor for a weighted set is the total of the coin weights.

Source

In the case of "2014 Proof Set with Gold", there are 24 items, but the divisor is 25 because "2014-W 50C Gold" has a "weight" of 2.0. Link

JonJet

Why is a PR70DCAM coin even weighted? It's the best possible grade

Not slightly less than double-best

Not even double-best

Not triple-best and greater

It's just a coin - graded perfect - and deserves 71 - No More - No Less

Promotions - Giveaways - Contests - Events - Labels - Pedigrees - Bonus - Summersault - CircleJump - DoThehokeyPokey and Bang Head on Wall while tapping head and rubbing tummy

All inconsequential to the coin itself

Perfect is PR70DCAM - No coin can earn more based on the Sheldon Scale

Goldminers

I believe some folks are not understanding the weighting component for rating coins in the registry. As @MetroD correctly pointed out above, the math used by PCGS is correct for weighted sets.

Weighting is used to indicate some level of demand, rarity, population, price, or some combination of factors that show a certain coin or medal is more challenging to collect than another coin of the same grade. Weightings can be all the way to 10 times the "normal" rating for very rare coins or medals. This decision is somewhat subjective, and in some examples, I feel there is a need to revise them if availability, populations, or other factors change over time.

Some sets contain gold, silver and bronze coins. For example, a gold coin or medal with a mintage of only 50 has been assigned a weighting of 10 due to its rarity, but the bronze example had a mintage of 10,000 so it gets a weighting of 1. Even if both are 70's, the gold example is certainly worth more to a collector of that set, than the bronze. This is why weightings have been used, and they are an effective and mathematically correct method for the purpose of a registry.

So, @JonJet, in some of the above examples where you question a rating of 142 vs 71 for the exact same PR70DCAM grade, it is really the weighting factor of 2 for one coin vs the other that you are questioning.

It all really gets complicated because there is also an additional bonus point for CA (CAM) and 2 for DC (DCAM) assigned to some coins or registry sets, yet other registry sets do not assign any extra value for CA or DC. This is also somewhat subjective. A modern proof is almost always a DCAM and IMO should not receive any additional bonus for a DCAM, but for a Franklin half dollar, a DCAM can be quite rare and worthy of bonus points. Then there are FB, FBL, etc., which also receive extra bonus points or a separate set entirely.

If labels such as FS, FDOI, Advance Release, signature, specialty, CAC, etc., are given extra bonus points, it would exacerbate the situation.

In most cases, looking at classic coins, as well as moderns, the current system is reasonable to me as long as the weightings are reviewed when they are questioned, and updated if needed. I would not be in favor of complicating it with assigning extra bonus points for different labels. Separate sets can and have been established for FS, signatures, CAC, etc., and that is a way to give them the extra attention they deserve.

MetroD

@Goldminers

EXCELLENT explanation of the "weights" and "bonuses".

It was very helpful. Thank you for taking the time to post it.

Goldminers

I would add that for every PCGS registry set the explanation of the math is available on the public page and clearly shown by clicking on the blue "set composite" icon on the upper right which shows the extra criteria for computing the rating.

I should add that there are sets with "No Suffix" and "CA Deduction" points as well. Those are especially difficult to understand. My modern commemorative proof set composition has these for a few coins and I can't understand why those particular coins were selected yet either.

There are sets where I do agree that the weightings and bonus points should be reviewed, as some seem to be quite inconsistent.

ProofCollection

Wondercoin makes some good points, but in the end we are here for COIN collecting, not slab or label collecting. Now if we want to make a label registry set where the emphasis is on having or owning all of the different labels and signatures, that might be appropriate to do there but I'm not personally interested in such things.

A few exceptions may be warranted, such as the 2008 Gold Buffalo coins which command great premiums (sometimes $1000's) for first strike. But on the other hand I would disagree with making a collector who wants the #1 position chase down a special first day show-issued label.

Some of the weightings may need to be reconsidered over time, like the Proof Kennedy halves where some of those PR70DCAM halves used to get hundreds of dollars are now worth less than $50 as clearly the populations have changed.

JonJet

@ProofCollection said:
Some of the weightings may need to be reconsidered over time, like the Proof Kennedy halves where some of those PR70DCAM halves used to get hundreds of dollars are now worth less than $50 as clearly the populations have changed.

FINALLY...someone gets the purpose of the topic

Review and Reconsider the Insane Ratings

Dan50

Crap, now my heads upside down. I love the Kennedys, but will continue to keep them to myself.

JonJet

@Dan50 said:
Crap, now my heads upside down. I love the Kennedys, but will continue to keep them to myself.

I was a bit older than JFK's son...seen saluting the coffin as it passed by Him draped with the US Flag...I stood and saluted in the living room of My home while watching on B/W TV listening to Walter Cronkite

We all love the Kennedy Halves...but many of Us think the Ratings need to be updated

WAYNEAS

@JonJet said:

@Dan50 said:

We all love the Kennedy Halves...but many of Us think the Ratings need to be updated.

And that would be me!
I have on a guess, 20+ Kennedy registry sets.
I would really like them to examine the ratings on these coins.
IMO
Many coins are overrated and even a few underrated.
Wayne

JonJet

@WAYNEAS said:

@JonJet said:

@Dan50 said:

We all love the Kennedy Halves...but many of Us think the Ratings need to be updated.

And that would be me!
I have on a guess, 20+ Kennedy registry sets.
I would really like them to examine the ratings on these coins.
IMO
Many coins are overrated and even a few underrated.
Wayne

I just checked Your Sets...I count 24 Kennedy Sets

WAYNEAS

@JonJet said:

@WAYNEAS said:

@JonJet said:

@Dan50 said:

We all love the Kennedy Halves...but many of Us think the Ratings need to be updated.

And that would be me!
I have on a guess, 20+ Kennedy registry sets.
I would really like them to examine the ratings on these coins.
IMO
Many coins are overrated and even a few underrated.
Wayne

I just checked Your Sets...I count 24 Kennedy Sets

I was too lazy to go and count. LOL
Wayne

JonJet

I hadda count twice - for some strange reason one Set has "Everyman" as the first word...which throws a monkey-wrench at the option to look for Kennedy first

There should be an Alphabetical/Numerical Sort Option...but the Specialty Set naming still makes it a manual process

JonJet

Anyone ready for a New Topic? I have a series of emails touting the "why nots" that make no sense - and My last reply hasn't had a response in 6 days

I think after a week that Collector Input might be beneficial...especially when it's Our Money paying for it

Edit: This issue has been addressed by the Price Guide Guru and no further discussion is needed at this time

Tom147

I don't agree that FDOI and FS should have additional points added to the registry sets. Seen it many times here on the Forum, buy the coin, not the label. So, does that mean we're getting away from that ?

JonJet

Currently there is nothing extra for the FS and FDOI labels

I don't think it's worth points...but there really should be some sort of recognition

Clifs_Proofs

@JonJet said:
Currently there is nothing extra for the FS and FDOI labels

I don't think it's worth points...but there really should be some sort of recognition

I wish you were correct and that there is nothing extra for the FS and FDOI labels!

Unfortunately, the Presidential Dollars, PROOF (2007-2016, 2020) set is still suffering from a unique situation where a 2015-P Lyndon B. Johnson REV PR PR70 gets a bonus because it is not a First Strike (or other designation). The other 34 examples of this coin in PR70 happen to be First Strike - Largely because all 23,905 of the Rev Proof Johnson $1s were minted on the same day (as far as I know) - certainly within a month. Thus a set that has the unique label is designated as #1. I should also add that in my set the "PCGS # Pop Higher" and the "Pop Higher" indicates 0 higher in both categories.

I have written several times to the Registry folks about this starting in December 2021. I received an answer in December that I was correct the non-FS holdered coin received the bonus because it had a unique holder. After you cleared up the similar issue with the 2021 Proof set - I have written to them twice (pointing out the relevant threads) and they have not responded.

Thank you for the thread(s), and getting traction with the 2021 Proof set. I hope that they will at least answer my email.

wondercoin

Clifs- easy fix… submit a FS coin to pcgs to change to pop 2 non FS. Best I know, anyone can abandon their FS for a non-FS.

I had a situation once way back when where my precious metal coin in blue label 70 was worth substantially more than the FS counterpart. But, again, I think Pcgs now allows a FS coin to lose it status at the request of its owner.

Anyone believe otherwise?

Wondercoin

ProofCollection

I don't know why they wouldn't allow you to lose your FS status.

JonJet

@Clifs_Proofs said:

Thank you for the thread(s), and getting traction with the 2021 Proof set. I hope that they will at least answer my email.

I have mentioned this exact issue to Paulina...and expect it will be resolved to the same degree of the 2021 Proof Set - I just wish I could find 3 of the 2016 Rev PR70's that I still need for My collection - I currently have them...but in PR69

JonJet

@Clifs_Proofs

Paulina promises Action on the Pres $$$- and You along with Others will get back the #1 Ranking

JonJet

And if Y'all check now - the #1 Rank has returned for 6 Sets that were #2

JonJet

PAULINA ROCKS

Clifs_Proofs

@JonJet
Wow, I go away for a meeting and come back to see that Paulina rocks! and JonJet also rocks! And my issue is solved. Thank you.

Wondercoin - I did actually consider resubmitting my FS for reholder into a basic holder. It just seemed a bit ludicrous to do that.

JonJet

No worries - happy it got fixed

JonJet

I believe the issue was not the FS or standard label...I believe it was the Pedigree that gave the Bonus Point for Single Finest Grade (in error)

But Paulina fixed it because the Coin earns the grade - not the Label

JonJet

@wondercoin said:
Clifs- easy fix… submit a FS coin to pcgs to change to pop 2 non FS. Best I know, anyone can abandon their FS for a non-FS.

I had a situation once way back when where my precious metal coin in blue label 70 was worth substantially more than the FS counterpart. But, again, I think Pcgs now allows a FS coin to lose it status at the request of its owner.

Anyone believe otherwise?

Wondercoin

Since the Label is assigned a specific PCGS Number...I don't think PCGS would allow the coin to be non-FS or non-FDOI on request...a reholder submission request would be needed to change the coin's PCGS assigned number for that Slot

The PCGS Number is what adds the various Labels to the appropriate Slot

Regardless of the Label - the Coin goes in the Slot - and the Slot accepts a variety of PCGS Numbers that match the Slot requirement

The PCGS Number is the first few digits of the Cert line - and it's keyed to the Slot to accept the coin in that Slot - so changing the PCGS Number on the Label is not a simple request - a reholder submission is needed

wondercoin

Jonjet. A First Day of Issue coin IS by definition a First Strike coin. In fact, recently, you may have seen the special label that says the coin is BOTH FDI and FS.

Likewise, in my view, a FS coin is a non FS coin if the owner wants it to be. I never had the occasion to ask PCGS to remove the FS designation but it would make no sense for them to refuse to assist a collector with that reasonable request if the collector was paying their reholder fee.

Wondercoin

MetroD

@wondercoin said:
Jonjet. A First Day of Issue coin IS by definition a First Strike coin. In fact, recently, you may have seen the special label that says the coin is BOTH FDI and FS.

Likewise, in my view, a FS coin is a non FS coin if the owner wants it to be. I never had the occasion to ask PCGS to remove the FS designation but it would make no sense for them to refuse to assist a collector with that reasonable request if the collector was paying their reholder fee.

Wondercoin

Had to call PCGS today. So, I asked about this.

The rep I spoke with said that it WAS possible to remove the FS designation. Just like you thought, it would involve a reholder, along with specific instructions on the submission form.

JonJet

I guess I'm now wondering why anyone would make such a request...

FDOI is certainly a First Strike Coin - We all can agree

It seems My insistence above that a submission would be needed is also correct

But why would it be an advantage to give up the FDOI or FS designation?

By definition...the FDOI and FS labels should be the most collectable and the most desired...unless You simply don't like the holder

The COIN earns the Grade - and the Grade should determine the Value

But I am struggling to understand the mentality behind such a request to remove the FDOI/FS designation

JonJet

In fact...I have recently purchased several FS labeled coins in PR70DCAM...

And I am selling off the same coins in FDOI holders - I just want the First Strike Label if possible

ProofCollection

The only thing I can think of is if a collector were anal enough to want consistency across their collection. I used to be that way but I have given up trying to maintain consistent labeling across my collections as it's just too difficult. And now I am even mixing FDOI and FS unfortunately.

For example, MS Kennedy half dollars weren't available in First Strike until about 6 or 7 years ago. So it's conceivable that if you picked up a hard-to-find high grade example in FS you might not want FS, although you'd potentially be losing some value as well.

JonJet

That makes almost perfect sense...

My oldest First Strike Labels are from 2015