@MrEureka said:
I’m just waiting and praying for them to de-list the 1979-S and 1981-S T1 and T2’s. I’ve spent too many hours looking for them, and I consider that portion of my life wasted.
I'm OK with the T-1and T-2 dates. Mis placed dates in the denticles, microscope
double dates a hard NO. Double dates have to be obvious such as the 1955
or 1972 cents.
Oh, heck no. I've been saving that photo looking for the variety myself.
(Obviously no such luck.)
Yeah- as I think more about it, my “hoard” is likely much closer to 5 than 10 pieces, and it would not surprise me greatly if it was actually 3-5 specimens in total. They are super tough to find. Maybe one day, the CPG will include it as it is a cool variety.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I like to aquire Late Date Large Cent varieties. These are by Newcomb number and have been updated by Grellman. There are only 6 sets in the PCGS registry....there are over 350 varieties in the set. Most of the varieties can only be seen with a loupe..
That being said I doubt that this set will be delisted any time for a number of reasons:
These sets have been assembled by some well known collectors...Starr, Naftzger, Brown , Rasmussen and others. These varieties have a history.
DLH is currently 95% complete ....I doubt our host would want to tick him off.
That being said Newcomb varieties have been retired when further research indicated a variety was merely an advanced die state. If I had paid up for a variety that was retired I would be disappointed but as long as there was a scholarly reason I would have to accept it.
Our host should have a good reason to delist a variety previously recognized and attributed. These seem arbitrary and capricious to me. And yes I was an attorney in a past life.
IMO, varieties and collectors of said varieties have been around much longer than the top TPGs so I think those of us that enjoy die varieties will continue to enjoy them even though they are no longer showing a value. My 1926 Mercury Dime FS-101 DDO 06 still shows up but the photos, pop and value chart is no longer visible. I for one like looking through the CPG and what they offer to the non collectors as it might spark an interest in them to hunt and start collecting. Just one opinion but those are my thoughts for what it’s worth.
jmlanzaf's reaction, "Why would you collect based on someone else's idea of what you should collect," is one of the things that drove the SSDC to develop its own registry for VAMs. All VAMs can be registered, often using my attributions rather than a TPGs, any set composition can be created, although mainstream sets (Top 100, 1878 8TF, &c.) exist that are the most competitive. This is where you ask, "Isn't the Top 100 list just someone else's idea of what you should collect?" Yes, it is, but it was a list of coins created by people on the inside of that hobby and then pushed to the grading services to follow once it became mainstream. The only variety to be removed from it was one that was later determined not to exist. The grading services had and have no influence over the content of this list and they're kept at arm's length with respect to attributions.
I would be interested in PCGS's rationale for dropping a lot of varieties from long-established set compositions. Did they actually not foresee the reaction above when they effectively crashed values of people's collections? Did they drop these because they have too many complaints about misattributed coins?
Finally, if competitive registries on MyCollect really get off the ground, I imagine specialists in other series will settle in there for their competitions. MyCollect wouldn't even have to sponsor awards, simply provide a platform for the competition to take place and for specialty clubs to create sets that suit them best. When a MyCollect-based registry award is valued to the same degree that a PCGS registry award is, specialists won't be at the mercy of grading service decisions.
To be clear, my point is that people can continue to collect the varieties whether PCGS recognizes them or not. This has been going on NOW with all the varieties that they don't recognize.
Yes, but the unfortunate thing is that PCGS's imprimatur translates into a lot of money. Pulling the rug on formerly recognized varieties has cost people a lot of money. There are ways forward that mitigate that.
jmlanzaf's reaction, "Why would you collect based on someone else's idea of what you should collect," is one of the things that drove the SSDC to develop its own registry for VAMs. All VAMs can be registered, often using my attributions rather than a TPGs, any set composition can be created, although mainstream sets (Top 100, 1878 8TF, &c.) exist that are the most competitive. This is where you ask, "Isn't the Top 100 list just someone else's idea of what you should collect?" Yes, it is, but it was a list of coins created by people on the inside of that hobby and then pushed to the grading services to follow once it became mainstream. The only variety to be removed from it was one that was later determined not to exist. The grading services had and have no influence over the content of this list and they're kept at arm's length with respect to attributions.
I would be interested in PCGS's rationale for dropping a lot of varieties from long-established set compositions. Did they actually not foresee the reaction above when they effectively crashed values of people's collections? Did they drop these because they have too many complaints about misattributed coins?
Finally, if competitive registries on MyCollect really get off the ground, I imagine specialists in other series will settle in there for their competitions. MyCollect wouldn't even have to sponsor awards, simply provide a platform for the competition to take place and for specialty clubs to create sets that suit them best. When a MyCollect-based registry award is valued to the same degree that a PCGS registry award is, specialists won't be at the mercy of grading service decisions.
To be clear, my point is that people can continue to collect the varieties whether PCGS recognizes them or not. This has been going on NOW with all the varieties that they don't recognize.
Yes, but the unfortunate thing is that PCGS's imprimatur translates into a lot of money. Pulling the rug on formerly recognized varieties has cost people a lot of money. There are ways forward that mitigate that.
That is true. But isn't that really the mistake of collectors, humbly, not PCGS. PCGS elevates a minor variety to a registry set and people start buying minor varieties they don't care about. Is it PCGS's greed or the collectors'?
Variety attribution is a key part of the TPG business - I'm still struggling to come up with a reason why a TPG would ever reduce the number of valid varieties they recognize/attribute. Like I said, I'm wondering if it comes down to a simple misunderstanding. The CPG didn't delist the varieties in question, they are still officially listed, they just don't have a full entry in the new edition (it appears to me that they were desperate to cut costs wherever possible, including cutting the book length). Perhaps somewhere along the way, this misled someone at PCGS to believe the varieties were no longer valid...
@Namvet69 said:
As Oliver Hardy said....Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into!
Actually, he always said "Here's another NICE mess you've gotten me into". It's been misquoted through the years because one of their 1930 films was called "Another fine mess".
Alan Hale modeled the Skipper's comedy style after Oliver Hardy.
jmlanzaf's reaction, "Why would you collect based on someone else's idea of what you should collect," is one of the things that drove the SSDC to develop its own registry for VAMs. All VAMs can be registered, often using my attributions rather than a TPGs, any set composition can be created, although mainstream sets (Top 100, 1878 8TF, &c.) exist that are the most competitive. This is where you ask, "Isn't the Top 100 list just someone else's idea of what you should collect?" Yes, it is, but it was a list of coins created by people on the inside of that hobby and then pushed to the grading services to follow once it became mainstream. The only variety to be removed from it was one that was later determined not to exist. The grading services had and have no influence over the content of this list and they're kept at arm's length with respect to attributions.
I would be interested in PCGS's rationale for dropping a lot of varieties from long-established set compositions. Did they actually not foresee the reaction above when they effectively crashed values of people's collections? Did they drop these because they have too many complaints about misattributed coins?
Finally, if competitive registries on MyCollect really get off the ground, I imagine specialists in other series will settle in there for their competitions. MyCollect wouldn't even have to sponsor awards, simply provide a platform for the competition to take place and for specialty clubs to create sets that suit them best. When a MyCollect-based registry award is valued to the same degree that a PCGS registry award is, specialists won't be at the mercy of grading service decisions.
To be clear, my point is that people can continue to collect the varieties whether PCGS recognizes them or not. This has been going on NOW with all the varieties that they don't recognize.
Yes, but the unfortunate thing is that PCGS's imprimatur translates into a lot of money. Pulling the rug on formerly recognized varieties has cost people a lot of money. There are ways forward that mitigate that.
That is true. But isn't that really the mistake of collectors, humbly, not PCGS. PCGS elevates a minor variety to a registry set and people start buying minor varieties they don't care about. Is it PCGS's greed or the collectors'?
There's plenty of blame to go around. I do agree that at the end of the day, the values of any coins are determined by collectors. Exposing yourself to a potential rug-pull by an entity who isn't involved in collecting what you collect comes with considerable risk, as we can see in the OP. If PCGS or any other grading service is going to attribute varieties, they need to commit to it, which includes establishing the expertise to do it in the industry leading manner which we're led to believe they're capable of. If they are going to make changes, it needs to be done with some advice from collector groups that know a lot more about the varieties they collect than the grading services do. Making sweeping changes that affect a lot of people in a big way is a big deal and irresponsible of a market leader.
Maybe it’s a buying opportunity too though. Like what if one of the other registry set entities that allow PCGS coins in their sets still recognize the variety. I know a few that are just starting out and haven’t defined their sets yet. Maybe the price will go down just temporarily until the competitors registry sets pump up the demand again. 🤔
As for me, I don’t usually pay much premium for varieties already attributed on slabbed coins, but sometimes a little. But I have more fun, and get more enjoyment, from looking for unattributed raw and slabbed ones. But then again, I never tried to complete a registry set that required varieties to complete them.
@Mr_Spud said:
Maybe it’s a buying opportunity too though. Like what if one of the other registry set entities that allow PCGS coins in their sets still recognize the variety. I know a few that are just starting out and haven’t defined their sets yet. Maybe the price will go down just temporarily until the competitors registry sets pump up the demand again. 🤔
As for me, I don’t usually pay much premium for varieties already attributed on slabbed coins, but sometimes a little. But I have more fun, and get more enjoyment, from looking for unattributed raw and slabbed ones. But then again, I never tried to complete a registry set that required varieties to complete them.
Tim,
I like your optimism, but I don't think there is a silver lining. What I'd like to know is who is at the controls, who's making these decisions?
@Namvet69 said:
As Oliver Hardy said....Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into!
You do know that probably 80% of the people here won't know what you're talking about...............
This is a coin collecting forum, which means that at least 80% of the folks reading and participating in the discussions went to Laurel and Hardy films when they were released as new!
Now I"m worried about a coin that I am looking to buy. The item number is NOT in the list of coins for that slot in the registry and it happens to be a "variety"
Now what?
I had 2 expensive hobbies going on at the same time for about 2-3 years. I collected Nolan Ryan PSA graded cards and PCGS graded coins. I really needed to give one up to be able to afford the pieces that I wanted for either collection. PSA, on the other side of the fence made the decision for me. One of the reasons I decided to stop collecting Nolan Ryan PSA graded cards is because the same type of stuff was happening. I would pay big bucks for card variation of Nolan Ryan that was required in the PSA registry and then all of a sudden it would become optional and no longer required in the set. The value, when that happened would tank more often than not.
Unfortunately, it's part of the program if you chose to participate.
jmlanzaf's reaction, "Why would you collect based on someone else's idea of what you should collect," is one of the things that drove the SSDC to develop its own registry for VAMs. All VAMs can be registered, often using my attributions rather than a TPGs, any set composition can be created, although mainstream sets (Top 100, 1878 8TF, &c.) exist that are the most competitive. This is where you ask, "Isn't the Top 100 list just someone else's idea of what you should collect?" Yes, it is, but it was a list of coins created by people on the inside of that hobby and then pushed to the grading services to follow once it became mainstream. The only variety to be removed from it was one that was later determined not to exist. The grading services had and have no influence over the content of this list and they're kept at arm's length with respect to attributions.
I would be interested in PCGS's rationale for dropping a lot of varieties from long-established set compositions. Did they actually not foresee the reaction above when they effectively crashed values of people's collections? Did they drop these because they have too many complaints about misattributed coins?
Finally, if competitive registries on MyCollect really get off the ground, I imagine specialists in other series will settle in there for their competitions. MyCollect wouldn't even have to sponsor awards, simply provide a platform for the competition to take place and for specialty clubs to create sets that suit them best. When a MyCollect-based registry award is valued to the same degree that a PCGS registry award is, specialists won't be at the mercy of grading service decisions.
To be clear, my point is that people can continue to collect the varieties whether PCGS recognizes them or not. This has been going on NOW with all the varieties that they don't recognize.
Yes, but the unfortunate thing is that PCGS's imprimatur translates into a lot of money. Pulling the rug on formerly recognized varieties has cost people a lot of money. There are ways forward that mitigate that.
That is true. But isn't that really the mistake of collectors, humbly, not PCGS. PCGS elevates a minor variety to a registry set and people start buying minor varieties they don't care about. Is it PCGS's greed or the collectors'?
There's plenty of blame to go around. I do agree that at the end of the day, the values of any coins are determined by collectors. Exposing yourself to a potential rug-pull by an entity who isn't involved in collecting what you collect comes with considerable risk, as we can see in the OP. If PCGS or any other grading service is going to attribute varieties, they need to commit to it, which includes establishing the expertise to do it in the industry leading manner which we're led to believe they're capable of. If they are going to make changes, it needs to be done with some advice from collector groups that know a lot more about the varieties they collect than the grading services do. Making sweeping changes that affect a lot of people in a big way is a big deal and irresponsible of a market leader.
@alaura22 said:
Now I"m worried about a coin that I am looking to buy. The item number is NOT in the list of coins for that slot in the registry and it happens to be a "variety"
Now what?
@Namvet69 said:
As Oliver Hardy said....Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into!
You do know that probably 80% of the people here won't know what you're talking about...............
This is a coin collecting forum, which means that at least 80% of the folks reading and participating in the discussions went to Laurel and Hardy films when they were released as new!
jmlanzaf's reaction, "Why would you collect based on someone else's idea of what you should collect," is one of the things that drove the SSDC to develop its own registry for VAMs. All VAMs can be registered, often using my attributions rather than a TPGs, any set composition can be created, although mainstream sets (Top 100, 1878 8TF, &c.) exist that are the most competitive. This is where you ask, "Isn't the Top 100 list just someone else's idea of what you should collect?" Yes, it is, but it was a list of coins created by people on the inside of that hobby and then pushed to the grading services to follow once it became mainstream. The only variety to be removed from it was one that was later determined not to exist. The grading services had and have no influence over the content of this list and they're kept at arm's length with respect to attributions.
I would be interested in PCGS's rationale for dropping a lot of varieties from long-established set compositions. Did they actually not foresee the reaction above when they effectively crashed values of people's collections? Did they drop these because they have too many complaints about misattributed coins?
Finally, if competitive registries on MyCollect really get off the ground, I imagine specialists in other series will settle in there for their competitions. MyCollect wouldn't even have to sponsor awards, simply provide a platform for the competition to take place and for specialty clubs to create sets that suit them best. When a MyCollect-based registry award is valued to the same degree that a PCGS registry award is, specialists won't be at the mercy of grading service decisions.
To be clear, my point is that people can continue to collect the varieties whether PCGS recognizes them or not. This has been going on NOW with all the varieties that they don't recognize.
Yes, but the unfortunate thing is that PCGS's imprimatur translates into a lot of money. Pulling the rug on formerly recognized varieties has cost people a lot of money. There are ways forward that mitigate that.
That is true. But isn't that really the mistake of collectors, humbly, not PCGS. PCGS elevates a minor variety to a registry set and people start buying minor varieties they don't care about. Is it PCGS's greed or the collectors'?
Seems very shortsighted, @jmlanzaf Collectors are participating in PCGS registries! Do you think many people are enthusiastic about buying common date Lincoln Memorial cents in plastic? While some may, they all buy them for completion of the set, right? So they can still LIKE the varieties, but when the value drops exponentially because they are no longer necessary for the set, how can you call that greed on the collector's part? Many of these varieties were many, many times cheaper before they were included in the sets. That's the "value" part of the equation people are bringing up.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
jmlanzaf's reaction, "Why would you collect based on someone else's idea of what you should collect," is one of the things that drove the SSDC to develop its own registry for VAMs. All VAMs can be registered, often using my attributions rather than a TPGs, any set composition can be created, although mainstream sets (Top 100, 1878 8TF, &c.) exist that are the most competitive. This is where you ask, "Isn't the Top 100 list just someone else's idea of what you should collect?" Yes, it is, but it was a list of coins created by people on the inside of that hobby and then pushed to the grading services to follow once it became mainstream. The only variety to be removed from it was one that was later determined not to exist. The grading services had and have no influence over the content of this list and they're kept at arm's length with respect to attributions.
I would be interested in PCGS's rationale for dropping a lot of varieties from long-established set compositions. Did they actually not foresee the reaction above when they effectively crashed values of people's collections? Did they drop these because they have too many complaints about misattributed coins?
Finally, if competitive registries on MyCollect really get off the ground, I imagine specialists in other series will settle in there for their competitions. MyCollect wouldn't even have to sponsor awards, simply provide a platform for the competition to take place and for specialty clubs to create sets that suit them best. When a MyCollect-based registry award is valued to the same degree that a PCGS registry award is, specialists won't be at the mercy of grading service decisions.
To be clear, my point is that people can continue to collect the varieties whether PCGS recognizes them or not. This has been going on NOW with all the varieties that they don't recognize.
Yes, but the unfortunate thing is that PCGS's imprimatur translates into a lot of money. Pulling the rug on formerly recognized varieties has cost people a lot of money. There are ways forward that mitigate that.
That is true. But isn't that really the mistake of collectors, humbly, not PCGS. PCGS elevates a minor variety to a registry set and people start buying minor varieties they don't care about. Is it PCGS's greed or the collectors'?
Seems very shortsighted, @jmlanzaf Collectors are participating in PCGS registries! Do you think many people are enthusiastic about buying common date Lincoln Memorial cents in plastic? While some may, they all buy them for completion of the set, right? So they can still LIKE the varieties, but when the value drops exponentially because they are no longer necessary for the set, how can you call that greed on the collector's part? Many of these varieties were many, many times cheaper before they were included in the sets. That's the "value" part of the equation people are bringing up.
I wouldn't buy common coins in plastic either. But that is a collector CHOICE. Certainly PCGS influences that choice with registry inclusion. It is the greatest marketing gimmick in the history of the hobby. I've repeatedly called it genius. But collectors have only themselves to blame if they fall for the hype.
As to what is driving the current exclusion, I don't know. But I repeat: don't let anyone else tell you what you should collect.
@jmlanzaf
I agree, "Collect what you like," but what if you LIKE to participate in the registry? And you rely on the rules of that registry to guide you in your pursuit of set building? Yes, we're all grownups and the responsibility lies with the individual on what they should/shouldn't buy. But this all seems a little arbitrary, poor decision which affects many enthusiastic hobbyists financially.
I've always (and I'm not alone I'm sure) thought of the CPG as the Hall of Fame for varieties. Get in that book and there is an immediate market for that coin.
Consider this: A sports player is elected to the HOF. He immediately charges more for his autograph. His cards go up. His game used items go up. A market is created. It doesn't matter if you are a fan, the reality is that player will always be held in high regard by consensus.
Now, can you imagine if one day the HOF decides his stats were a little light and decide to reverse course and exclude him from the hall? What happens to the collectibility of the items above? Do you really think value is unaffected and people will continue spend the same amounts of money? Look up Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, etc. And compare them to these delisted varieties 😆
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said: @jmlanzaf
I agree, "Collect what you like," but what if you LIKE to participate in the registry? And you rely on the rules of that registry to guide you in your pursuit of set building? Yes, we're all grownups and the responsibility lies with the individual on what they should/shouldn't buy. But this all seems a little arbitrary, poor decision which affects many enthusiastic hobbyists financially.
I've always (and I'm not alone I'm sure) thought of the CPG as the Hall of Fame for varieties. Get in that book and there is an immediate market for that coin.
Consider this: A sports player is elected to the HOF. He immediately charges more for his autograph. His cards go up. His game used items go up. A market is created. It doesn't matter if you are a fan, the reality is that player will always be held in high regard by consensus.
Now, can you imagine if one day the HOF decides his stats were a little light and decide to reverse course and exclude him from the hall? What happens to the collectibility of the items above? Do you really think value is unaffected and people will continue spend the same amounts of money? Look up Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, etc. And compare them to these delisted varieties 😆
And often the autograph you pay for goes down in value. This isn't about collecting, it's about price. And the best way to alleviate the future price concern is not to buy into the marketing gimmick.
I understand that people do collect by registry, etc. And that's fine. They still can. But I'm not sure PCGS is obligated to preserve the registry for eternity just to preserve your resale value.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: hobby costs should be considered a sunk cost not an investment.
Edited to add: and it's not a hall of fame, it's a CPG. they didn't remove the 55 DDO. They removed a little leaguer who was a bat boy for 3 weeks.
@fathom said:
It sounds great to commit to variety acceptance and stay there but backing that up with resources is costly and I'm sure getting costlier.
Anybody want to pay more for certification? I don't.
What resources would they need other than the CPG book? Submitters literally have to write down the variety for the graders to verify. It's very simple, and I don't think they would need to raise submission costs higher than they already are (which is frankly already too expensive for the vast majority of varieties)
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Well... to me, a variety is a variety and being so means if ya want them all, you need to get them all... I figured that TPG's that list prices do so in accordance to what sales history is... in my case there are no more or less of that specific coin being made and no reason to devalue it by 90%
@fathom said:
It sounds great to commit to variety acceptance and stay there but backing that up with resources is costly and I'm sure getting costlier.
Anybody want to pay more for certification? I don't.
What resources would they need other than the CPG book? Submitters literally have to write down the variety for the graders to verify. It's very simple, and I don't think they would need to raise submission costs higher than they already are (which is frankly already too expensive for the vast majority of varieties)
Additionally, haven’t certification fees been rising (and maximum grading tier value limits, declining) anyway?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
But I repeat: don't let anyone else tell you what you should collect.
This isn't about letting someone else tell you what to collect.
People have already decided what coins to collect and put their money into said coins. A decision has been made - without explanation - that is likely to affect the value of these coins negatively. It's not just about registry sets. They've taken away the CoinFacts listings for the varieties, so any collector that primarly collects PCGS coins and/or relies on PCGS services won't ever see these varieties, have the option to have them attributed, or the ability to buy/sell them in a PCGS holder. It also feeds directly into the incorrect assumptions that the varieties have been delisted by CPG and that they are no longer considered real varieties.
If every collector were fully engaged with all sources of information and dealt freely and interchangeably with every TPG, this wouldn't be such an issue, but that is simply not the case. The reality is that the actions of a single TPG matter a great deal. Why do this at all? Why damage the market for these particular varieties? Why cut off your own source of attribution income for the TPG?
@fathom said:
It sounds great to commit to variety acceptance and stay there but backing that up with resources is costly and I'm sure getting costlier.
Anybody want to pay more for certification? I don't.
What resources would they need other than the CPG book? Submitters literally have to write down the variety for the graders to verify. It's very simple, and I don't think they would need to raise submission costs higher than they already are (which is frankly already too expensive for the vast majority of varieties)
It must be verified.
Time is money. If it takes multiple time frame to grade and verify that is pure drain on profitability not to mention turnaround time.
@jmlanzaf said:
But I repeat: don't let anyone else tell you what you should collect.
This isn't about letting someone else tell you what to collect.
People have already decided what coins to collect and put their money into said coins. A decision has been made - without explanation - that is likely to affect the value of these coins negatively. It's not just about registry sets. They've taken away the CoinFacts listings for the varieties, so any collector that primarly collects PCGS coins and/or relies on PCGS services won't ever see these varieties, have the option to have them attributed, or the ability to buy/sell them in a PCGS holder. It also feeds directly into the incorrect assumptions that the varieties have been delisted by CPG and that they are no longer considered real varieties.
If every collector were fully engaged with all sources of information and dealt freely and interchangeably with every TPG, this wouldn't be such an issue, but that is simply not the case. The reality is that the actions of a single TPG matter a great deal. Why do this at all? Why damage the market for these particular varieties? Why cut off your own source of attribution income for the TPG?
I would assume that the cost of certifying them exceeds the revenue.
Of course it impacts value. I'm not arguing against that. But there is literally nothing that any TPGS, auction house, numismatic publication, or coin God could do that would change what or how I collect. The US government could declare coins to be valueless and I don't care. I bought them. I like them. If they are worthless, i don't care.
I am, and the microscope comment is often used to denigrate minor varieties that oftentimes can easily be seen with a loupe. It's not hard; it just requires knowledge. I suspect these types of people are not employed by the grading services. We see it all the time, mistakes and obvious misattributions by the TPGs even on well known varieties like the 1916/1916 nickel.
I have no dog in this fight anymore, as I left the varieties registry years ago. But I feel the pain of my brothers.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@jmlanzaf said:
I would assume that the cost of certifying them exceeds the revenue.
I would find that surprising. If that were the case, I'd certainly like to hear an explanation.
Of course it impacts value. I'm not arguing against that. But there is literally nothing that any TPGS, auction house, numismatic publication, or coin God could do that would change what or how I collect. The US governed could declare coins to be valueless and I don't care. I bought them. I like them. If they are worthless, i don't care.
I think you've made your position clear. No one collects in a complete vacuum, even you, but I'll take your word that you are less prone to outside influences than others. That being the case, so what? There are other collectors that are more influenced in how they collect and that care about the value of their coins. There are still others that, like you, are less influenced, and still care about the value of their coins. Why would it make any difference to them whether jmlanzaf cares about the market value of coins in his collection? And how does that have any relevance to the action of a TPG in this case, or how other collectors respond to it?
@jmlanzaf said:
I would assume that the cost of certifying them exceeds the revenue.
I would find that surprising. If that were the case, I'd certainly like to hear an explanation.
Of course it impacts value. I'm not arguing against that. But there is literally nothing that any TPGS, auction house, numismatic publication, or coin God could do that would change what or how I collect. The US governed could declare coins to be valueless and I don't care. I bought them. I like them. If they are worthless, i don't care.
I think you've made your position clear. No one collects in a complete vacuum, even you, but I'll take your word that you are less prone to outside influences than others. That being the case, so what? There are other collectors that are more influenced in how they collect and that care about the value of their coins. There are still others that, like you, are less influenced, and still care about the value of their coins. Why would it make any difference to them whether jmlanzaf cares about the market value of coins in his collection? And how does that have any relevance to the action of a TPG in this case, or how other collectors respond to it?
All true. But if my position were so clear, why do people keep questioning it?
I get why some people are mad. I do. And I'm sure none of them care what I think. Nor should they. But they are partly responsible for the box in which they find themselves. And if they recognized that, the way out of the box is obvious.
If you think that costs do not exceed revenues, why do you think they would cut off revenues? And, in the process, create angry customers.
@jmlanzaf said:
I would assume that the cost of certifying them exceeds the revenue.
I would find that surprising. If that were the case, I'd certainly like to hear an explanation.
Of course it impacts value. I'm not arguing against that. But there is literally nothing that any TPGS, auction house, numismatic publication, or coin God could do that would change what or how I collect. The US governed could declare coins to be valueless and I don't care. I bought them. I like them. If they are worthless, i don't care.
I think you've made your position clear. No one collects in a complete vacuum, even you, but I'll take your word that you are less prone to outside influences than others. That being the case, so what? There are other collectors that are more influenced in how they collect and that care about the value of their coins. There are still others that, like you, are less influenced, and still care about the value of their coins. Why would it make any difference to them whether jmlanzaf cares about the market value of coins in his collection? And how does that have any relevance to the action of a TPG in this case, or how other collectors respond to it?
@jmlanzaf said:
I would assume that the cost of certifying them exceeds the revenue.
I would find that surprising. If that were the case, I'd certainly like to hear an explanation.
Of course it impacts value. I'm not arguing against that. But there is literally nothing that any TPGS, auction house, numismatic publication, or coin God could do that would change what or how I collect. The US governed could declare coins to be valueless and I don't care. I bought them. I like them. If they are worthless, i don't care.
I think you've made your position clear. No one collects in a complete vacuum, even you, but I'll take your word that you are less prone to outside influences than others. That being the case, so what? There are other collectors that are more influenced in how they collect and that care about the value of their coins. There are still others that, like you, are less influenced, and still care about the value of their coins. Why would it make any difference to them whether jmlanzaf cares about the market value of coins in his collection? And how does that have any relevance to the action of a TPG in this case, or how other collectors respond to it?
All true. But if my position were so clear, why do people keep questioning it?
Perhaps because you came across as dismissive of their concerns and characterized them as being greedy for caring about the value of their coins.
I get why some people are mad. I do. And I'm sure none of them care what I think. Nor should they. But they are partly responsible for the box in which they find themselves.
And what of the responsibility of the TPG? You appear to be dismissing that responsibility, which is probably also why people continue to push back against you.
If you think that costs do not exceed revenues, why do you think they would cut off revenues? And, in the process, create angry customers.
I've posted at least twice already that I believe this could be a misunderstanding:
@IkesT said:
Like I said, I'm wondering if it comes down to a simple misunderstanding. The CPG didn't delist the varieties in question, they are still officially listed, they just don't have a full entry in the new edition (it appears to me that they were desperate to cut costs wherever possible, including cutting the book length). Perhaps somewhere along the way, this misled someone at PCGS to believe the varieties were no longer valid...
@jmlanzaf said:
I would assume that the cost of certifying them exceeds the revenue.
I would find that surprising. If that were the case, I'd certainly like to hear an explanation.
Of course it impacts value. I'm not arguing against that. But there is literally nothing that any TPGS, auction house, numismatic publication, or coin God could do that would change what or how I collect. The US governed could declare coins to be valueless and I don't care. I bought them. I like them. If they are worthless, i don't care.
I think you've made your position clear. No one collects in a complete vacuum, even you, but I'll take your word that you are less prone to outside influences than others. That being the case, so what? There are other collectors that are more influenced in how they collect and that care about the value of their coins. There are still others that, like you, are less influenced, and still care about the value of their coins. Why would it make any difference to them whether jmlanzaf cares about the market value of coins in his collection? And how does that have any relevance to the action of a TPG in this case, or how other collectors respond to it?
All true. But if my position were so clear, why do people keep questioning it?
Perhaps because you came across as dismissive of their concerns and characterized them as being greedy for caring about the value of their coins.
I get why some people are mad. I do. And I'm sure none of them care what I think. Nor should they. But they are partly responsible for the box in which they find themselves.
And what of the responsibility of the TPG? You appear to be dismissing that responsibility, which is probably also why people continue to push back against you.
If you think that costs do not exceed revenues, why do you think they would cut off revenues? And, in the process, create angry customers.
I've posted at least twice already that I believe this could be a misunderstanding:
@IkesT said:
Like I said, I'm wondering if it comes down to a simple misunderstanding. The CPG didn't delist the varieties in question, they are still officially listed, they just don't have a full entry in the new edition (it appears to me that they were desperate to cut costs wherever possible, including cutting the book length). Perhaps somewhere along the way, this misled someone at PCGS to believe the varieties were no longer valid...
I thought I said earlier that they shared responsibility. Although I would never expect a business to make anything but a business decision.
I am, and the microscope comment is often used to denigrate minor varieties that oftentimes can easily be seen with a loupe. It's not hard; it just requires knowledge. I suspect these types of people are not employed by the grading services. We see it all the time, mistakes and obvious misattributions by the TPGs even on well known varieties like the 1916/1916 nickel.
I have no dog in this fight anymore, as I left the varieties registry years ago. But I feel the pain of my brothers.
Yeah I came on a little a harsh with that question, sorry.
We as collectors need to sympathize with the business end of the TPG organizations. That was my point.
@PwrHsePro said:
I did... prior to finding out about the change... I thought the site was just broken.
What did they say? Did they even know what was going on? Two people I know that called had to reach multiple people before it was figured out. Even the registry set person was out of the loop and did not know what was going on.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
lucky for me, when the authors of CPG completely fabricated existence of an 1829/3 capped bust half dime, I knew they were full of it. I stopped paying any attention to the CPG at that point, easily a decade or longer ago.
@PwrHsePro said:
I did... prior to finding out about the change... I thought the site was just broken.
What did they say? Did they even know what was going on? Two people I know that called had to reach multiple people before it was figured out. Even the registry set person was out of the loop and did not know what was going on.
@Barndog said:
lucky for me, when the authors of CPG completely fabricated existence of an 1829/3 capped bust half dime, I knew they were full of it. I stopped paying any attention to the CPG at that point, easily a decade or longer ago.
My concern is that someone that I trust to certify my coins has done a 180° at my expense
I don't collect many varieties, but I would be angry if a TPG flipped a switch and all my coins became worth much much less than the were because they did. Still coins are worth what somebody is willing to pay for them, not what a price guide from a TPG says or because of a registry. If you still want to get those varieties slabbed there are other services that will handle that for you. I saw another thread earlier where a Morgan VAM thats not an important one lists for $50 more than the normal price of the coin. Good luck getting anybody to pay that extra. All coins variety or not are only worth what somebody is willing to pay for it.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Comments
I'm OK with the T-1and T-2 dates. Mis placed dates in the denticles, microscope
double dates a hard NO. Double dates have to be obvious such as the 1955
or 1972 cents.
‘’A better photo of a nightcrawler variety with a TrueView:
Pat- your personal coin?
Wondercoin
Oh, heck no. I've been saving that photo looking for the variety myself.
(Obviously no such luck.)
peacockcoins
Oh, heck no. I've been saving that photo looking for the variety myself.
(Obviously no such luck.)
Yeah- as I think more about it, my “hoard” is likely much closer to 5 than 10 pieces, and it would not surprise me greatly if it was actually 3-5 specimens in total. They are super tough to find. Maybe one day, the CPG will include it as it is a cool variety.
Wondercoin
What about Laurel
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
I like to aquire Late Date Large Cent varieties. These are by Newcomb number and have been updated by Grellman. There are only 6 sets in the PCGS registry....there are over 350 varieties in the set. Most of the varieties can only be seen with a loupe..
That being said I doubt that this set will be delisted any time for a number of reasons:
These sets have been assembled by some well known collectors...Starr, Naftzger, Brown , Rasmussen and others. These varieties have a history.
DLH is currently 95% complete ....I doubt our host would want to tick him off.
That being said Newcomb varieties have been retired when further research indicated a variety was merely an advanced die state. If I had paid up for a variety that was retired I would be disappointed but as long as there was a scholarly reason I would have to accept it.
Our host should have a good reason to delist a variety previously recognized and attributed. These seem arbitrary and capricious to me. And yes I was an attorney in a past life.
IMO, varieties and collectors of said varieties have been around much longer than the top TPGs so I think those of us that enjoy die varieties will continue to enjoy them even though they are no longer showing a value. My 1926 Mercury Dime FS-101 DDO 06 still shows up but the photos, pop and value chart is no longer visible. I for one like looking through the CPG and what they offer to the non collectors as it might spark an interest in them to hunt and start collecting. Just one opinion but those are my thoughts for what it’s worth.
Yes, but the unfortunate thing is that PCGS's imprimatur translates into a lot of money. Pulling the rug on formerly recognized varieties has cost people a lot of money. There are ways forward that mitigate that.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
That is true. But isn't that really the mistake of collectors, humbly, not PCGS. PCGS elevates a minor variety to a registry set and people start buying minor varieties they don't care about. Is it PCGS's greed or the collectors'?
Variety attribution is a key part of the TPG business - I'm still struggling to come up with a reason why a TPG would ever reduce the number of valid varieties they recognize/attribute. Like I said, I'm wondering if it comes down to a simple misunderstanding. The CPG didn't delist the varieties in question, they are still officially listed, they just don't have a full entry in the new edition (it appears to me that they were desperate to cut costs wherever possible, including cutting the book length). Perhaps somewhere along the way, this misled someone at PCGS to believe the varieties were no longer valid...
Actually, he always said "Here's another NICE mess you've gotten me into". It's been misquoted through the years because one of their 1930 films was called "Another fine mess".
Alan Hale modeled the Skipper's comedy style after Oliver Hardy.
There's plenty of blame to go around. I do agree that at the end of the day, the values of any coins are determined by collectors. Exposing yourself to a potential rug-pull by an entity who isn't involved in collecting what you collect comes with considerable risk, as we can see in the OP. If PCGS or any other grading service is going to attribute varieties, they need to commit to it, which includes establishing the expertise to do it in the industry leading manner which we're led to believe they're capable of. If they are going to make changes, it needs to be done with some advice from collector groups that know a lot more about the varieties they collect than the grading services do. Making sweeping changes that affect a lot of people in a big way is a big deal and irresponsible of a market leader.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Maybe it’s a buying opportunity too though. Like what if one of the other registry set entities that allow PCGS coins in their sets still recognize the variety. I know a few that are just starting out and haven’t defined their sets yet. Maybe the price will go down just temporarily until the competitors registry sets pump up the demand again. 🤔
As for me, I don’t usually pay much premium for varieties already attributed on slabbed coins, but sometimes a little. But I have more fun, and get more enjoyment, from looking for unattributed raw and slabbed ones. But then again, I never tried to complete a registry set that required varieties to complete them.
Mr_Spud
Tim,
I like your optimism, but I don't think there is a silver lining. What I'd like to know is who is at the controls, who's making these decisions?
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
This is a coin collecting forum, which means that at least 80% of the folks reading and participating in the discussions went to Laurel and Hardy films when they were released as new!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Now I"m worried about a coin that I am looking to buy. The item number is NOT in the list of coins for that slot in the registry and it happens to be a "variety"
Now what?
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
I had 2 expensive hobbies going on at the same time for about 2-3 years. I collected Nolan Ryan PSA graded cards and PCGS graded coins. I really needed to give one up to be able to afford the pieces that I wanted for either collection. PSA, on the other side of the fence made the decision for me. One of the reasons I decided to stop collecting Nolan Ryan PSA graded cards is because the same type of stuff was happening. I would pay big bucks for card variation of Nolan Ryan that was required in the PSA registry and then all of a sudden it would become optional and no longer required in the set. The value, when that happened would tank more often than not.
Unfortunately, it's part of the program if you chose to participate.
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
I agree.
Buy it if you like it. Don't buy it if you don't.
Or went to movie theaters when they were new...
Seems very shortsighted, @jmlanzaf Collectors are participating in PCGS registries! Do you think many people are enthusiastic about buying common date Lincoln Memorial cents in plastic? While some may, they all buy them for completion of the set, right? So they can still LIKE the varieties, but when the value drops exponentially because they are no longer necessary for the set, how can you call that greed on the collector's part? Many of these varieties were many, many times cheaper before they were included in the sets. That's the "value" part of the equation people are bringing up.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I believe the last full length film Laurel and Hardy did was The Bull Fighters in 1945...
A point here and a point there... and alot of Bull in between.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I wouldn't buy common coins in plastic either. But that is a collector CHOICE. Certainly PCGS influences that choice with registry inclusion. It is the greatest marketing gimmick in the history of the hobby. I've repeatedly called it genius. But collectors have only themselves to blame if they fall for the hype.
As to what is driving the current exclusion, I don't know. But I repeat: don't let anyone else tell you what you should collect.
@jmlanzaf
I agree, "Collect what you like," but what if you LIKE to participate in the registry? And you rely on the rules of that registry to guide you in your pursuit of set building? Yes, we're all grownups and the responsibility lies with the individual on what they should/shouldn't buy. But this all seems a little arbitrary, poor decision which affects many enthusiastic hobbyists financially.
I've always (and I'm not alone I'm sure) thought of the CPG as the Hall of Fame for varieties. Get in that book and there is an immediate market for that coin.
Consider this: A sports player is elected to the HOF. He immediately charges more for his autograph. His cards go up. His game used items go up. A market is created. It doesn't matter if you are a fan, the reality is that player will always be held in high regard by consensus.
Now, can you imagine if one day the HOF decides his stats were a little light and decide to reverse course and exclude him from the hall? What happens to the collectibility of the items above? Do you really think value is unaffected and people will continue spend the same amounts of money? Look up Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, etc. And compare them to these delisted varieties 😆
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
It sounds great to commit to variety acceptance and stay there but backing that up with resources is costly and I'm sure getting costlier.
Anybody want to pay more for certification? I don't.
And often the autograph you pay for goes down in value. This isn't about collecting, it's about price. And the best way to alleviate the future price concern is not to buy into the marketing gimmick.
I understand that people do collect by registry, etc. And that's fine. They still can. But I'm not sure PCGS is obligated to preserve the registry for eternity just to preserve your resale value.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: hobby costs should be considered a sunk cost not an investment.
Edited to add: and it's not a hall of fame, it's a CPG. they didn't remove the 55 DDO. They removed a little leaguer who was a bat boy for 3 weeks.
What resources would they need other than the CPG book? Submitters literally have to write down the variety for the graders to verify. It's very simple, and I don't think they would need to raise submission costs higher than they already are (which is frankly already too expensive for the vast majority of varieties)
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Well... to me, a variety is a variety and being so means if ya want them all, you need to get them all... I figured that TPG's that list prices do so in accordance to what sales history is... in my case there are no more or less of that specific coin being made and no reason to devalue it by 90%
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
Additionally, haven’t certification fees been rising (and maximum grading tier value limits, declining) anyway?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This isn't about letting someone else tell you what to collect.
People have already decided what coins to collect and put their money into said coins. A decision has been made - without explanation - that is likely to affect the value of these coins negatively. It's not just about registry sets. They've taken away the CoinFacts listings for the varieties, so any collector that primarly collects PCGS coins and/or relies on PCGS services won't ever see these varieties, have the option to have them attributed, or the ability to buy/sell them in a PCGS holder. It also feeds directly into the incorrect assumptions that the varieties have been delisted by CPG and that they are no longer considered real varieties.
If every collector were fully engaged with all sources of information and dealt freely and interchangeably with every TPG, this wouldn't be such an issue, but that is simply not the case. The reality is that the actions of a single TPG matter a great deal. Why do this at all? Why damage the market for these particular varieties? Why cut off your own source of attribution income for the TPG?
It must be verified.
Time is money. If it takes multiple time frame to grade and verify that is pure drain on profitability not to mention turnaround time.
Are you aware of these microscopic varieties?
I would assume that the cost of certifying them exceeds the revenue.
Of course it impacts value. I'm not arguing against that. But there is literally nothing that any TPGS, auction house, numismatic publication, or coin God could do that would change what or how I collect. The US government could declare coins to be valueless and I don't care. I bought them. I like them. If they are worthless, i don't care.
I am, and the microscope comment is often used to denigrate minor varieties that oftentimes can easily be seen with a loupe. It's not hard; it just requires knowledge. I suspect these types of people are not employed by the grading services. We see it all the time, mistakes and obvious misattributions by the TPGs even on well known varieties like the 1916/1916 nickel.
I have no dog in this fight anymore, as I left the varieties registry years ago. But I feel the pain of my brothers.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I would find that surprising. If that were the case, I'd certainly like to hear an explanation.
I think you've made your position clear. No one collects in a complete vacuum, even you, but I'll take your word that you are less prone to outside influences than others. That being the case, so what? There are other collectors that are more influenced in how they collect and that care about the value of their coins. There are still others that, like you, are less influenced, and still care about the value of their coins. Why would it make any difference to them whether jmlanzaf cares about the market value of coins in his collection? And how does that have any relevance to the action of a TPG in this case, or how other collectors respond to it?
All true. But if my position were so clear, why do people keep questioning it?
I get why some people are mad. I do. And I'm sure none of them care what I think. Nor should they. But they are partly responsible for the box in which they find themselves. And if they recognized that, the way out of the box is obvious.
If you think that costs do not exceed revenues, why do you think they would cut off revenues? And, in the process, create angry customers.
P.S. I didn't say I had no outside influences.
I am starting a new thread
Wondercoin
Perhaps because you came across as dismissive of their concerns and characterized them as being greedy for caring about the value of their coins.
And what of the responsibility of the TPG? You appear to be dismissing that responsibility, which is probably also why people continue to push back against you.
I've posted at least twice already that I believe this could be a misunderstanding:
I thought I said earlier that they shared responsibility. Although I would never expect a business to make anything but a business decision.
Yeah I came on a little a harsh with that question, sorry.
We as collectors need to sympathize with the business end of the TPG organizations. That was my point.
Who here has called / emailed PCGS about this?
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I did... prior to finding out about the change... I thought the site was just broken.
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
What did they say? Did they even know what was going on? Two people I know that called had to reach multiple people before it was figured out. Even the registry set person was out of the loop and did not know what was going on.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
lucky for me, when the authors of CPG completely fabricated existence of an 1829/3 capped bust half dime, I knew they were full of it. I stopped paying any attention to the CPG at that point, easily a decade or longer ago.
They didn't respond at all...
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
My concern is that someone that I trust to certify my coins has done a 180° at my expense
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
maybe they have not been removed but just a temporary computer glitch ?
I don't collect many varieties, but I would be angry if a TPG flipped a switch and all my coins became worth much much less than the were because they did. Still coins are worth what somebody is willing to pay for them, not what a price guide from a TPG says or because of a registry. If you still want to get those varieties slabbed there are other services that will handle that for you. I saw another thread earlier where a Morgan VAM thats not an important one lists for $50 more than the normal price of the coin. Good luck getting anybody to pay that extra. All coins variety or not are only worth what somebody is willing to pay for it.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
which varieties got dropped?
Half Cent varieties to not appear to be impacted.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.