Once A Variety Is Included In A PCGS Registry Set, Should That Variety Remain In The Set FOREVER?
wondercoin
Posts: 16,980 ✭✭✭✭✭
With the limited exception of it being universally agreed among scholars in a particular series that the variety is there wrongfully in the first place.
I have a strong opinion on this matter, which I will articulate after I hear from some of my fellow collectors (and dealers).
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
0
Comments
A BIG YES!
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Hmmm....I think that's an awfully binary way to phrase the question. So, without further conditions or context, it's an easy "NO".
jmlanzaf- please get to your real point. Original post edited. Wondercoin
Other than finding out a variety doesn’t actually exist, why would there be a need to drop one?
I don’t really have a stake in this but just trying to understand.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
Unless it is debunked, yes. The TPG is making a market in these varieties by including them in the registry sets and they know it. To pump them, make money off of the attribution/grading fees and then dump them after collectors have invested sooo much time and money into them is morally corrupt.
All the more reason to carefully consider what varieties to include from the beginning! PCGS (and the CPG) do not do this. There are significant varieties on Variety Vista that are not in the CPG because the authors did not own them or did not have access to them or something else? It’s a disservice to collectors. The CPG should not be the only source of consideration for varieties in registry sets!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Pnies20 - good point. In the Wash quarter silver series, I believe it is common knowledge a single listed CPG variety likely doesn’t really exist. This is a very good reason to remove a universally agreed mistaken variety.
Original post modified to address this.
Wondercoin
I'll preface by saying I don't registry but if I did and my coin registry was arbitrarily knocked down points and all my effort, financial and physical, were proofed away I would be upset.
Keyman64- very clear opinion on the subject. Thank you.
Wondercoin
I don't collect varieties but IMO once an known to exist variety is listed, there should be no reason to remove it.
I wonder what would happen if, instead of removing coins from a set, they retired the registry set and > @wondercoin said:
I thought that was my real point.
There would be instances, like changing designations, that would require removal. Since you've added that context, the answer is less obvious.
There is one other layer to this. Are you also suggesting that they must continue to certify new specimens? While there is little to no cost in leaving coins in a registry set, there could be an undue expense associated with continuing to certify minor varieties.
I don't think the answer is easily "yes". So I have to stick with"no".
I would say "Yes", they should keep varieties in the registry set if they were included already. Does the TPG service really want labels of varieties on their slabs that no longer are recognized by the TPG service? I would think not. I know for the Washington Quarters, the new CPG did not include the 1934 Light and Heavy Motto, but I just can't imagine PCGS deleting them from the registry set. To me that is a major variety and to not have them included in the registry would be a disservice to the integrity of the PCGS registry set.
The CPG eliminated some varieties from the book in order to save on the cost of printing the book. They still have these FS numbers listed in the back of the book, so the CPG still recognizes the variety and hopefully PCGS will recognize them also.
Here is my Washington Quarter Variety Registry Set
This is my Washington Quarter Proof Variety Registry Set
I don't think the answer is easily "yes". So I have to stick with"no".
jmlanzaf- if the answer is not easily “no”, then you say “yes”? Why argue simply for the sake of arguing? Why not simply articulate a reasonable position rather than making these silly statements like “I don’t think the answer is easily “yes”. So I have to stick with “no”. On the other hand… I don’t think the answer is easily “no”. So I have to stick with “no”. 😂 jmlanzaf-as my friend says to me all the time- use your brain! 😜
Wondercoin
I am so happy that I am not a variety collector.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Assuming the variety is valid, I'd say "yes" to keeping it in Registry sets and "Yes" to keeping it as an attributed variety with a full CoinFacts listing.
IkesT/NorCalJack, and all the Wash Quarter variety lovers…
I was referring to the 1935-P FS-101. My memory suggests the coin may be non-existent. I am in Paris at the moment, so I can’t refer to my notes (at home) at all on this, but I do see that the top registry sets still all lack the coin. In the “old days”, enough evidence would be produced so that PCGS would simply remove the 99% mistaken variety so all the sets could continue their pursuit to completion or near completion. In the 1% chance, a coin would ever surface, easy enough to put back into the set. Anyway, this is my one exception to not removing coins from a variety set (more on this later).
Wondercoin
I don't collect varieties, but Im empathetic to the situation here. If I spent considerable money on varieties needed to complete a set, and a TPG pulled the rug out from under me, I would not be a happy camper at all.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Yes, I agree with that variety being removed. I have never seen a full-coin photo of the purported variety that actually shows the date, which is a huge red flag. The only photo I've ever seen is a cropped image of "IN GOD WE TRUST" where the doubling looks suspiciously similar (perhaps identical) to a known variety from 1934...
I think (within reason) if they want to change the set composition they should just create a new set with the composition they want. It’s not like it costs that much. Duplicate the existing set on the backend, make changes, publish. Easy peasy.
I see another related thread.
Match Game time! The CPG is so complete... "How complete is it?" it's so complete it is supplemented with things like VAMs. and even those two together aren't all. so PCGS must think they have the important ones covered via their list of accepted sources.
how do you sell CPGs? can't list them all, so maybe you mix things up from edition to edition and vary the varieties shown.
but we, the forumites, have often pointed out what a worthy variety is driven is by the market.
now, i get to it...
PCGS registry participants are a large amount of the market!
Was PCGS receiving so many complaints about minuscule varieties that they mass removed a bunch?
======
To answer the title question: Not Necessarily.
Imagine some minuscule variety... forever? not necessarily.
However
Aren't those minuscule varieties, in part, previously removed due to reg set user outrage?
Was PCGS receiving so many complaints about minuscule varieties that they mass removed a bunch?
=====
One thing I think of when hashing this question and issue: how does PCGS communicate to a PCGS order submitter what varieties they attribute? duh? publish a list of comprehensive(??!!!???) list of reference materials.
I think right now, we are seeing that can be problematic.
I go back to mention what is hopefully an encyclopedia of coins: CoinFacts.
At one point in recent years, it was asked by PCGS "what varieties" would you like to see(videos? pictures? can't recall) next?
I have a next. if PCGS will attribute it, then those are next and go in CoinFacts. Then people doing a submission of a 1914-d Lincoln Cent with a DDR being attributed as a variety on the label (or allowed in the registry) it would merely be a matter of referencing CoinFacts to see if it is a recognized variety. Images and PUPs can be shown in CoinFacts to help both the attributer and submitter during the grading process.
then there's the "not necessarily" hitch that must be discussed. if a variety is removed from attribution because it's minuscule, then there need to be entries in CoinFacts where it is noted the variety was recognized until Date 1 then removed because:_____ and all the pics, vids and PUPs notes left on the page.
addendum - what varieties would you like to see next?
how about the varieties most argued about and most money spent over fighting between attributer and submitter.
I did. Did you? Your question started out rather binary. When prompted, you added an exclusion. Could I prompt you for further exclusions?
You're jumping on me just because I'm the only one who disagrees with your position, even though you are trying to be coy about actually declaring it.
The reason "no" has to be the default and not "yes" is that I cannot expect a business to commit to an eternal losing proposition. So, NO it is. So, in response to your silly "if the answer is not clearly no, is it yes?" The answer is "no". There is a default position that has to be "no" without a clear reason for a "yes".
If a patient needs a respirator and you ask them if they want one. A clear NO is a NO. An unclear NO is a yes. And an unclear yes is still a yes. Lack of clarity favors one and only one decision. There is no symmetry to the decision.
I do not know what is driving the current PCGS decision. But I don't think they made the move because the varieties were highly profitable. But my comments are general and not related to the current issue. I do not see any way that the response to your very open-ended question can reasonably be "yes".
There are costs to continuing to slab varieties. There are even costs, though perhaps minimal, to continue listing varieties even if you have ceased to slab them. It is UNREASONABLE to expect any company to bear limitless costs for an unlimited time which is how your question reads.
You are asking them to commit to an ETERNAL obligation. That is unreasonable.
Now, in the current situation it is rather harder to know whether the decision was reasonable or not since we have no information on the reason.
Market Acceptable reasons for a grading service removing a variety:
Market Unacceptable reasons:
Unacceptable doesn't necessarily mean non-realistic, rather not accepted by the customer base as a good reason and met with ire and rancor.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
jmlanzaf - thanks for the analysis of the P&L of the situation from our host’s perspective (even if I suspect you are not even close to the actual numbers or correct answer there), and please share your analysis now from the standpoint of the good faith purchaser who spent a very large sum of money on a variety (say $550) only to discover shortly thereafter that his serial number now goes to a $15 coin with no variety (real life example - 1945 10C DDO 101). Let’s hear your very best argument now please for the good faith purchaser as if you were called on under the Socratic Method by Professor Kingsfield (remember him)? The floor is all yours! 😊
Wondercoin.
Messydesk - your reason(s) to remove a variety can all be summed up as the simple reason it was a mistake to include it in the first place. Makes perfect sense. I think everyone agrees.
Wondercoin
pcgs charges for variety attribution. should it really be a money loser they could quit all variety attribution. or raise prices.
As I said, I don't know what our hosts current reasoning is, so I can't comment.
The good faith purchaser is likely quite unhappy. [I also don't know why they couldn't leave the separate entry even if they removed it from registry sets. Idon't know why they couldn't cease certifying the variety while leaving it in the registry sets?, if necessary. But that really has nothing to do with my "no".]
However, I will say it again, I cannot support such an absolute phrasing of an eternal commitment. That is true even if PCGS's current actions are unnecessary and evil. Your question was phrased as an absolute. My immediate 1st thought was removal of erroneous varieties which you later excepted. My second thought was a profit/ loss issue. And I think rejection of the absolute phrasing is the question is reasonable and prudent.
Now, put your thinking cap on and address this question. Suppose there was enforceable legislation that forced a company to eternally commit to a variety once added. How many minor varieties would be added to registry sets in the future? [Hint: the number likely approaches zero. ]
P.S. I made a very short comment on this topic that could have just stood, especially when that comment was made before you excepted the variety being invalidated. You repeatedly challenged my "no" and dragged me into about 1000 words more than needed to be said. And, of course, now all my "fans" are going to blame me for the verbose discussion.
It is not likely equally simple for all varieties nor equally costly. There is also a (likely small) carrying cost to maintaining zombie items in a database.
But we don't know the reason for the change.
‘’Let’s hear your very best argument now please for the good faith purchaser as if you were called on under the Socratic Method by Professor Kingsfield (remember him)? The floor is all yours! 😊’’
‘’The good faith purchaser is likely quite unhappy. [I also don't know why they couldn't leave the separate entry even if they removed it from registry sets. Idon't know why they couldn't cease certifying the variety while leaving it in the registry sets?, if necessary. But that really has nothing to do with my "no".]’’
Mr. jmlanzaf - “here’s a dime. Call your mother and tell her there is serious doubt about you becoming a lawyer.”
Wondercoin
I'm not going to go deep in this topic but saying that, if pcgs makes a final decision to remove a variety then offer a reasonable buy back to the consumer.
Give them a certain amount of time that the coin can be sent back to pcgs for either full purchase or removal of variety with reholder and some kind of reasonable refund on top and send it back with all costs to be eaten by pcgs.
I'm not litigating anything. Gee, I'm sorry I don't agree with your "FOREVER". I'll remember in the future that you only tolerate complete agreement and absolute fealty even though we already forced you to correct your own question after you asked it.
The good faith purchaser will be fine as long as he bought the coin from you. I'm sure you'll buy it back for the $500 even if the guide says $15 because you have a "forever" guarantee. If not you, then certainly your grandchildren will make good on the "forever" guarantee.
Since you didn't even attempt to answer my question, your chances of becoming a lawyer are not in doubt. You'll do excellent since you readily evaded the question. I'll try again: if accepting new varieties includes a FOREVER guarantee, how many new minor varieties will they be adding going forward?
As the saying goes, FOREVER is a mighty long time...
Sorry Mr. Jmlanzaf- this isn’t your program. If you don’t like what’s going on here on this channel, please switch your programming to any other thread here that you chose. I am personally not interested in your mean-spirited postings here -worried particularly about the P&L of companies while not giving a darn for the good faith purchasers of the products in question. If you were the least bit balanced, perhaps I could have withstood more of your myriad postings on the subject. You can use whatever tactics you desire on other people’s threads, but please not on mine. I’m sure you can find other “red meat” for your fan base. You miserably failed your test here, I gave you the dime to call your mother and we have nothing more to talk about. Wondercoin.
My "myriad postings" only exist because you couldn't accept my disagreement. You are the one who keeps questioning me. If you don't want answers, don't ask questions.
Mean-spirited? You told me to "call my mother" because I failed your lawyer test. You told me to "use your brain". So, if there is any mean-spiritedness, it is coming from you. And all because I originally said:
"Hmmm....I think that's an awfully binary way to phrase the question. So, without further conditions or context, it's an easy "NO"."
And, ironically, you retroactively agreed with that position because you added a condition to the question.
I'm also NOT worried about company P/L. As I've said twice (at least), I have no idea why PCGS made this decision in this instance. However, I do consider that a possible legitimate reason to change the way they handle certain varieties. So, "FOREVER" is still a mighty long time and I can see reasons why a company might change the way they handle a variety.
Personally, I think it would be better to retire the sets completely and start new ones. That won't make your poor beleaguered collector any happier but it wouldn't be erasing the existence of the coin. I also think it would be possible to leave the sets alone and stop certifying new examples, if business decisions mandated it.
My apologies for directly answering the questions you asked. I should have realized they were simply rhetorical devices.
I wonder if it's also worth considering the converse to this: Once a registry set is established, should PCGS NEVER add any new varieties?
Doesn't the poor beleaguered registry collector have a similar financial problem here? To maintain his standing, he now has to go out and buy new, possibly initially scarce, varieties.
Mitch, to be fair, a dime isn’t adequate change to use for a pay phone. And that’s if someone could even locate one.😉
More seriously, however, your original question did beg for exceptions to be included in any answers, not just “yes” or “no”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes and no.
As a rule varieties should only be added, however I can certainly see deleting varieties that fall out of favor or have no interest other than in registry sets. Adding varieties is like a trial balloon and balloons that can't fly might sometimes need popping.
This is not to say I support every or any decision made to date. There are some really great varieties that don't appear in registry sets and, I believe, should be added.
Coin collecting for most is an individual pursuit and I applaud those who desire to do it competitively but every competition requires rules, definitions, and guidelines. Perhaps more opinion merely needs be sought.
I'm not on both sides of the issue. I have strong opinions but only on a point by point basis. More varieties are good, different weighting possible.
I get 20 calls a day from India. If they had to pay even a penny per call the damn phone would stop ringing.
Picturing a startup call center as some kid on a street with a bag full of 1 paisa coins feeding them into a pay phone with a rotary dial while monkeys try stealing his script.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
My analysis is going to be an oversimplification- and for that, I apologize in advance- if PCGS were to stop with the + grading should/would they then stop allowing the added weight in the Registry?
If so, how is that fair to the participants who spent perhaps multiples to obtain such plus coins, and if not how is that fair to future active members of the registry that have no shot at having premium coins graded with the "+"?
peacockcoins
There are other situations like this. What if they thought the "lowball" or "everyman set" concepts were silly and did away with them. They are solely responsible for huge premiums for their respective "top-end" grades that didn't exist before.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Sacrilege!
How dare you!
peacockcoins
‘’ You told me to "call my mother" because I failed your lawyer test.’’
I was joking with you and gave you the reference upfront to professor Kingsfield from The Paper Chase. I even put the call your mother quote in quotation marks to show you they were not my words, but from what most consider the key scene to the entire movie.
Anyway, all good and thoughtful discussion here. I haven’t stated a position on the subject and any modifications to my original posted question were intended to get rid of the loopholes to the otherwise very serious issue underlying the question.
Messydesk - thank you in particular for your very thoughtful and thought provoking posts thus far.
Wondercoin
Fair enough.
How dare you! How dare you!
Ok, we don't blame you.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
The answer is no, PCGS is not required to keep any or all varieties in the makeup of their registry sets for any specific timeframe. Does this recent change suck for those affected, yes it sure does, do those registry participants have options and other ways to use those coins, yes they do. Life is seldom ever "fair", defecation happens every day to lots of good people, this hardly rises to the top of the barrel of important issues in the world.
Change happens, it is the only true constant.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
‘’defecation happens every day to lots of good people’’
I assume we are not talking about eating prunes here?
Wondercoin
"I assume we are not talking about eating prunes here?"
While I have no personal experience in this area I have read that prunes do facilitate that process. But to answer your question no that was not the meaning of my reply.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
My great aunt didn't drink coffee or tea. She just drank a glass of warm water every morning to move things along.
I agree that PCGS has the right to add or remove coins from the the Registry as they see fit. There has to be a better way, and there is! The TPGs need to more carefully consider things when adding coins to a set and not rely on the extremely flawed CPG as the source. The most significant varieties should be selected from a source like Variety Vista or other open and group project that is contributed to by almost anyone in the greater coin community. TPGs cannot rely on the whims of the folks at the CPG based on what they own or have access to. When more careful consideration is taken for what is added to sets, this mass removal never happens. This problem will repeat itself when the next versions of the CPG come out. Why? There is no reason for it. At a certain point though we have to look at the following.
Adding a coin to a registry helps make a market for that coin and is the "PUMP". The TPG then "MAKES MONEY" from grading and attribution over that long period of time. Having those coins in the registry for over 10 years really solidifies them for that set. Collectors spend countless hours and money on getting these coins for the market PCGS has established. Then comes the "DUMP" when most of the better examples have been found/graded/attributed and they remove the varieties from the well established registry sets, leaving collectors as the victim when the market is destroyed.
Coin values are not secure in PCGS holders when practices like this take place.
This removes trust in PCGS.
Moves like this only hurt collectors.
So many statements by PCGS over the decades have been in support of collectors. In this case, PCGS is only hurting the collector base. Why?
When a collector loses 27 or 28 coins from variety sets and well into 5-figures in dollar value, I just do not understand.
I know another collector that lost a few thousand dollars as well.
Another collector that has probably lost the most is Hansen! He has all the dang varieties in all the sets. He will likely lose 6-figures. Has @JBatDavidLawrence / Hansen complained to PCGS about this mass removal of varieties from the registry?
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I do not disagree with what you are saying, I'm just not ready to vilify the TPG until (if) we ever find out why this change was made. Basically, I'm leaving the door open to see if this was a computer bug, hack, or mistake. In the other thread you started you wrote "Even the registry set person was out of the loop and did not know what was going on". That seems to suggest that maybe this was not an intentional action, and my hope is that by next week everything will be reset, but time will tell.
However, I also think that even if things are reversed, everyone should take this as a leaning lesson that a grading company is not here to "have your back". The two current top TPG's are not run by the same individuals or in the same way that they have been in the past. As a collector you, I, we are all responsible for the choices we each make on how and what to collect. This is not the first time a change at the TPG's has cost collectors financially, it may just be the first time for you.
The issue of gradeflation has cost plenty of collectors and had a much bigger financial impact on the hobby, and to a much bigger group of collectors, than pulling these varieties out of the database. When I first started putting my certified Lincoln set together, I bought quite a few MS66 coins because MS67 was in general the very top to be found and was very expensive. Fast forward to today and now there are tons of 67+ and 68's in almost every year post 1930, now all those MS66 coins I started with are worth pennies on the dollar. Yes, I know firsthand just how much of a blow it can be when the system is changed and the rug is pulled out.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I'm a yes vote. Been in the set, never declared a non-variety, Needs to stay. Can't change the rules of the game mid-game.
I decided to do a complete variety set of mercs when I found a 1919 ddo.
The set consists of of all the ddos and rpms that pcgs deemed worthy. 107 was the total, I requested the 1919 ddo be added to the set. It was added shortly after my request. 108 coins now required.
A lot of the coin errors require a jewelers loop to see, especially if you are over 50. Many of them are rather insignificant in my opinion. As an example the 1931 S ddo or 1937 S ddo. One of the removed coins from the set is the 1945 ddo. It has just about the same amount of doubling as the 31 S and 37 S. Maybe pull those too. Or just pull them all and just do major varieties. Or just bag the whole thing. Really, the coins have a junk value of like $2 each. Just melt now.
I bought or found the required items for the set based on the 108 coins listed by pcgs.
Yep, I'm pissed.
Rant over, have a nice day
Bst transactions with: dimeman, oih82w8, mercurydimeguy, dunerlaw, Lakesammman, 2ltdjorn, MattTheRiley, dpvilla, drddm, CommemKing, Relaxn, Yorkshireman, Cucamongacoin, jtlee321, greencopper, coin22lover, coinfolio, lindedad, spummybum, Leeroybrown, flackthat, BryceM, Surfinxhi, VanHalen, astrorat, robkool, Wingsrule, PennyGuy, al410, Ilikecolor, Southcounty, Namvet69, Commemdude, oreville, Leebone, Rob41281, clarkbar04, cactusjack55, Collectorcoins, sniocsu, coin finder