@winesteven said:
As noted, the CACG weighting system will hurt my Type sets (and my several DATE sets as well), as I've always strived for the highest grade affordable, so that means common dates), but I understand their logic too.
I'm not sure there's a lot of logic in letting an MS65 1937-D 3 Legged Buffalo Nickel outrank an MS68 (Top pop) 1937-D Buffalo Nickel for the 1937-D Nickel slot. Assuming that is the case it is not something I would bother competing in, but if other people like it, then so be it.
@winesteven said:
As noted, the CACG weighting system will hurt my Type sets (and my several DATE sets as well), as I've always strived for the highest grade affordable, so that means common dates), but I understand their logic too.
I'm not sure there's a lot of logic in letting an MS65 1937-D 3 Legged Buffalo Nickel outrank an MS68 (Top pop) 1937-D Buffalo Nickel for the 1937-D Nickel slot. Assuming that is the case it is not something I would bother competing in, but if other people like it, then so be it.
While my opinion is the minority opinion, to me, since grading is considered subjunctive, I would be more comfortable owning a $750 MS67 1937-D than a $21,000 MS68 1937-D.
@winesteven said:
As noted, the CACG weighting system will hurt my Type sets (and my several DATE sets as well), as I've always strived for the highest grade affordable, so that means common dates), but I understand their logic too.
I'm not sure there's a lot of logic in letting an MS65 1937-D 3 Legged Buffalo Nickel outrank an MS68 (Top pop) 1937-D Buffalo Nickel for the 1937-D Nickel slot. Assuming that is the case it is not something I would bother competing in, but if other people like it, then so be it.
First, Steve was only addressing type and date sets.
Second, I would assume that the 3-leg would have its own slot or be listed in a separate "with variety" set.
Good grief. Wait until the Registry is set up next week.
@BStrauss3 said:
I could offer BBQGC stickers - "Burton's Blind Squirrel Grading Conglomerate" with the motto "Occasionally Our Stickers Make Sense".> @PerryHall said:
If Hanson is one of the owners of CACG and they are slabbing his coins, isn't that a conflict of interest or at least gives the appearance of a conflict of interest? The graders must certainly recognize his coins since they give them a fancy label with his name on it. If a coin is on the border between a B coin or a C coin, could the graders be consciously or subconsciously influenced to give the coin the benefit of the doubt?
Coins are graded in flips. The labelling happens AFTER.
Can you guarantee that when a group of ultra rare coins come into the grading room, they never have any idea who owns them?
In all seriousness, you know that a guarantee of that type can't be made, as some coins are easily recognizable as being in very well-known collections.
If you owned a grading company and were calling the shots, what would you have the graders do when presented with such coins for grading?
Maybe if he wants to be a collector he shouldn't own a grading company.
That would be the solution to the conflict of interest.
If a coin is on the border between a B coin or a C coin, could the graders be consciously or subconsciously influenced to give the coin the benefit of the doubt?
Could not the same be said of PCGS? After all he spent a great deal of money getting his collection into special label holders at PCGS
If a coin is on the border between a B coin or a C coin, could the graders be consciously or subconsciously influenced to give the coin the benefit of the doubt?
Could not the same be said of PCGS? After all he spent a great deal of money getting his collection into special label holders at PCGS
Is Hanson also a part owner of PCGS like he's a part owner of CACG?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
For a collector seeking out top pops, I do question the ability to obtain all coins that are also CAC top pop. For example, there has to be several PCGS top pop (1/0) MS68 coins that are only C MS68's and would cross to CACG at MS67.
If a coin is on the border between a B coin or a C coin, could the graders be consciously or subconsciously influenced to give the coin the benefit of the doubt?
Could not the same be said of PCGS? After all he spent a great deal of money getting his collection into special label holders at PCGS
Is Hanson also a part owner of PCGS like he's a part owner of CACG?
Well if that is the tact you wish to travel, many people of this forum were part owners of PCGS when it was publicly traded, should/were those part owners prohibited from submitting to a TPG that they had a stake in? And while I don't know one way or the other it is possible that he could have owned shares, i.e. been a part owner of PCGS.
If a coin is on the border between a B coin or a C coin, could the graders be consciously or subconsciously influenced to give the coin the benefit of the doubt?
Could not the same be said of PCGS? After all he spent a great deal of money getting his collection into special label holders at PCGS
Is Hanson also a part owner of PCGS like he's a part owner of CACG?
Well if that is the tact you wish to travel, many people of this forum were part owners of PCGS when it was publicly traded, should/were those part owners prohibited from submitting to a TPG that they had a stake in?
Yes unless they want to admit to a conflict of interest of using the company they own to slab the coins that they own.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
If a coin is on the border between a B coin or a C coin, could the graders be consciously or subconsciously influenced to give the coin the benefit of the doubt?
Could not the same be said of PCGS? After all he spent a great deal of money getting his collection into special label holders at PCGS
Is Hanson also a part owner of PCGS like he's a part owner of CACG?
Well if that is the tact you wish to travel, many people of this forum were part owners of PCGS when it was publicly traded, should/were those part owners prohibited from submitting to a TPG that they had a stake in?
Yes unless they want to admit to a conflict of interest of using the company they own to slab the coins that they own.
Well as you know nobody that owned shares of PCGS stock was restricted from submitting coins to PCGS. Mr. Hanson does not own CACG he is just one of over 100 investors. All of those investors are well known dealers, collectors, or someone that is a part of the business/hobby of numismatics, and I would bet that many if not most have been submitting coins to CACG for grading. The TPG industry is fraught with conflict of interest issues, always has been, I don't see this as any more egregious than any situation that has happened in the past with a major TPG.
If a coin is on the border between a B coin or a C coin, could the graders be consciously or subconsciously influenced to give the coin the benefit of the doubt?
Could not the same be said of PCGS? After all he spent a great deal of money getting his collection into special label holders at PCGS
Is Hanson also a part owner of PCGS like he's a part owner of CACG?
Well if that is the tact you wish to travel, many people of this forum were part owners of PCGS when it was publicly traded, should/were those part owners prohibited from submitting to a TPG that they had a stake in?
Yes unless they want to admit to a conflict of interest of using the company they own to slab the coins that they own.
The TPG industry is fraught with conflict of interest issues, always has been
Thank you. This was the only point I was trying to make.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@winesteven said:
My understanding is that with the new upcoming CACG Registries, the “formula” for weighting coins that fill each slot in Type Sets will be weighted to give a fairer point score to a rarer date in a lower grade compared to a much more common date in a higher grade.
Will that “hurt me” in the CACG Registry Type Sets with me using common dates in high grades? Absolutely! But I recognize that’s a much fairer system, leveling the playing field, for Type collectors who choose to get tougher (rarer) dates for slots in their Type Set!
Isn't that how the PCGS set registries work with their weighting system? I'm not sure I see how this is different.
Absolutely NOT! While each slot has its own weight, coins of ANY date that qualify for that slot are all treated the same with PCGS, but presumably will not with CACG. So in the example i gave of a Type Set that requires one Morgan Dollar, a common 1880-S graded MS65 will have the same number of Registry points as a much rarer (and MUCH more expensive) 1895 Morgan Dollar graded MS65 filling that one slot with the PCGS Registry, but with the CACG Registry, that slot filled by a rarer coin will have more Registry points than a more common date filling that same slot!
Steve
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if I choose to complete a date set with an MS63 1893-S Morgan (very expensive) instead of an MS63 1893-P Morgan (much cheaper), I'll get more points for using the S?
That doesn't sound like a very good way to do things. If a collector chooses to fill a slot with a difficult (expensive) coin instead of a cheap one, that their decision, but the "competition" shouldn't be about finding the most expensive coin for the slot, but rather which one is graded highest. I had always thought that the idea of a registry set was to reward the highest graded sets, not the most expensive/rarest/etc.
This also seems like it is only an issue for sets like date and type sets.
While i used Type Sets in my example, the same would indeed hold true for DATE sets.
I understand your point and logic, and that is indeed how PCGS handles their Registry DATE and Type sets. But CACG is looking to balance things a bit by giving more weight to coins that are rarer filling a slot, compared to a more common dated coin filling that same slot.
As noted, the CACG weighting system will hurt my Type sets (and my several DATE sets as well), as I've always strived for the highest grade affordable, so that means common dates), but I understand their logic too.
Steve
CACG’s additional weighting of rare dates is going to ensure that the very rich are the only people in the top 20 of every type set. Under PCGS’s rules, I can often break into the top 20. It’s going to be harder with CACG.
@winesteven said:
My understanding is that with the new upcoming CACG Registries, the “formula” for weighting coins that fill each slot in Type Sets will be weighted to give a fairer point score to a rarer date in a lower grade compared to a much more common date in a higher grade.
Will that “hurt me” in the CACG Registry Type Sets with me using common dates in high grades? Absolutely! But I recognize that’s a much fairer system, leveling the playing field, for Type collectors who choose to get tougher (rarer) dates for slots in their Type Set!
Isn't that how the PCGS set registries work with their weighting system? I'm not sure I see how this is different.
Absolutely NOT! While each slot has its own weight, coins of ANY date that qualify for that slot are all treated the same with PCGS, but presumably will not with CACG. So in the example i gave of a Type Set that requires one Morgan Dollar, a common 1880-S graded MS65 will have the same number of Registry points as a much rarer (and MUCH more expensive) 1895 Morgan Dollar graded MS65 filling that one slot with the PCGS Registry, but with the CACG Registry, that slot filled by a rarer coin will have more Registry points than a more common date filling that same slot!
Steve
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if I choose to complete a date set with an MS63 1893-S Morgan (very expensive) instead of an MS63 1893-P Morgan (much cheaper), I'll get more points for using the S?
That doesn't sound like a very good way to do things. If a collector chooses to fill a slot with a difficult (expensive) coin instead of a cheap one, that their decision, but the "competition" shouldn't be about finding the most expensive coin for the slot, but rather which one is graded highest. I had always thought that the idea of a registry set was to reward the highest graded sets, not the most expensive/rarest/etc.
This also seems like it is only an issue for sets like date and type sets.
While i used Type Sets in my example, the same would indeed hold true for DATE sets.
I understand your point and logic, and that is indeed how PCGS handles their Registry DATE and Type sets. But CACG is looking to balance things a bit by giving more weight to coins that are rarer filling a slot, compared to a more common dated coin filling that same slot.
As noted, the CACG weighting system will hurt my Type sets (and my several DATE sets as well), as I've always strived for the highest grade affordable, so that means common dates), but I understand their logic too.
Steve
CACG’s additional weighting of rare dates is going to ensure that the very rich are the only people in the top 20 of every type serving under PCGS’s rules, I can often break into the top 20. It’s going to be harder with CACG.
Hansen is always going to either #1 or #2, regardless of the formula. I suggest we be patient and see how we actually rank in the new system. I don't think it'll end up being too different. As I indicated, if anything, it'll hurt my sets of common date but high grade coins. I suspect though that the vast majority of Type and DATE Set collectors are lime me, going for the high grades with common dates. I'm not losing any sleep, and I do plan to participate in BOTH of the new CACG Registries. I think my rankings will be just fine.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
My understanding is that with the new upcoming CACG Registries, the “formula” for weighting coins that fill each slot in Type Sets will be weighted to give a fairer point score to a rarer date in a lower grade compared to a much more common date in a higher grade.
Will that “hurt me” in the CACG Registry Type Sets with me using common dates in high grades? Absolutely! But I recognize that’s a much fairer system, leveling the playing field, for Type collectors who choose to get tougher (rarer) dates for slots in their Type Set!
Isn't that how the PCGS set registries work with their weighting system? I'm not sure I see how this is different.
Absolutely NOT! While each slot has its own weight, coins of ANY date that qualify for that slot are all treated the same with PCGS, but presumably will not with CACG. So in the example i gave of a Type Set that requires one Morgan Dollar, a common 1880-S graded MS65 will have the same number of Registry points as a much rarer (and MUCH more expensive) 1895 Morgan Dollar graded MS65 filling that one slot with the PCGS Registry, but with the CACG Registry, that slot filled by a rarer coin will have more Registry points than a more common date filling that same slot!
Steve
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if I choose to complete a date set with an MS63 1893-S Morgan (very expensive) instead of an MS63 1893-P Morgan (much cheaper), I'll get more points for using the S?
That doesn't sound like a very good way to do things. If a collector chooses to fill a slot with a difficult (expensive) coin instead of a cheap one, that their decision, but the "competition" shouldn't be about finding the most expensive coin for the slot, but rather which one is graded highest. I had always thought that the idea of a registry set was to reward the highest graded sets, not the most expensive/rarest/etc.
This also seems like it is only an issue for sets like date and type sets.
While i used Type Sets in my example, the same would indeed hold true for DATE sets.
I understand your point and logic, and that is indeed how PCGS handles their Registry DATE and Type sets. But CACG is looking to balance things a bit by giving more weight to coins that are rarer filling a slot, compared to a more common dated coin filling that same slot.
As noted, the CACG weighting system will hurt my Type sets (and my several DATE sets as well), as I've always strived for the highest grade affordable, so that means common dates), but I understand their logic too.
Steve
In my case I think it wouldn't be fair because I am one like you, the highest grade and not the most rare coin for each slot.
In that case (CACG) the person with the most money wins, ALL THE TIME! Because they can afford the most expensive coins for each slot
I will stay with PCGS registries and not even bother with CACG registries
@BStrauss3 said:
I could offer BBQGC stickers - "Burton's Blind Squirrel Grading Conglomerate" with the motto "Occasionally Our Stickers Make Sense".> @PerryHall said:
If Hanson is one of the owners of CACG and they are slabbing his coins, isn't that a conflict of interest or at least gives the appearance of a conflict of interest? The graders must certainly recognize his coins since they give them a fancy label with his name on it. If a coin is on the border between a B coin or a C coin, could the graders be consciously or subconsciously influenced to give the coin the benefit of the doubt?
Coins are graded in flips. The labelling happens AFTER.
Can you guarantee that when a group of ultra rare coins come into the grading room, they never have any idea who owns them?
In all seriousness, you know that a guarantee of that type can't be made, as some coins are easily recognizable as being in very well-known collections.
If you owned a grading company and were calling the shots, what would you have the graders do when presented with such coins for grading?
I thought it was obvious that it was a rhetorical question. I don't own a grading company so your question is irrelevant and I assume it's also rhetorical. Do you agree that there's at least the appearance of a conflict of interest when one of the owners of a grading company has his personally owned coins graded by his company??
IMHO, chasing registry points is folly no matter what registry. The great collectors focus on the magical triad of rarity, high grade and eye appeal. To the extent collectors don't use their resources to get such special coins regardless of holders or stickers, we're filling our sets with common stuff to get points, and thus swimming in the great lake of dreck.
@tcollects I agree 100% Just look at the Dreck @winesteven put together for his Indian Cent collection while chase those God awful PCGS, Eagle Eye & CAC stickers.
@willy said: @tcollects I agree 100% Just look at the Dreck @winesteven put together for his Indian Cent collection while chase those God awful PCGS, Eagle Eye & CAC stickers.
...and along the way, it sounds like the coins are still special as particularly nice for the date, but it sounds like the rarest coins in high grade with eye appeal were avoided in part due to a consideration about registry points, right? or maybe I don't understand and didn't read everything close enough which would be typical for me
edited to add... and it's this influence of registry points that leads collectors in a specific direction that one might normally not take, and one that doesn't lead to a collection of the rarest coins
@willy said: @tcollects I agree 100% Just look at the Dreck @winesteven put together for his Indian Cent collection while chase those God awful PCGS, Eagle Eye & CAC stickers.
...and along the way, it sounds like the coins are still special as particularly nice for the date, but it sounds like the rarest coins in high grade with eye appeal were avoided in part due to a consideration about registry points, right? or maybe I don't understand and didn't read everything close enough which would be typical for me
I buy coins in grades that I feel comfortable with, and will NEVER upgrade only for the purpose of getting more points. Secondly, in the IHC Basic series, the two toughest dates are the 1877 and 1909-S. My 1877 is MS65RB, a $20K coin, and my 1909-S is MS66+RD, another $20K coin. Unlike your thesis, I decided NOT to buy ANY of the coins in that set at MS67RD, even though for the more common dates in the series I can afford those. But i chose not to chase points for the sake of moving higher in the rankings.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@willy said: @tcollects I agree 100% Just look at the Dreck @winesteven put together for his Indian Cent collection while chase those God awful PCGS, Eagle Eye & CAC stickers.
...and along the way, it sounds like the coins are still special as particularly nice for the date, but it sounds like the rarest coins in high grade with eye appeal were avoided in part due to a consideration about registry points, right? or maybe I don't understand and didn't read everything close enough which would be typical for me
I buy coins in grades that I feel comfortable with, and will NEVER upgrade only for the purpose of getting more points. Secondly, in the IHC Basic series, the two toughest dates are the 1877 and 1909-S. My 1877 is MS65RB, a $20K coin, and my 1909-S is MS66+RD, another $20K coin. Unlike your thesis, I decided NOT to buy ANY of the coins in that set at MS67RD, even though for the more common dates in the series I can afford those. But i chose not to chase points for the sake of moving higher in the rankings.
Steve
okay, are there any situations where you considered registry points in what coin you bought?
@willy said: @tcollects I agree 100% Just look at the Dreck @winesteven put together for his Indian Cent collection while chase those God awful PCGS, Eagle Eye & CAC stickers.
...and along the way, it sounds like the coins are still special as particularly nice for the date, but it sounds like the rarest coins in high grade with eye appeal were avoided in part due to a consideration about registry points, right? or maybe I don't understand and didn't read everything close enough which would be typical for me
I buy coins in grades that I feel comfortable with, and will NEVER upgrade only for the purpose of getting more points. Secondly, in the IHC Basic series, the two toughest dates are the 1877 and 1909-S. My 1877 is MS65RB, a $20K coin, and my 1909-S is MS66+RD, another $20K coin. Unlike your thesis, I decided NOT to buy ANY of the coins in that set at MS67RD, even though for the more common dates in the series I can afford those. But i chose not to chase points for the sake of moving higher in the rankings.
Steve
okay, are there any situations where you considered registry points in what coin you bought?
Yes, as follows, but that was only a very small part, if at all, of my final decision:
Most Type Sets allow either a Business Strike or Proof Strike to fill a particular slot. I've found that often the Proof coinage is LESS expensive for the same grade as a Business Strike. In other words, for the same money I can get a Proof coin often with a Cameo suffix in a higher grade than a Business strike. Being my goal is higher grade (for the purpose of just having a higher grade, not for the purpose of more points, even though the higher grade happens to have more points), but the eye appeal to me of super high mirrors and often a great strike on Proof coins compared to flatter mirrors and not as sharp a strike on Business strike coins is why I made that decision, even though it happens that more points are generated.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Most Type Sets allow either a Business Strike or Proof Strike to fill a particular slot. I've found that often the Proof coinage is LESS expensive for the same grade as a Business Strike. In other words, for the same money I can get a Proof coin often with a Cameo suffix in a higher grade than a Business strike.
@tcollects said:
well alright then, carry on, I mistakenly sensed a disturbance in the force
Separately, I do indeed have a "Want List" of coins I'm looking to upgrade, as I'm comfortable paying that level for a nicer coin. However, I will not buy a coin in a higher grade as an upgrade simply because it's graded by PCGS in the grade I want and has a CAC sticker. I require the coin look at least as nice (but I strongly prefer it actually looks nicer) as the coin that's being replaced!
A perfect example is my #12 ranked Silver Commem 50 Piece Type Set. I have several existing three-figure coins in that set that I've been trying to upgrade for at least three years. I've seen MANY hundreds of these over that time graded by PCGS in the grades I want, all with CAC stickers, but nothing that made me pull the trigger. I could easily "climb up and pass" two or three of the sets ranked higher than me by buying these few upgrades, but where i end up in the rankings means nothing. I want to buy only the coins with eye appeal that I like, in the grades I'm comfortable paying for those particular slots, and wherever I end up ranked is perfectly fine.
Here's my Gettysburg, graded MS66, PCGS Price Guide = $950. A 66+ they have at $1,300, a 67 is $1,800. I can easily afford either of those, and those grades are what I've been searching for. If you look at my coins, unlike most knowledgeable collectors, as a generalization I prefer highly lustrous coins with little or no toning. There is a large but "silent" minority of collectors that like these too. I know from vigorous bidding at auctions. I'm still waiting for a 66+ or 67, after seeing hundreds, that looks nicer to me than the one I own. A 67+ has a Price Guide figure of $5,500, and even though i can afford that, I choose to not pay anywhere near that for this particular slot, even if I find one that satisfies my eye appeal requirements.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Comments
I'm not sure there's a lot of logic in letting an MS65 1937-D 3 Legged Buffalo Nickel outrank an MS68 (Top pop) 1937-D Buffalo Nickel for the 1937-D Nickel slot. Assuming that is the case it is not something I would bother competing in, but if other people like it, then so be it.
While my opinion is the minority opinion, to me, since grading is considered subjunctive, I would be more comfortable owning a $750 MS67 1937-D than a $21,000 MS68 1937-D.
First, Steve was only addressing type and date sets.
Second, I would assume that the 3-leg would have its own slot or be listed in a separate "with variety" set.
Good grief. Wait until the Registry is set up next week.
Maybe if he wants to be a collector he shouldn't own a grading company.
That would be the solution to the conflict of interest.
No I'm not picking on anyone, just saying.
Martin
If a coin is on the border between a B coin or a C coin, could the graders be consciously or subconsciously influenced to give the coin the benefit of the doubt?
Could not the same be said of PCGS? After all he spent a great deal of money getting his collection into special label holders at PCGS
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Is Hanson also a part owner of PCGS like he's a part owner of CACG?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
For a collector seeking out top pops, I do question the ability to obtain all coins that are also CAC top pop. For example, there has to be several PCGS top pop (1/0) MS68 coins that are only C MS68's and would cross to CACG at MS67.
Well if that is the tact you wish to travel, many people of this forum were part owners of PCGS when it was publicly traded, should/were those part owners prohibited from submitting to a TPG that they had a stake in? And while I don't know one way or the other it is possible that he could have owned shares, i.e. been a part owner of PCGS.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Yes unless they want to admit to a conflict of interest of using the company they own to slab the coins that they own.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Well as you know nobody that owned shares of PCGS stock was restricted from submitting coins to PCGS. Mr. Hanson does not own CACG he is just one of over 100 investors. All of those investors are well known dealers, collectors, or someone that is a part of the business/hobby of numismatics, and I would bet that many if not most have been submitting coins to CACG for grading. The TPG industry is fraught with conflict of interest issues, always has been, I don't see this as any more egregious than any situation that has happened in the past with a major TPG.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Thank you. This was the only point I was trying to make.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
CACG’s additional weighting of rare dates is going to ensure that the very rich are the only people in the top 20 of every type set. Under PCGS’s rules, I can often break into the top 20. It’s going to be harder with CACG.
Hansen is always going to either #1 or #2, regardless of the formula. I suggest we be patient and see how we actually rank in the new system. I don't think it'll end up being too different. As I indicated, if anything, it'll hurt my sets of common date but high grade coins. I suspect though that the vast majority of Type and DATE Set collectors are lime me, going for the high grades with common dates. I'm not losing any sleep, and I do plan to participate in BOTH of the new CACG Registries. I think my rankings will be just fine.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Hansen can collect his silly stickers. I will stick with the coin. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
His sticker collection has some might fine coins😜
Martin
.
In my case I think it wouldn't be fair because I am one like you, the highest grade and not the most rare coin for each slot.
In that case (CACG) the person with the most money wins, ALL THE TIME! Because they can afford the most expensive coins for each slot
I will stay with PCGS registries and not even bother with CACG registries
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Never mind
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Thank you for not bidding on that CACG coin I need that"s also missing from your set.
IMHO, chasing registry points is folly no matter what registry. The great collectors focus on the magical triad of rarity, high grade and eye appeal. To the extent collectors don't use their resources to get such special coins regardless of holders or stickers, we're filling our sets with common stuff to get points, and thus swimming in the great lake of dreck.
@tcollects I agree 100%
Just look at the Dreck @winesteven put together for his Indian Cent collection while chase those God awful PCGS, Eagle Eye & CAC stickers. 
...and along the way, it sounds like the coins are still special as particularly nice for the date, but it sounds like the rarest coins in high grade with eye appeal were avoided in part due to a consideration about registry points, right? or maybe I don't understand and didn't read everything close enough which would be typical for me
edited to add... and it's this influence of registry points that leads collectors in a specific direction that one might normally not take, and one that doesn't lead to a collection of the rarest coins
I buy coins in grades that I feel comfortable with, and will NEVER upgrade only for the purpose of getting more points. Secondly, in the IHC Basic series, the two toughest dates are the 1877 and 1909-S. My 1877 is MS65RB, a $20K coin, and my 1909-S is MS66+RD, another $20K coin. Unlike your thesis, I decided NOT to buy ANY of the coins in that set at MS67RD, even though for the more common dates in the series I can afford those. But i chose not to chase points for the sake of moving higher in the rankings.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
okay, are there any situations where you considered registry points in what coin you bought?
Yes, as follows, but that was only a very small part, if at all, of my final decision:
Most Type Sets allow either a Business Strike or Proof Strike to fill a particular slot. I've found that often the Proof coinage is LESS expensive for the same grade as a Business Strike. In other words, for the same money I can get a Proof coin often with a Cameo suffix in a higher grade than a Business strike. Being my goal is higher grade (for the purpose of just having a higher grade, not for the purpose of more points, even though the higher grade happens to have more points), but the eye appeal to me of super high mirrors and often a great strike on Proof coins compared to flatter mirrors and not as sharp a strike on Business strike coins is why I made that decision, even though it happens that more points are generated.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
well alright then, carry on, I mistakenly sensed a disturbance in the force
Wish that was true for YEAR sets.
Separately, I do indeed have a "Want List" of coins I'm looking to upgrade, as I'm comfortable paying that level for a nicer coin. However, I will not buy a coin in a higher grade as an upgrade simply because it's graded by PCGS in the grade I want and has a CAC sticker. I require the coin look at least as nice (but I strongly prefer it actually looks nicer) as the coin that's being replaced!
A perfect example is my #12 ranked Silver Commem 50 Piece Type Set. I have several existing three-figure coins in that set that I've been trying to upgrade for at least three years. I've seen MANY hundreds of these over that time graded by PCGS in the grades I want, all with CAC stickers, but nothing that made me pull the trigger. I could easily "climb up and pass" two or three of the sets ranked higher than me by buying these few upgrades, but where i end up in the rankings means nothing. I want to buy only the coins with eye appeal that I like, in the grades I'm comfortable paying for those particular slots, and wherever I end up ranked is perfectly fine.
Here's my Gettysburg, graded MS66, PCGS Price Guide = $950. A 66+ they have at $1,300, a 67 is $1,800. I can easily afford either of those, and those grades are what I've been searching for. If you look at my coins, unlike most knowledgeable collectors, as a generalization I prefer highly lustrous coins with little or no toning. There is a large but "silent" minority of collectors that like these too. I know from vigorous bidding at auctions. I'm still waiting for a 66+ or 67, after seeing hundreds, that looks nicer to me than the one I own. A 67+ has a Price Guide figure of $5,500, and even though i can afford that, I choose to not pay anywhere near that for this particular slot, even if I find one that satisfies my eye appeal requirements.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996