If PCGS eliminated the bottom 20% of ALL Registries tomorrow, would you be upset?

braddick · September 6, 2002 5:50PM

If PCGS decided to do some Registry housecleaning and simply with a keystroke eliminated the bottom 20% of all Registries right across the board, would you be upset?

Is it a good idea?

barrytrot · September 6, 2002 6:54PM

I'd be upset. Even though I don't have any in the bottom 20%.

As, probably, would be the people with a bottom 20% "set".

True, 99% of the bottom 20% "sets" have 1-2 coins. But still, if they bothered to put them in, they must have a reason.

Also, why do this? Isn't more better? I mean the lowly 1 coin holder person is helping out the hobby. Don't discourage him/her. Encourage!

I say, encourage a new bottom 20% to show up! Unless PCGS is whining about bandwidth or something, I see no reason to get the registry as much exposure as possible.

MastaHanky · September 6, 2002 6:55PM

I think I'd have to say to them "Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!"

Somebody at one time suggested that each registry have a minimum percent complete before it is listed. Like a set would have to be 20% complete before it is listed.

I'm for a slight varient of that. I think the cutoff point should be a percentage of the maximum registry score. For example, the maximum registry score for circulation strike Buffalo nickels is 66.46. 20% of that is 13.92, which would be the minimum score you need to be listed. The downside of that is that it's a bit confusing, however, it is possible to get that score with just a few coins. I could be wrong, but someone who starts their registry set with the keys is more likely to finish it than somebody who starts it with the common material. By doing it this way, you could snap up all the common cheap dates, but not have a high enough score to get listed.

barrytrot · September 6, 2002 7:08PM

And why is it so bad to have only 1 coin?

For some unknown to us reason the person with 1 coin decided to type in the cert number and put it in the registry. I would think they must derive some pleasure from this or they wouldn't have done it. So why not let them have the minute fun?

Is there any REAL negative to having a bunch of "worthless" sets at the bottom of the registry lists?

I mean if you don't want to see them, then don't click on the link that displays all of the lists, just look at the top 20 on the first page.

pontiacinf · September 6, 2002 8:06PM

jd4science has a few 1 coin sets, but the ambition of a team of collectors. Do you
feel its right to take away his few sets because he cant afford to bring them upto 90%?

I myself wouldnt mind, but I think the little guys may take that to heart. I wouldnt wanna
see his spirit killed in a manner like this.

fcloud · September 6, 2002 9:22PM

I guess you have to start somewhere. If a person has only put up one coin, that may be the start of the series for him/her. They took the time, and I'll bet if you watch them over time, the sets will grow. Not everyone has the funds to build an entire set overnite. Keep them on. I would hope if PCGS made that desicion, they would e-mail set owners and ask if they could remove their sets. If someone says yes then remove it; if they say no leave it alone. They offer this service would think to bolster their business.
I started a set of Silver State Quarters PR69DCAM. My intention was to only get the silvers. But, once I listed my set, I decided to get the clad PR69DCAM quarters, too. So in my case the fact that I listed them, brought them some additional business (I bought the clads from DHRC).

Tony

IrishMike · September 6, 2002 9:36PM

Good point fcloud. I doubt if PCGS would do this. Once a collector makes a committment by putting a set in the registry it might compel them over time to add to it or branch off into other areas like your state quarters. One of my daughters got caught up in the state quarter craze and after much discussion she decided to agree with me (that alone is an anomaly of great proportions) and collect all of the proof washingtons going back to 1936. One of the motivating factors to her was listing that first one in the NGC registry set and we had one rule, on the quarters from 1950 to 1964 we would never spend more than $75 per coin. We had a great father/daughter time of it putting the collection together. BTW she was 20 when we started this. Even though she has now moved to LA, she can still go online and show off her collection. Of course her friends think that she is a bit weird.

g097103 · September 6, 2002 10:43PM

I started a registry set some time ago of proof Franklins in 66 or above no FBL. I quickly realized that my set
was just noise in the registry and removed it. I now enjoy building my set of Franklins without having to
wonder or care where I stand in the bottom 20%. I wouldn't want to see anyones set removed though, if
they find it gratifying to participate they should.

Scott M

wondercoin · September 6, 2002 10:45PM

The original idea of the PCGS "Registry" was to rank the TOP 5 SETS IN EACH SERIES. Then, enter the Internet, online Registry and now the "top 100" sets is just as easy to rank. I have no problem with every set being ranked. Many hobbyists truly have long term horizons set for their collection and plan on building the set, coin by coin, paycheck by paycheck. There is something very honorable in that style of collecting.

Wondercoin.

fcloud · September 6, 2002 10:57PM

Thanks, Irish Mike, for your comments.
I, too, think the state quarters are a craze, and only wanted top notch silver. And what a craze it is. Over time I think I'll be okay with the PR69DC, but if I loose out, that's ok, I had a blast with it (Mine are all in the flag holders, so I even paid extra). I wound up with a few extras, and my 20 year old son wants to build a set using my extras, and getting some additions. He has posted the extras as his colloction (I think he listed four to six coins). If the state quarter craze creates interest in the hobby the entire hobby wins. State Quarters bring the interest, and then the new collectors will branch out. PCGS is also bringing interest to the hobby by allowing people to list their sets. I think it is a very good move for the entire hobby! I think they would only hurt themselves by removing the bottom 20%.

Tony

(I have been collecting for over 30 years.)

itsnotjustme · September 6, 2002 11:48PM

Yes - Because then I might be in the new bottom 20%

Bear · September 6, 2002 11:54PM

The health of the Registry would seem to require it to remain INCLUSIONARY rather then become
elitist and EXCLUSIONARY. The future of the coin collecting fraternity is the younger newbies of limited means
who will , in time , become the more affluent old timers like EBL III and such. I feel that PCGS has the right idea
for the current Registry. Bear

littlewicher · September 7, 2002 12:06AM

I just looked at the SAC proof dollar sets. There are about 76 sets tied for 1st place! That's just plain crazy.

RGL · September 7, 2002 12:09AM

No, do not do it based on scores ... that is elitist and locks out the little guys doggedly plugging along (like myself!) Now, if you want to propose that sets below 40-50 percent complete that have not been updated in six months or a year would be eliminated after adequate notice/warning to the registrants, that is a different matter ...

FC57Coins · September 7, 2002 12:19AM

In my mind PCGS would be crazy to become more exclusionary than it already is. This is a cash cow for them so I don't think they'll tinker with it. As for collectors, I think there is always room at the Inn for everyone - even if your collection consists of one piece. If you have enough interest in the field to put your set up and it winds up at the bottom of the heap - who cares, the point is that it's your set and it's in the registry. Everyone should concern themselves with what they're doing and what they're putting together and not worry so much about what the "Jones'" are upto. IMHO.

Frank

littlewicher · September 7, 2002 12:55AM

I just updated my type sets. I had the coins but just didn't have time to enter them. I put the sets on a backburner for a while, but now it's going to be my number one priority.

CarlWohlforth · September 7, 2002 2:21AM

It would be just terrible to eliminate the bottom %20 of sets. I would morn the loss of this set. That has to be one of my favorite sets!

Bear · September 7, 2002 2:25AM

In answer to the original question....YES I WOULD BE UPSET!!!!!!!

Russ · September 7, 2002 2:27AM

I think they should eliminate - on a one time basis only - the top 19% of the proof Kennedy set.

Russ, NCNE

Bear · September 7, 2002 3:42AM

Russ - You little devil, and you sitting there with the other 81% of the Kennedy Half Dollar Proofs. Bear

barrytrot · September 7, 2002 3:49AM

Russ, I wholehearted agree

Or at least disallow anyone from being in the top 5 on more than 2 coin types

That way EBL III and other mongers would have to pick their areas of absolute dominion.

Bear · September 7, 2002 3:50AM

The league of furry creatures agrees totally. Bear

braddick · September 7, 2002 6:34AM

<< <i>It would be just terrible to eliminate the bottom %20 of sets. I would morn the loss of this set. That has to be one of my favorite sets! >>

Thanks Carl! For what it's worth: I'd loose four sets right off the bat if PCGS did this (The above set, my "Worse Known" Commemoratives; "Worse Known" Ikes, and the "Worse SBA On the Planet" sets-).

I remember when NGC first started they wouldn't allow coins- even their OWN coins (!) into the Registry if they were under a certain grade! That didn't (fortunutely) last very long...).

Wisconsin · September 7, 2002 6:56AM

I know I started my type set just a couple of months ago?? with one coin, and am now up to five. I started at the bottom and am working my way up. I have to say, I have a few high dollar coins(for my budget) and cant really work much faster than I am. I think maybe if someone registers a set with one or maybe a few coins, and never updates anything for a year, you can maybe assume they have lost intersest.

I have observed many sets in my type set group at least that have many more coins than me, but they have all the easy more common ones. I am working on some of the early dates first, so it takes a lot more $$ to make progress.

fantasiize · September 7, 2002 7:04AM

No

barrytrot · September 7, 2002 7:09AM

Braddick's wellknown "worst known" sets are a primo example that if someone is enjoying the set, let them have it!

What's funny is that EBL III's best known superfectas probably have a good chance of losing value should they be sold, however, once Braddick completes his worst known type set I bet he can double his money the same day! I know I'd bid. Heck he could probably get triple his money without a blink if he waits 2 days.

merz2 · September 7, 2002 8:58AM

I also would hate to see PCGS limit any of the Registries in any way.This would be a bad thing,IMHO!!!! All collectors should have the chance to exhibit their collections in The Registry.I also believe that PCGS should follow NGC's example and allow other (NGC) slabs in the Registry.Before anyone starts yelling,NO I don't have any NGC graded coins in my collection.To be fair to eveyone,it is in their best interest,also IMHO!

Lakesammman · September 7, 2002 10:16AM

Love that worst set - look at those pop.1 coins...wow. Thanks for sharing that one...will be looking on with interest. Anyone know what those ultra-low grade initials stand for?? It's hard to find coins like that w/o them having been cleaned. I guess the ultimate set would really be a complete set in PCGS body bags!

TAP444 · September 7, 2002 11:06AM

They should remain as they are!!

khayse · September 7, 2002 11:23AM

It would be crazy and stupid. What would they gain from such an action?
Disk space is cheap, it doesn't really cost much to keep them.

It used to very, very, very slightly annoy me when I watched the bottom guy sit
there for months with one coin registered with no upgrades ever showing up.
I even considered sending him some of my extras. Then PCGS changed it so
by default only the top 20 or 25 show. Now I don't even see these guys.
The only time I look I would is if I click to see the entire list just to see how
many people have registered in my series.

I say keep 'em.

-KHayse

lincolnSence · September 7, 2002 11:26AM

I suspect most are putting in 1 coin just to see how the registry works. I would be for dropping those sets that don't move past the one coin after some short period of time. After all is it to much to ask to have say 2% of the series coins entered?

Android · September 7, 2002 2:40PM

<< <i>True, 99% of the bottom 20% "sets" have 1-2 coins. But still, if they bothered to put them in, they must have a reason.

Also, why do this? Isn't more better? I mean the lowly 1 coin holder person is helping out the hobby. Don't discourage him/her. Encourage! >>

Perhaps all of their other coins are in NGC slabs!

How many beautiful sets will we never see over here because of this?

Andy

goyankeez · September 7, 2002 2:55PM

I like the Registry as it is. I don't mind all the 1 or 2 coin sets, as long as the person is still interested in collecting those sets. And of course if they eliminated the bottom 20%, my set will be closer to the bottom. That lower 20% makes my set seem better than it really is.

barrytrot · September 7, 2002 5:20PM

The idea of adding NGC coins is not a good one IMHO. Look at the last 10 issues of the Blue Sheet. Look down the list of Morgans. You can count on one hand the # of NGC's valued higher than PCGS.

I really don't think NGC should allow PCGS coins either. I mean, it completely throws off the equation. Everyone knows that PCGS and NGC do not always grade the same on the same coin.

PCGS's registry should be all inclusive for PCGS coins. But not NGC. Its the only close to fair way to rank them.

Either way, keep the bottom 20%!

LucyBop · September 8, 2002 2:23AM

Lucy would be very angry!!!! I just started my set in Franklins and currently rank 89, I am planning on completing this series and I think it will be fun to see how far I can climb. Don't eliminate Lucy!!!!

gmarguli · September 8, 2002 5:53AM

Yes. How many sets were added just in hopes of being #3000. There are so many junk sets (yes that is what they are). The registry was a means to showcase your set. If 2500 of these sets were removed no one would care or even notice.

PCGS needs to hide (not remove) sets that aren't at least X% complete (probably 25-25%).

Typetone · September 8, 2002 6:04AM

Leave them in. If you don't want to see them don't click on the below top 20 list. Many collectors start with one or two coins in a series and then gradually build. I am doing the same with Walkers. No harm done.

Greg

DAM · September 8, 2002 11:02AM

barrytrot,

Everyone knows that PCGS and NGC do not always grade the same on the same coin.

And why is that? If grading is subjective, who's subjectivity might we be talking about? The corporations? PCGS and NGC (and all the others) have an interest in staying in business. Their graders have an interest in staying employed, and must follow company grading policy. In the end, we receive undergraded/overgraded coins depending on what the corporate policy is at the time. To me, that's not subjective grading.

If that thinking is correct, subjectivity doesn't exist, for third party grading services.

Greg,

Leave them in. If you don't want to see them don't click on the below top 20 list.

AGREED!

These may represent young collectors or collectors who don't have the means to assemble their set as fast as others might. Also, there may be new collectors just getting their feet wet in the Registry. These collectors are as proud to see their sets with 1, 2, or 3 out of 35 coins in them as others are with 50% complete sets. Should we exclude them so only collectors with jobs and means are allowed to register their coins? No! Exclude them now and you run the risk of perhaps losing a valuable hobbyist.

solid · September 8, 2002 12:04PM

I like Braddick's set also! But I wonder...that 1807 Bust dime grading FR02 shows
a current population of 6 coins...Are there really 6 coins out there, or are some of
the crackout guys been shooting for AG03? Or maybe Braddick has been cracking
it out because he feels it should be a shot PO01...

I imagine it is very difficult to locate nice quality "worse known" coins.

barrytrot · September 8, 2002 12:33PM

Braddick,

I just realized that you were the originator of this thread!

Were you querying in order to get support for yourself? If so, good! If not, then why?

If PCGS eliminated the bottom 20% of ALL Registries tomorrow, would you be upset?

Comments