Attention Type Set Collectors!!!

tradedollarnut

I previously had a type set up on the PCGS Set Registry, but decided to pull it until they have the weighting completed. I just couldn't stand to see a high grade 19th century coin outweighed by a higher grade modern proof.

So I put a set up on the NGC type registry, except they didn't allow proofs so most of my coins weren't listed. UNTIL NOW! NGC now allows proofs on their type set Registry. Hopefully, this will light the fire under PCGS to get their type set weighted.

kieferscoins

So will weighing the type set help? I have a feeling my #5 set will go way down if this happens.

Cameron Kiefer

keithdagen

Cameron,

Should a set of PR69DC's for the 5 current modern circulating coins beat a set of 5 pre-1800 AU-58's? At PCGS, those moderns win out.

braddick

I strongly dislike and disagree with PCGS and NGC's decision to mix Proofs and Mint State coins in one Type Registry.
If I had a magic wand and could change only ONE fault of these Registries, that would be it!

WHY should an easy to obtain PR69DCAM anything upset the point value of a much more difficult to find GEM MS coin?! Why?

tradedollarnut

Braddick - here is my response pasted from the NGC forum regarding your issue:

I absolutely, positively 100% disagree. And the reason is twofold:

1) If this were the PCGS Set Registry, then your reasoning would be partially valid. With a simplistic weighting system, you would never be able to compensate for the difference in scarcity between some proof and MS coinage. With a modified market based weighting system, a coin common in PF69UCAM is not going to get as much weight as the scarcer MS coin of the same type (or vice versa).

2) It seems absolutely wrong to deny a proof coin its proper place in a US type set. Can you imagine telling Eliasberg or Norweb that their type sets weren't complete because they mixed proof and MS coinage? They'd have laughed in your face, and rightfully so.

I hope that NGC goes even further and removes the exclusion of bust and flowing hair proofs!

keithdagen

I have to agree with TDN on this one. We just need to make sure that:

1. The modern pieces do not outweigh their classic counterparts.

2. Common proofs do not outweigh their MS counterparts.

braddick

A proof coin should NOT be denied its place in a Type Registry. It simply should be a "Proof Type Registry" it is placed into.

Now, reading (and then rereading!) your post/response got me to thinking: I honestly CAN see your argument when it comes to Classic coins. Coins of the 19th Century are difficult to come by (although don't tell that to the Liberty nickel collector who is seeking out REAL MintSate coins vs their more easily obtained proof counterparts!).

Modern coins? No way. No way a PR68CAM Ike (a $15.00 coin, at best) should beat out a (clad) MS66 GEM MintState.

I don't know what the final answer should be, but for now, I like the idea of TWO Registries, one for each type of Minting Process!

keithdagen

Traditional collectors tend to gravitate towards proofs when readily available, and for many types, these are undervalued. Allowing a collector to choose is the right choice in the long run, even if they do like those nasty proofs.

Just kidding!!

tradedollarnut

As long as a coin is weighted properly to its scarcity, how in the world can it matter if its a proof or a circulation strike? Next thing you'll be telling us is that only one type of holder is allowed!

dbldie55

<< <i>With a modified market based weighting system >>



Wonder what this means!

tradedollarnut

It means that NGC has applied a discount curve to high value coins reducing the impact they have on a Registry Set. For instance, my MS68 1875-S trade dollar, worth appx $100k, receives around 12,000 points on that registry.

My favorite test for a registry is the above coin vs the AU 1873CC trade dollar worth about $1,000. Here, the 73CC outpoints the 75-S by a factor of 7:1. At NGC, the 75-S outpoints the 73CC by a factor of 8:1. In the marketplace, the 75-S outpoints the 73CC by a factor of 100:1!!!!

roadrunner

The weighting should take into account the pops. While not 100% accurate it's reasonable on series with a decent supply of coins. Any 20th century series, Morgans, Commems, Indians, Barbers, etc. For instance TDN's 73-cc in MS60 would carry about the same weight as the 75-s in MS65. Or his 75-s in MS68 might be roughly equivalent to the 73-cc in MS65....both being pop 1's.

roadrunner

boiler78

I collect proof type coins and I won't be listing my type set because my early proof coins don't carry a point premium over their much more common mint state counter parts.

TWQG

I collect circulation strike type. They have an entirely different appeal to me than proof coinage. I like them being separated. I also like the idea of a registry for pcgs coins only.

boiler78

TWQG- You are in the right place then. I personally like having choices. The NGC registry program enables us to "buy the coin not the holder"

mdwoods

I agree with Braddick. Circulation strikes and Proofs don't belong in the same type set, unless you have to have one of each. Pcgs should not allow NGC coins in their Registry, coin for coin, NGC just does not hold up to the same grading standards. I know there are exceptions to this rule, but it stands true most of the time. Especially in modern coinage. Mark.

CarlWohlforth

I won't say people that collect MS coins should have their coins compared against those who collect proofs.

I will say that both proofs and circulating strike coins will be in my type set. That is because I collect proof when I can and circulating strike when I can't. For example the steel Lincoln cent is not available in proof. However it is an important coin historicaly and belongs in my set. The same can be said for many other types.

tradedollarnut

I would agree that an MS69 should not be weighted the same as a PF69 in most cases. To lump them under the same weight is not right.

But if they are weighted differently and properly, then each collector should have their choice of what they desire to collect. Some might want all circulation strikes and some might want mixed and some might want all proofs except for those that weren't struck. To each his own, but having more options is desirable.

To say that a proof coin is less an example of a particular series than a circulation strike is strange thinking to me.