WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS POSSIBLE NEW MODEL ALLOWING NGC COINS INTO PCGS REGISTRY SET?
oreville
Posts: 11,994 ✭✭✭✭✭
Just as a thought, what would the response be if PCGS allowed NGC coins
in their registry under the following scenario:
For every 1% of coins contained within a registry that had some NGC coins deduct 1/5 of 1% from the net grade of the NGC coins within the set. This would be a stated "penalty" or "service charge" which can be modest but will grow as more and more NGC coins are added to the set.
For example,
if 5% of the registry set were NGC coins, deduct 1% from the net grade of all the NGC coins in the registry set.
If 10% of the registry set were NGC coins, deduct 2% from the net grade of all the NGC coins in the registry set.
If 40% of the registry set were NGC coins, deduct 8% from the net grade of all the NGC coins in the registry set.
As you can see from the above examples, they allow for more than 10% non PCGS coins but also exacts a growing but rational "penalty" or "service charge" for using non proprietary products in a system paid for by the proprietary company (PCGS).
If someone wanted to put a 100% NGC product right on here for the thrill of it they would have a net rating of 80% of the raw grade but so what? We PCGS users get to look at another collectors set and enjoy it for what it is.
If a collection were rated all MS-67 with 1% NGC coins, such set would be net graded 67 - (0.2% x 67) = 66.86
If a collection were rated all MS-67 with 5% NGC coins, such set would be net graded 67 - (1% x 67) = 66.33
If a collection were rated all MS-67 with 10% NGC coins, such set would be net graded 67 - (2% x 67) = 65.66.
If a collection were rated all MS-67 with 20% NGC coins, such set would be net graded 67 - (4% x 67) =
64.34.
This allows for more flexibility than even the current NGC plan but with an appropriate "service charge."
I like this idea enough that I believe NGC should use this same model.
This would provide a very simple formula to calculate a modest or more severe penalty depending on how many NGC coins are included in the set.
The reason why this may work is many collectors may want to use NGC slabs as fillers on certain coins or coins that are simply unavailable in PCGS but would give them an incentive to display what they have under a formula that all of us can understand yet protect the preference for having PCGS coins within a PCGS registry set.
What do you gals and guys think?
-------------------------
Happy collecting,
Oreville
in their registry under the following scenario:
For every 1% of coins contained within a registry that had some NGC coins deduct 1/5 of 1% from the net grade of the NGC coins within the set. This would be a stated "penalty" or "service charge" which can be modest but will grow as more and more NGC coins are added to the set.
For example,
if 5% of the registry set were NGC coins, deduct 1% from the net grade of all the NGC coins in the registry set.
If 10% of the registry set were NGC coins, deduct 2% from the net grade of all the NGC coins in the registry set.
If 40% of the registry set were NGC coins, deduct 8% from the net grade of all the NGC coins in the registry set.
As you can see from the above examples, they allow for more than 10% non PCGS coins but also exacts a growing but rational "penalty" or "service charge" for using non proprietary products in a system paid for by the proprietary company (PCGS).
If someone wanted to put a 100% NGC product right on here for the thrill of it they would have a net rating of 80% of the raw grade but so what? We PCGS users get to look at another collectors set and enjoy it for what it is.
If a collection were rated all MS-67 with 1% NGC coins, such set would be net graded 67 - (0.2% x 67) = 66.86
If a collection were rated all MS-67 with 5% NGC coins, such set would be net graded 67 - (1% x 67) = 66.33
If a collection were rated all MS-67 with 10% NGC coins, such set would be net graded 67 - (2% x 67) = 65.66.
If a collection were rated all MS-67 with 20% NGC coins, such set would be net graded 67 - (4% x 67) =
64.34.
This allows for more flexibility than even the current NGC plan but with an appropriate "service charge."
I like this idea enough that I believe NGC should use this same model.
This would provide a very simple formula to calculate a modest or more severe penalty depending on how many NGC coins are included in the set.
The reason why this may work is many collectors may want to use NGC slabs as fillers on certain coins or coins that are simply unavailable in PCGS but would give them an incentive to display what they have under a formula that all of us can understand yet protect the preference for having PCGS coins within a PCGS registry set.
What do you gals and guys think?
-------------------------
Happy collecting,
Oreville
A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
0
Comments
My Dimes
<< If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right the first time! >>
<< <i>BAD IDEA..sorry >>
Ok python, no need to apologize, ......can you be slightly more specific why you feel this way?
No need for a complex system of comparison for NGC holdered coins.
Sounds like you are trying to get more value out of your NGC holders by leeching on PCGS.
PCGS is trying to hold onto the old IBM model of not allowing generic parts to go into their IBM PC computers. When other IBM compatible computers manufacturers such as Dell came along and used generic products, guess who lost significant market share in the PC computer market?
It might serve PCGS purposes to show some flexibilitywithout punishing the all PCGS registry sets?
<< <i>If you want an NGC coin in the PCGS registry, and you will settle for a "lower grade," why don't you just cross it and take the grade PCGS gives it?
No need for a complex system of comparison for NGC holdered coins.
Sounds like you are trying to get more value out of your NGC holders by leeching on PCGS.
<< <i>
Well you are responding to a poster who doesn't even believe in the registry set concept for himself but enjoys looking at other sets.
If I did believe in such registry set concept, I would object to have my precious coin taken out of a holder it has been in for over 10 years in many cases and have the chance of human error damage the coin or worse yet have the post office or FED Ex lose the coin, no matter how remote the chances are.
My concept is not so much a comparison for NGC holdered coins but to exact some kind of service charge for inclusion of non PCGS coins in a set that might be 90% or more % PCGS. I believe PCGS would gain more new business by adopting a more global attitude towards other slabbed products provided they keep the quality of their grading high enough.
Your last sentence; "Sounds like you are trying to get more value out of your NGC holders by leeching on PCGS".........certainly it is possible that it could be seen that way but by whom? Who is our audience?
I can go along with your reasoning but I have to side with Doug on this. If a NGC coin was found that was suitable for a set it would be sent to PCGS for cross or grade and then added to the set. It just does not seem at all fair for collectors to have other slabs in the PCGS registry IMO.
The other thing that I believe you are trying to get pointed out is the lack of coins for Very High Grade Sets. In reguard to this if all of the Sets were of this calibre in the Registries then I would see a viable reason to maybe include some NGC Graded coins. This is not the case though.
BTW. My 64 Fairlane has almost all Unique Parts that were only made for that model year. Some parts are interchangeable but then you have to modify the car to make them fit.
Ken
I have made several posts on how I feel, and I dont want to have to rewrite over and over, except one:
There are TOO many posts about the same subject. Lets try something new, stay on the original thread about the same subject, we can only beat a horse for so long.
edit for spelling..duh
My Dimes
<< If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right the first time! >>
<< <i>I drive Ford's not Chevy's. Somethings are not Allowed in the Drive Way.
I feel the same way, guess you won't be visiting me
Oreville-
If you want to play in the PCGS Registry, instead of downgrading your NGC coins why don't you just cross them over. Then you can still list them in both NGC and PCGS registries.
Besides, you forgot to add the square root of Pi divided by the price of your washing machine in your calculations, so I don't see how it could work.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
It's great that NGC accepts PCGS into their registry. NGC respects the grading policy of PCGS.
PCGS does not disrespect NGC's grading. but feels that the grading policies are not at the
same standards they use for all types and issues of coins. PCGS is a hard SOB for grading modern issues.
They have established that. To accept NGC into the registry would diminish the value of "70" graded
coins by PCGS. It's not like you can recall all slabs for regrading. It would leave a double standard on the open market.
Only the wiser would know. There's already enough out there that the buyer needs to be aware of.
Experieced collecters know what they're buying, the rest of us putz only hope for the best. Let's not confuse new collectors
more than we can confuse each other.
All collectors are looking for a standard, yet personal preference and market demand will prevail.
Boston Bob
Try this analogy: if ACG had a registry, don't you think they'd be happy to have coins from any service in their registry? But how many other services would consider mixing ACG coins in their registries? ANSWER: ZERO!!
Jim
I will say that IF PCGS decided to allow NGC coins, you have thought out the most accurate way to do it in my opinion.
It is obviously not a right or wrong just an opinion of preference.
Now then if this is the case, what about a non registry rated display of collections that include other slabbed coins but which is predominately PCGS? A separate section for mixed slabbed coins?
>
> No need for a complex system of comparison for NGC holdered coins.
>
> Sounds like you are trying to get more value out of your NGC holders by leeching on PCGS.
I concur.
-KHayse