Registry Housekeeping. Is NOW the Time?
braddick
Posts: 24,106 ✭✭✭✭✭
In viewing the various sets on the Registry and in also reading several posts that drew attention to it: Is it time PCGS dropped some of the lesser used Registries?
When the catagories are spread to thin it delutes the entire Registry. Some Registry credibility is lost.
I'm not saying 20- 40% of the various type of sets could be dropped today (ok, yes I am), but certainly the amount of choices= Sets getting lost in the shuffle. Should the Registry be cleaned up and streamlined?
When the catagories are spread to thin it delutes the entire Registry. Some Registry credibility is lost.
I'm not saying 20- 40% of the various type of sets could be dropped today (ok, yes I am), but certainly the amount of choices= Sets getting lost in the shuffle. Should the Registry be cleaned up and streamlined?
peacockcoins
0
Comments
If PCGS got rid of all these joke sets then they couldn't tell the world that they have 4600 sets of the finest coins registered.
You may not believe it, but one day people will look back in amazement are remember that "The Sunny Bird" had the finest 1963 Mint Set registered with a set rating of 66.47. They'll go down in numismatic history with the likes of Elisaberg and Trompter.
Let's be honest, the number of set types could probably be cut by 60% and not many people would notice. The original idea of showcasing great sets has long been dead. It's now "how many sets can we create to have the maximum number of registered sets". A good idea gone way bad.
Cameron Kiefer
Type Set. Series Sets (w/ varieties). THAT'S it!
What's next?! Buffalo nickel sets with 2/3'rds reverse horn but with a full obverse nose?
Basic coin sets (no mintmarks)?
Enough already.
peacockcoins
By the way, check out the spellcheck post......
Great sets will always be great sets. I don't think that anyone will pretend that the best 1963 mint set is going to go down in history as a rival to Eliasberg. But if somebody has a nice set of 1963 MS coins and wants to put them up there for some reason, what's the harm? Is the suspicion that PCGS might have mixed motives (Heaven forfend!) reason to remove the minor and incidental sets from the Registry?
It may be a good thing, that a fifteen-year-old new collector who's proud of his PCGS 1963 Mint Set has an opportunity to let the Numismatic world know about it (who else is he going to show it to...his mother?), and has his day in the sun, no matter how humble the rest of us may consider his victory to be.
Let the Registry roll. If parts of the Registry opportunity don't match your concept of what the Registry is, don't look at those parts, and don't play.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Enough is enough.
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
Not all coin collectors have the disposable income necessary to complete collections that would rival those that have been, and will be, remembered in numismatic history.
Let everyone enjoy the hobby, competing on whatever level we can afford. To make a living, we may have to polish the boots of those that own 6 figure coins. But here we can share the same web site, because it's not just a rich mans hobby.
And lets not forget, after we're gone, there'll be left, the one time YN who started his/her collection as a Registry set. Without them, our hobby is dead.
Breaking down the sets to such a point that everyone can then compete and be in 'first place' (with something) is akin to handing out trophies at a kids soccer championship to ALL the players, never saluting or awarding the winning team.
What's the point?
First place in a 1963 Proof set diminishes the first place holder of a Proof Morgan set.
peacockcoins
The only reason to make all the ultra-short sets is to increase the total number of sets on the registry.
Believe me, I remember the jerk dealers that wouldn't give me the time of day when I was a kid. I still remember them and to this day I won't buy from them. However, do you think that some YN is going to rank high on these sets and contribute to him being a lifelong collector? I doubt many can afford the MS66FBL Franklin or the top grades for the other coins. The YNs will fall to the bottom just like they do with all the other sets.
I understand your position, although I don't agree.
Collecting year sets, and short sets, has been a part of coin collecting since I've long before I was around. What harm can it possibly do to allow someone to show off what they have, regardless of the number of coins in the set? It harms no one.
If the amount of coins in a set must meet a certain number, perhaps they should remove Two Cents from the Registry (9 coins, that's not much more than a Mint Set), allowing only Morgans, Complete Type Sets (with Gold) and a few others to participate. The reality is, not every collector has the same collecting tastes. There are some who's interests forcus on short sets, or year sets. Why can't they play too?
Why can't they participate?...
You may not believe it, but one day people will look back in amazement are remember that "The Sunny Bird" had the finest 1963 Mint Set registered with a set rating of 66.47. They'll go down in numismatic history with the likes of Elisaberg and Trompter.
If it's for this reason, then it's just as I mentioned previously... A rich man's hobby.
Let's not forget the bottom line, as you stated previously, Greg... The only reason to make all the ultra-short sets is to increase the total number of sets on the registry.
<< <i>The YNs will fall to the bottom just like they do with all the other sets. >>
Mot all will. Some YN 's will surprise you with the amount of money they spend on coins. You just give up and have no hope for YN's within the registry?
Cameron Kiefer
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
The proof Jefferson w/ varieties set is overkill with only 1 variety. There should be one proof Jefferson set rather than 4.
I think all the mint and proof sets are cool. Some time back someone said registry sets are the modern day Whitman folder. I feel that way and like to fill holes.
I mentioned that the registry sets are like a modern Whitman album and I really do like that analogy. For some of my sets, I can appreciate each and every individual coin as something to cherish. For others, it's really the set that matters and inserting a new coin in the registry is the same feeling I had when I inserted a new coin in a Whitman album.
But, as far as the topic of this thread goes, my opinion is that the registry sets are fun. And it's for this reason that currently it doesn't bother me to have a bunch of different sets--it just gives more people more opportunity to have some fun. If, however, PCGS continued to add an increasingly large number of apparently trivial sets, there might be a drawback insofar as these sets could "dillute" the concept of the registry and make it less fun for everyone. But I don't think that point has yet been reached.
Now, that said, I agree with all the comments that the owner of the 3rd best mint set of some particular year is unlikely to be honored in the pantheon of numismatic immortals. And I also doubt that the collectors of, say, 1956 mint sets will gain a critical mass so that they start to jabber away at each other as do the Merc collectors. (At least, I hope they won't because they would dillute the fine conversation of all us Merc collectors!
Mark
Some might have higher incomes than others and this will allow them to compete a little better. However, I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of them will be able to compete for the top spot in any registry - even these date sets.
It's not that I have no hope for them, it's that I am being a realist. 99.99% of them are not going to be able to compete for the top spots in any REAL set.
Whether or not I have a registry set is meaningless. Is this forum only open to people who have registry sets? Sounds like you are an elitist.
Would my opinions be more valid if I told you that I did have a registry set? Would they be less valid if I didn't? Perhaps the US Coin Forum should only be open to those that own US coins slabbed by PCGS?
However, just to satisfy your curiosity, yes, I have at least one set registered. I updated it a few days ago. When I complete it I will show it to the world - because I have a point that some people are too dense to get by words and they will need pictures. Would you be happier if I registered more sets? I've probably got enough coins sitting here to start 30 sets.
My stand on the anonymous posting on the NGC forum was when two pathetic, cowardly, little wannabe men (YOU & fairlaneman) started making personal attacks and didn't have the courage to post under their own names. VERY pathetic and sad. The forum moderator agreed with the allowing anon posters wasn't a good idea since they were becoming a disruption to the forum. FYI, he had removed the anon ability from other forums before I made the request because of the same reason.
I notice you aren't a frequent poster over there since you have to post under you own name. Can't you post there will posting under your regular ID?
I have no desire to shut down someone else's game. I'm just voicing my opinion that PART of this game is becoming rather lame. Of course PCGS wants to inflate their number of sets registered. It's a giant marketing ploy. The entire registry is. If you can't see that, then there is no point debating. You're farther gone that I thought.
Negative and damaging to the forums is your ramblings without thought or facts behind them. If you don't like my or anyone else's postings, then skip them. This thread topic asked a question. Obviously, there will be opinions on both sides. Call the opinions on one side negative and damaging if you like. Have you even bothered to voice your opinions on this or are you just attacking others?
And last, but not least. At these my posts generate some more posts in this forum. It's been dead lately. What have you done to enhance it or any of these forums?
I would like to know what kind of set you have registered. I hope by your last comment you A) used your own name and not an alias,
And lastly, I do post many of my opinions. I just got slammed by coinguy1 because I gave his article a "neg". I'm not so sure everyone always wants to hear negative opinions. Most if not all of your negs are violent. I loved your canadian registry reply. I don't know if you are an expert there as well but, spend a few extra minutes and write a 2 line intro that helps us understand why you say things that you say. It won't come off so caustic. BTW, as far as this thread is concerned, I'd like to see anyone and everyone be able to put a set up. I think its good for the hobby, personal ego's (regardless of where they fall in the rankings). I also don't think we need to many more sets. There is a dilutive effect.
Who knows, maybe we can be civil some day.
The set I registered is NOT the area I focus my collecting on (early commemoratives). I don't have a set there since more than half my coins are in NGC slabs.
My registered set is:
Registered at PCGS under my real name and email address. However, they are not displayed for anyone to see.
Not hidden from view.
Not of interest to you or likely anyone else.
One day, when it is finished, I hope it will be a wake-up call to those who say PCGS is god, the best, consistent, and never make mistakes. Basically to those people who buy the plastic and not the coin AKA the ostriches. It is nothing against PCGS. My set could be comprised of coins graded by any of the grading companies. However, as we all know thanks to David Hall, PCGS grades coins more conservatively than the other services and that's why it can be a PCGS-only registry and therefore a PCGS-only set for me.
When I get it finished I will show EVERYTHING with pictures. Until then, the set is just another set registered. It is actually maybe half complete in real life, but I haven't bothered putting most of the coins into the registry yet. I'm in no hurry.