Does the Set Registry promote mediocrity?

tradedollarnut

Not quite the title I wanted, but the best I could do on 40 characters or less. What I mean to ask is this: Does the Set Registry discourage a collector from creating the true finest set?

There are NUMEROUS examples of top pop NGC coins that simply won't cross. They are not up to PCGS standards for that grade. However, a certain number of those coins are significantly finer than PCGS standards for the lower grade and in fact finer than any of the PCGS coins in the lower holder. They are the finest known example of that coin. But, unless the owner wants to lump them in with all the lower graded PCGS examples (and take the financial hit) or pay for a duplicate in the right holder, the owner cannot participate in that slot. A disincentive for the collector to list his set is created. Is this good for the Set Registry in the long run?

I feel that PCGS should adopt the "Set Registry Grade" concept to counter this effect. No loss in revenue, but increased participation in the Set Registry! What's not to like?

EVillageProwler

Why don't you ask HRH this question tonight? Or, maybe you did already?

EVP

tradedollarnut

I did ask on the Q&A. And I guess "promoting mediocrity" isn't quite right, because the whole gist is to keep out the "inferior" for the grade specimens of the other services. But for top pop coins, where the coin is truly finest known, there IS a trend toward loss of quality.

A true example: The Eliasberg 1873-S trade dollar was graded MS64 at the 1997 sale and sold for MS65 money to a dealer. I graded it 65, shot 66. NGC 67'd the coin. I was offered it at 4 times the price I paid for my MS65. I held them side by side. The NGC coin was definitely finer, but had a mint defect on the reverse that limited the grade in my mind to a 66 at most. I passed.

But let's say I was offered that coin at a reasonable premium to my current coin, knowing that it wouldn't go any higher than a technical 65 at PCGS (tho with 67 eye appeal). By the Set Registry rules, I'd be throwing my money away to buy it, even if it's the finest known. I'm better off "settling" for my PCGS MS65 or I have to own both coins. A disincentive to participate. But easily fixed and at no loss of revenue!

gmarguli

I wouldn't say it promotes mediocrity, but rather it thrives on mediocrity. Buy the slab, not the coin.

Aren't all coins the same? An MS66 is an MS66. That's what PCGS was founded on.

Seriously, 95%+ of the people who think that just because they sit atop the registry that they have the finest set are only kidding themselves.

It's PCGS's party and they can set the rules. Too bad the only people who think the rules are fair are the Kool-Aid drinkers.


And we know the reason why NGC coins can't be allowed into the PCGS registry. They grade too loose. David Hall told us this and provided numbers to back it up. The proof is in the pop reports.

Now take a series you might know something about, the circulation strike Trade dollars.

Here are the pops in superb gem grades.

MS68
PCGS: 2
NGC: 0

MS67
PCGS: 7
NGC: 3

MS66
PCGS: 53
NGC: 32

Clearly PCGS overgrades these coins and doesn't have the same strict standards that NGC has.

Hopefully, David Hall will read this post and refuse to allow the overgraded PCGS coins in the registry and only allow the stricter graded NGC coins in.

tradedollarnut

The rules are fair [although the weighting should be more sophisticated] if they were just tweaked a little.

I'm not debating who's standard fits the marketplace (whether NGC overgrades or PCGS undergrades), I'm just talking about Set Registry participation - if PCGS did this one tweak some of the problems would fade away. If they examine a coin and it doesn't cross, for a small extra fee attach a registry grade sticker to the other company's slab.

Encourage maximum participation with minimum financial penalty on a level playing field.

keithdagen

I kind of liked the NGC E-Newsletter I got today that had a huge article on the concept of Set Registry's. The article naturally recommended that a Registry program should cater to all reputable grading services, so as to promote the coin, and not the holder.

Coppernicus

Greg - The Pop figures you cite do not necessarily support your point. We'd have to know how many coins were submitted to the two services to determine which service was more strict. If 1,000 are submitted to PCGS but only 100 to NGC, then the figures you report would support PCGS as the stricter service.

This, of course, is true for all graded coins. I suspect that with the higher auction prices for PCGS slabs (all else equal), more coins (raw and slabbed for cross) are being submitted to PCGS.

Coppernicus

keithdagen

Greg - The Pop figures you cite do not necessarily support your point

And the pop figures that DH used to support the fact that PCGS was stricter were the same version of bad math.

Typetone

I've always felt that a small % of NGC coins should be allowed in a set. Say something like 5% to 10%, to address problems like you are citing.

Greg

gmarguli

Coppernicus, of course those figures don't support my point. Well, actually they do. My point was as insane as David Hall's point. If you exclude NGC coins because you want to pick a few pop report numbers and say one company is stricter, then you should have to admit that your own company is looser when those numbers don't work out in your favor.

Personally, I fully know looking at pop reports to show strictness is useless, but this is the method that David Hall wanted to use, so I went with it.

As for more coins going to PCGS due to the higher prices realized, this is incorrect. NGC has been around a shorter period of time, yet graded more coins than PCGS. The lat numbers I heard, NGC was grading more coins per month than PCGS. I'm sure it flip flops back and forth, but overall on submissions, PCGS is running 2nd - a close 2nd, but still 2nd.

Coppernicus

Thanks Greg - I stand corrected on the PCGS vs. NGC submission numbers. I agree with you that when PCGS uses these numbers as evidence of their tighter grading standards, they make as little sense as when DHRC uses them.

Coppernicus

lincolnSence

TDN - I really like your idea. It would make it alot easier if PCGS would adopt a registry grade conversion reference. If your like me and you choose to "compete" in the PCGS arena, then its easy to also register in the NGC registry where you have the freedom to display both holders. It doesn't work the other way around. I recently decided to register my lincoln set with NGC for just this reason. I had some pop 1/0 coins that I just didn't want to cross at any grade over at PCGS just to fill up that registry. So yes I have to acquire another coin to finish my PCGS collection. Its kind of a pain and can be expensive. So now I just expand my horizons to compete in both registries under each of their own rules. Kind of like claiming your the # so and so under the WBC vs WBO in boxing. Now I'm pushing for a unification title.

cladking

There is usually a strong correlation between grade and quality since the coins are
market graded. Certainly if one were to attempt to assemble the worst possible set
at the highest possible grade then the set would be clearly inferior to other sets at
that grade. People don't do this though. Sure those who haven't learned to grade
or don't have a lot of numismatic experience will have larger numbers of overgraded
or low for the grade coins but generally the higher the ranking the better the set will
be. Also most collectors are going to learn something about coins in the process of
putting together a top ranked set. They're likely to decide to replace problem coins
for aestetic reasons.

There is no solution to the problem of "mediocrity" for most series. Even if coins were
graded on an absolute scale there would be a problem with deciding how to rank the
various attributes.

MadMonk

Yes I really do think it does. It's a well known fact that two PCGS coins of the same grade can realize huge price differances. So the public doesnt agree with the eye appeal, grading, etc., of the services. I have some real pretty coins and I have not entered them into the PCGS registry. I probably could get better than 80% in it, but my complete set has NGC pieces that are superior to anything I've gound in a PCGS slab. They are important parts of my collection. They stand for the grade, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend additional money to cross them so I can advertise my set.

CarlWohlforth

I think some people start collecting slabs with a goal of reaching #1 or top ten. Often these people come to realize that there are different MS 66s, that each coin is an individual and that there are nice coins in different holders or raw.

I don't think the question matters until you are at #1 or near it. Anybody who does that realizes that they don't own the finest example of each and every coin in their set. If you really aspire to own the finest set in the whole world you understand the points I made above.

Nobody will deny that the top 1 or 2 or 4 sets are awesome. Certainly not anybody who actually saw the Indian Head Cent showdown last year. When it comes time to demonstrate you have the finest set in the world you will have to allow piece by piece, in person, comparisons. And even then it could be hard to pick a winner because all contenders may each have many finest known coins.

So having a #1 PCGS registry set is merely just that, the top set of PCGS slabbed coin scored by PCGS.

The suggestion of a "set registry grade" might help one or two special coins. I have nothing against the idea. I also think some fine sets will eventually show up in the NGC registry which allows coins in two brands of slab.

Still the whole discussion pertains to the idea of assembling the true finest set. There will never be a way to validate anybody's claim to owning the true finest set outside of staging "showdowns".

IrishMike

First of all you won't see anything but PCGS coins in registry unless you can go to DHRC coins and purchase a coin in another slab.

All kidding aside, why doesn't some nusmismatist with computer skills start an online registry seperate from the major grading companies? They could charge a small entry fee to offset their costs and perhaps make a small profit. They could solicit ad money from dealers, slabbing companies etc. Of course which company slabs would be allowed would be one major issue. I would suggest ANACS,NGC and PCGS.

Maybe it's idea whose time has come?

EVillageProwler

All kidding aside, why doesn't some nusmismatist with computer skills start an online registry seperate from the major grading companies?

Mike,

I'll give this some thought...

EVP

kieferscoins

It would be a good idea but take alot of time and would probably have to be free like the grading companies registries.

Cameron Kiefer

keets

the problem could be easily fixed and egos assuaged by calling the top sets what they are, the Top Ranked PCGS/NGC Registry Set.finest whatever is really in the eye or of the opinion of the viewer and generally determined by who has the most money to spend on the finest------read highest graded------coins. why get your boxers in a bunch because you have a coin which YOU feel is better than others registered?? so what if you can't shout from the top of the mountain, just shout from the ridge a bit short of the summit and be confident in the fact that you have a fine set and some fine coins.

the top sets are all about ego anyway, and that's neither a bad thing nor a good thing, it's just a fact of human nature. and despite your opinions about the NGC graded coin being finer than it's PCGS counterparts, which it may or may not be when it's understood that a grade is just a subjective opinion, overall the market------read collectors and dealers------have decided that across the board NGC grades looser than PCGS. and no, i'm not drinking koolaid, just acknowledging a market reality.

as has been trumpeted here so often, buy the coin and not the holder. you can't go wrong if you do that. than deny the lies your ego tells you and work on the self esteem side of the equation.

al h.

Lakesammman

Yes, the PCGS and NGC registries promotes buying the plastic - to deny this would be to ignore the obvious.

Secondly, the jest of the thread suggests that being #1 in either registry really matters. I don't think it does. I'm happy to have a mixed collection of PCGS and NGC coins. I registered my sets just for the fun of it. It's a fun way to share great coins with other collectors (assuming you have pictures). They will probably never be #1 because I refuse to settle for a substandard PCGS coin when I have a great NGC (or ANACS) example. The only reason I have the #1 IHC variety set is lack of participation by others who could probably blow me away.

Thirdly, I would rather have a hole in my collection than settle for any coin below my self-imposed standards.

By trying to get PCGS to recognize other slabs, you are participating as a pawn in their game. I refuse to do so.

TAP444

Part of the reason that pcgs coins demand more in the market is due to there
registry program and the fact that people compete to get them for there sets
I like mike's idea about a totally independant registry, without the influence of
the grading company's .
Tim

keets

hey tap444

the fact that people compete to get them for there sets

while that is partially true, it's an assumption given undo weight. i know several dealers and collectors who aren't even online and have limited/no knowledge of the registry set-up who echo my sentiment regarding the market.

al h.

braddick

Beginning Registry collectors, yes- I agree. Many (not all!) start out "chasing the plastic" but then talk to collectors such as yourself TDN, or many of the members who post here and it turns into "all about the coin" and away from mediocrity.

Or, is there anyone here that will admit they collect mediocre coins?

EVillageProwler

The word is that the market is expanding. That suggests that there are many new collectors -- whether to collecting in general or to a new area of numismatics. These new collectors will be more reliant on the plastic. Once these baby-boomers reach middle age, then they'll be less reliant on plastic. Until such time, though, I think we'll continue to see a trend of folks chasing the plastic.

EVP

keets

i would hesitate to assume that since the hobby base is expanding the new arrivals are immediately involved with holdered coins and swept into some type of frenzy which is naturally assumed to be buying the holder instead of the coin. that's not the impression i get from being out and about. generally, at club meetings and in the shops and shows that i frequent the majority of collectors, and i'm assuming newbies are included in that group, are as interested in raw coins as they are in slabs. to that point, most new collectors seem oblivious to the registry and the added value segment of the hobby.

while there are certainly exceptions to every rule and my macrocosm is only an example, i feel most newer collectors gravitate slowly to dabbling in slabbed coins. certainly the price of a subjectively graded coin can be prohibitive vs. it's raw counterpart, especially once a newcomer begins to assign grades to stuff being looked at.

what i think happens today which differentiates the hobby from all previous eras is that with the internet and grading services available today the learning curve has been accelerated. new collectors have more information at their disposal so participation is enhanced. here at the forum there seems to be an influx of very new collectors, a change from even a year ago when i decided to quit lurking and participate. however right or wrong my impressions may be it all works out for our betterment. more collectors=more coins=more money=.................i think you get the picture!!!!!!

al h.

gmarguli

Beginning Registry collectors, yes- I agree. Many (not all!) start out "chasing the plastic" but then talk to collectors such as yourself TDN, or many of the members who post here and it turns into "all about the coin" and away from mediocrity.

Yet so many of these people who scream that they buy the coin and not the slab are happy to show us their new "upgrades" that they purchased off TeleTrash of eBay. How many high quality coins are on these sites? A small fraction of all the coins. Chances are they are buying a low end coin or a coin with problems, yet the slabbed grade will give them those all important registry points.

wondercoin

Let's look at this question from the standpoint of a collection of US coins that is not even in the registry (yet) -PATTERNS. There are no "Pattern" registry sets, which, to some extent has increased my interest in the series. I have had the luxury of rejecting far more coins than I have accepted, especially in the very specialized "series" of pattern nickels. I have rejected these coins both due to quality and price. I have had -0- reason to "chase" overpriced pieces as well as poor quality pieces - the "set" I am assembling simply doesn't exist in terms of a quantified "Registry Set" of pattern nickels.

NOW, let's assume a Registry set of pattern nickels was set up tomorrow. In the short run, the Registry might have virtually -0- impact on my buying decisions, HOWEVER, in the long run, as I might approach a collection of near complete patterns, I really do believe the Registry might influence my buying decisions. I might be more interested in completing the set (as complete as one can) - AND SOME OF THOSE COINS I WOULD ENTERTAIN BUYING MIGHT BE MEDIOCRE COMPARED TO MY EARLIER PURCHASES. So, from that standpoint, I can agree that Registry set collecting might result in a few mediocre coins getting into a collection. BUT, it does not "PROMOTE" mediocrity - sheer human nature probably does that, as shown in my response here. Wondercoin

Bear

The true quality of coins in a top set reminds me of a story. A man bought himself a sailors suit and a cap

that said captain on it. The mans mother told him "To me your a captain, to you , your a captain, but

tell me son, to a real sea captain ,are you a captain."

RegistryCoin

...but if the man's mother is a real sea captain...

Fairlaneman

For people that have the means (Money) to travel or the population base that supports seeing alot of different coins possibly the Registry does promote mediocrity if they do not take advantage of these two items that gives them a huge advantage over Joe Blow from Hicksville with a population of nothing and no Coin resources within a 1000 miles. Whew, long sentence. Mediocrity is not promoted for Joe because in reality he probably thinks he is getting the best there is. Probably some where down the road Joe will realize, as others have stated, some of his Ebay or other purchases were not the greatest.

As far as other Services Slabs not being able to be entered into the Registry. Heck, sure they can, cross them, enter them across the street or just sit back and look at your holdings and say why bother.

Man sometimes I really wish I never would have bought this computer and found the Registry. Then again I'm glad I did as Joe from Hicksville has many more coins than he ever would have had.

Ken

coinrookie

With me it doesn`t promote it. I have a proof Ike set that is not even in the registry. I have been working on it for over a year and only have 4 coins. It will never be a number 1 set numerically. But when I finish , I will challenge anybody to show a set that has more eye appeal.

Sunnywood

Does the Set Registry program discourage a collector from creating the true finest set? OF COURSE IT DOES.

The proof is very simple: for any given issue, the set of PCGS-certified pop-top specimens is a subset, and possibly a small subset, of the total set of all candidates for "finest known" (which may include NGC-certified, or even uncertified examples, and which may even include PCGS or NGC coins certified at a grade LOWER !!).

Since the collector is arbitrarily confining herself/himself to considering only a portion of the complete set of possibliy appropriate coins, it follows that the best choices cannot always be made. Q.E.D.

However, the reality is MUCH WORSE. For example, a collector may pay 3-4 times as much for a PCGS MS66 or MS67 lib nickel than a similarly graded NGC example, and I can cite some examples where the coins themselves were MEDIOCRE. I have seen NGC MS67's go for less than PCGS MS66's, where the coins did not justify such pricing.

And it gets YET WORSE ... in the desperate attempt to get coins into PCGS holders, there is now a substantial movement afoot to submit everything to NCS for "conservation," because David Hall and the PCGS crew prefer untoned coins (especially nickels), and have flinched at attractively and naturally patinated coins due to a fear of AT color. Therefore, in order to have a shot at crossing coins, pleasantly mellowed original coins are stripped of their skin by dipping, followed by renewed attempts at crossover. I can state that my own crossover percentage was significantly higher among white NCS'd coins than original coins. So yes, the Registry program definitely can promote mediocrity.

And for the thousandth time (those of you who have been around a while have heard me rant about this before), the sets on the PCGS Registry are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT the finest sets of all time, or the current finest sets. They are the current or all-time finest PCGS-CERTIFIED AND REGISTERED sets. The claim that these are automatically the FINEST sets is fraudulent, misleading, inaccurate and ridiculous. There are now, and there have been in the past, many superb sets and collections that were neither exclusively PCGS-certified nor listed in any registry.

Sunnywood

RegistryCoin

I would think, without being all-knowing, that it would be more accurate to say that #1 pcgs registry sets MAY OR MAY NOT be the finest current or all-time sets.

Sunnywood

RegistryCoin,

I agree entirely that it is always accurate to say: "X may or may not be true," regardless of the specific content of the proposition X. Therefore, saying that the #1 sets at PCGS "may or may not be" the finest sets of all time (as you proposed) would certainly be an accurate statement.

For example, I would be perfectly correct in saying: "This fish may or may not be purple and of Venusian origin," or "The sum of two and two may or may not equal five," or even "The obese drag queen formerly known as 'Divine' may or may not be more attractive than swimsuit supermodel Pauline Porizkova."

However, saying that the #1 sets at PCGS are in fact "the finest sets of all time" is grossly presumptuous, even though in some cases it may HAPPEN to be true.

Sunnywood

tradedollarnut

One of the reasons for that tagline is the estimated sets of the all time greats.....which opens up another can of worms!

cladking

The sets in the registry are the only sets in the race, and the race is the only
one on this side of the street. Sure there may well be better sets (as in virtual
certainty in most cases), but they simply are not being compared to these. As
time goes on there probably will be more of these sets registered.

RegistryCoin

Some folks realize that apples differ from oranges.
Are the World Series Champs the best in the world?
Are we going to argue for years that nine Cuban cigar rollers could, at anytime, beat them in four straight?