What the Heck - I Just Got Beat Out By Eliasberg
Typetone
Posts: 1,621 ✭✭
For grins, I registered my proof 1900 Barber dime (PR66CAM PCGS) and proof Barber half (PR66CAM PCGS), in the 1900 proof registry set. I was number one. But, WHAT THE HECK, Eliasberg just beat me out in all time finest
. But, only one of his pieces is PCGS registered, and mine is better there. IS THIS RIGHT?
NO!!! I can't register my none PCGS pieces, why should he? And, its not that his grades are so wonderful.
SO what gives?
Do you think this is right?
Greg
. But, only one of his pieces is PCGS registered, and mine is better there. IS THIS RIGHT?NO!!! I can't register my none PCGS pieces, why should he? And, its not that his grades are so wonderful.
SO what gives?
Do you think this is right?
Greg
0
Comments
You're right, this is terrible. Sell them to me - I will deal with the pain and stress of it all. No need for you to worry about it.
Mark
If you get the newsletter from PCGS, they noted that the Eliasberg Barber sets were going to be listed.
I still have a problem with sets like this, however:
Eliasberg 1900 Mint Set
This set has 21 required coins. Eliasberg owned 11 of the 21 and is given phantom coins for the other 10. Eliasberg had a fantastic collection.....and it's getting larger by the minute!
In my opinion only, phantom coins are a stretch - much more so than estimated grades! I'd recommend modifying the Registry programming to allow Eliasberg sets with phantom coins to reside in a Set Registry only without being ranked [ie: the ranking number jumps right over that set]. That would be a fair way to show Eliasberg's coins without giving him too much credit for what he didn't have.
Dick
<< <i>Eliasberg had a fantastic collection.....and it's getting larger by the minute! >>
In my opinion PCGS is making a mockery of the Eliasbery collection, by trying to make it something it wasn't.
If he didn't own the coin(s), how can you assume he would have purchased that coin at the (PCGS) assumed grade? I'm sure he would have sought out a nice example of whichever coin he needed, but to give it to him is just plain wrong.
Why doesn't PCGS put an Eliasberg collection at the top of every catagory and assume, had he lived long enough, he would have owned those coins?
I know from past threads there are a number of members that disagree with what PCGS is doing. Perhaps it's time members to become vocal and suggest to PCGS to create a catagory for Eliasberg coins, seperate from the Current Finest and All-Time Finest catagories. A catagory that shows the excellent collection he had, without breaking the rules the rest of us must follow. This set can assume all it wants, without creating unfair competition.
Happy Holidays,
Paul B. Gunsallus
Later, Paul.
<< <i>I'm really looking forward to seeing Eliasberg's 2000 Mint Set! >>
CLASSIC!
I don't have a problem anymore with Eliasberg's 1884 and 1885 trade dollars being given estimated grades. I think it's a fine thing for PCGS to utilize their grading notes from the sale to show Eliasberg's set in all its glory. And I know that the only thing I have to do to eclipse his set is to put the two coins into another holder - it's up to me to play by the rules.
Giving credit for coins he didn't own, but "could have owned" is a completely different concept - I have trouble with that one. I could, if I desired to strongly enough, purchase the three coins that I need to again be all top pop in the MS trade dollar set. But I choose not to do so. I don't expect to be given credit for those coins. Yes, Eliasberg could have collected in a different manner - duplicate proofs and circulation strikes. But he chose not to do so. We all have to make choices and we should live with the consequences of those choices.
Additionally, there are coins that I suspect he could not have found that he may be given credit for as the Registry progresses. Neither Eliasberg nor Norweb owned an 1853 proof seated dollar. It's a pretty rare bird. When his seated dollar set is posted, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I can imagine that there are some pretty tough Philly coins out there [perhaps the 1875 $10 gold?] where Eliasberg had a proof but no circulation strike. Will he get credit for those as well? It's a slippery slope when you start down this path...........
Edited to add: It's as if the Eliasberg collection is the square peg and the Registry is the round hole. It's too bad the Registry can't be made square by having a section where collections of the old style can be shown in all their glory - without using the phantom coin concept. But if they do continue down this path, I would hope that they would remove the ranking from each Eliasberg set containing phantom coins. Showing the set is one thing - having it in the competition for finest known is quite another!
No, it's NOT right.
<< <i>This set has 21 required coins. Eliasberg owned 11 of the 21 and is given phantom coins for the other 10. Eliasberg had a fantastic collection.....and it's getting larger by the minute! >>
What's next? Is PCGS going to assume that Eliasberg would crack out some of his coins, and then bump up the grades on coins that were never slabbed to begin with?. The whole idea of putting coins that haven't been slabbed in a "Registry" set is totally bogus.
Why doesn't PCGS set up a separate page with photos of the Eliasberg collection, and let the coins speak for themselves?
Jim
But these coins do in fact exist !!
09/07/2006
David
Phantom has to be Paul Taylor. I don't think there is more than one 67DCAM 1900 proof Morgan. Great collection, Paul.
Let's all write a Q&A to David Hall expressing an opinion on this issue.
Cheers
Greg
09/07/2006
<< <i>If I aquire a beautiful coin and show it off (via the Registry, or not), who am I hurting? >>
Yeah, what he said!!!!!!!
<< <i>If you have a really beautiful coin, why does it matter if a phantom collection has a better one? >>
Why? Because it's not fair for PCGS to have two sets of the rules, one for the phantom sets and one for it's "living collectors".
The registry is getting to the point of being much more about ego that collecting. But it is also seeming to be leading to sets being sold more often so those who do appreciate he collecting part will finally end up with them.
An exception should be made for the fine collections of the past. What is numismatics without history? It's very important to see the history of our fine passtime. I'm at peace with the concept of the estimated grades. As PCGS has stated, a serious collector would have no problems surpassing Eliasberg's estimated grades.
However, this brings the subject of the phantom coins. As larger and larger sets are created, such as the complete liberty seated set, Eliasberg is going to be credited with more and more phantom coins. Eventually, a serious collector is going to have substantial problems surpassing Eliasberg's phantom coins. To complete a complete liberty seated circulation strike set will be a monumental occasion. Is it really right, upon completion, that the collector be staring up at Louis Eliasberg - who owned very few circulation strike Philadelphia coins from that set????
PCGS is doing a fine job with the Registry. Do you really think that PCGS is adding the Eliasberg sets out of their own interest? Absolutely not. I've corresponded with HRH about the sets many times - remember, I used to have a conniption fit over the estimated grades. I believe that HRH respects the heck out of Eliasberg and is spending time, effort and even money to ensure that the Eliasberg collection is put forth in all its glory for subsequent generations to see. There is no self interest conflict here - only tweaking that needs to be done to make the Registry the best it can be.
The only reason I put forth my opinions on the matter are so that PCGS can see what this one collector believes. Sometimes, working so close on an item, the forest is lost in the trees. But you're wrong if you think there is any intent here whatsoever other than long term good for the history of numismatics.
A separate idea then popped up: I have also suggested to David Hall by pm the concept of PCGS setting up a separate cateory of Pedigreed Collections currently in PCGS holders with an added column for OPTIONAL listing of the current owners at the owners discretion. This way this would encourage all current owners of PCGS (and even possibly NGC) holdered coins to add their coins, hopefully with pictures to the PCGS registry system. This would also help create a database of the current owners so that the indiviual pieces are not lost down the road when the owners ever sell. It also helps the current owners marketabilty of their PCGS slabbed pedigreed coins which would be a win-win situation.
The best part of the idea I have explained in the second paragraph is it finally shifts the registry set concept to its pure intent. Recognition of great coins held by great collectors without a rating system at all! It allows collectors to band together and re-create the pedigreed collection of famous collections without competition!
.