Home› PCGS Set Registry Forum

POLL: Should PCGS put sets in the Registry with NON PCGS Holdered coins?

cosmicdebriscosmicdebris Posts: 12,332 ✭✭✭
in PCGS Set Registry Forum
I feel and I see many others feel that PCGS is breaking their own rules by posting Sets from the past with assumed grades of coins that were never in PCGS holders. Should these fictious sets effect the grades of PCGS ONLY HOLDER COINS?
Bill

image

09/07/2006

Comments

  • joeyukjoeyuk Posts: 3,282
    I feel everyone should play by the same rules regardless of who you are. Perhaps there should a honorable mention catagory, but then again if the set does not meet the criteria for registry why should it even be on the site. Just my opinion.
  • cosmicdebriscosmicdebris Posts: 12,332 ✭✭✭
    How about some comments along with your votes? I wanna make sure David Hall sees this thread and really understands why the way they are doing it now is a bad idea.
    Bill

    image

    09/07/2006
  • SteveSteve Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭
    I really think you guys take this PCGS registry thing too seriously. Really, if your collection is better than Eliasberg. you KNOW it. Does it matter what others think? Do you REALLY think that a grade assigned by a PCGS grader will suddenly make your set the finest of all time? Great collections and great collectors are made over many years. There are a FEW people on this board who ARE in that select circle. They know who they are. IMHO there are also a few "wannabees" out there who think that just because they own a few "top pop" coins that they also have the finest of all time collection. I don't think a PCGS score earns that designation. I think a consensus by fellow collectors is what earns that designation. In my Lincoln cent category, Stewart Blay HAS earned that designation. Again, all this is just MY opinion. Steveimage
    My True View Album

    My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
  • DennisHDennisH Posts: 13,995 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not until EVERYONE gets to put non-PCGS coins into their Registry sets.
    When in doubt, don't.
  • egsantosegsantos Posts: 470
    I believe that is other game with other rules. No make sense change the current rules after people invested a lot in low pop coins. I agree with Manofcoins, when he said "...but Ngc coins just dont measure up 90% of the time."

    Edson
  • cosmicdebriscosmicdebris Posts: 12,332 ✭✭✭
    Who voted to allow them in? I would like to hear your opinion why.
    Bill

    image

    09/07/2006
  • khaysekhayse Posts: 1,336 ✭
    No. It kills me when I see a set from before slabbing with an average grade of 65.39.
    Wow, kind of precise for pulling numbers out of a hat.

    I would like to see them listed in an honorable mention category with a description of how they came up with the numbers they have.

    In the series I collect I cheer when a "real" set knocks off one of these phantom sets.
    Maybe if I'm lucky I'll do that one day.

    -KHayse
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,162 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I voted to allow them in but not affect the standings. Now, if you had multiple polls, I'd vote differently:

    First poll: Allow the estimated grades for coins actually owned by Eliasberg and other greats? I'd vote yes, allow them in and allow them to affect the standings. If PCGS experts were at these sales, they have a pretty good idea of what the grades are. It's important to see how we current collectors measure up to the all time greats. Some latitude can be given for sets created before PCGS existed.

    Second poll: Allow 'phantom' coins for Eliasberg and the other greats? I'd vote a resounding never! It's just not right to give anyone 100% completion when they did not actually own the coin in question. It doesn't matter that was the collecting format of the day. Either allow mixed sets now, for everyone, or don't - but don't give credit for coins not owned. If they insist on creating the sets with phantom coins in them, then remove them from the rankings so as to not create a situation where a current collection is behind coins that didn't even exist.

    Early Dollar Set
  • jdimmickjdimmick Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ill give my totally unbiased Opinion, as I am not a registry set chaser, and dont list on the registry.

    I think that the sets from the past that are listed by opinions as to what they would have graded should not be ranked in the all time finest list with actually assembled PCGS holdered collections. They should be listed in some type of archive listing indicating how they would have ranked if intack today?


  • puffpuff Posts: 1,475


    << <i>I agree I have a Washington qtr that deserves to be in my set but it is in a ngc holder. However I personally do not think Ngc coins or any other coins but Pcgs should be allowed in the registry. I know I will get flamed but Ngc coins just dont measure up
    90% of the time. Disclaimer this is my opinion only. (Its a sad day in hell when a physician has to use legal terminology image >>



    I agree with "MANOFCOINS"..... If it's not in a PCGS holder then it should not be allowed in the PCGS registry sets.....Period! I also agree that NGC graded coins do not measure up to PCGS graded coins 90% of the time, nor do "any" of the other so-called coin grading companies that have popped up all over the place in the last several years!

    I collect only PCGS Walkers at this time, and yes I have them listed in the registry currently #3 late date, (1933-1947), Walker set..... So there will be some that see this as biased on my part.... I've been collecting coins for over 35 years, and in the last 15 years I have only collected PCGS graded coins because of their high standards, and accuracy....... When I was able to attend coin shows I looked at all of the coins that I had interest in, raw and slabbed, and without a doubt in my mind, (and considerable knowledge of Walkers and Buffalos), there is a reason that PCGS is the #1 coin grading service.

    If you want coins that are slabbed in NGC holders and want them registered, then in my opinion you should have them registered with NGC...image

    I also agree that "non" graded coins from the old time collections should not be allowed in the registry sets until they have been graded, and slabbed by PCGS!

    BTW....I also think that people that have sold the coins they have in their registry set, and still have it listed, should "delete" that set since it "no longer" exist in its entirety!image

    Caveat: All of the above is just my ever so humble opinion!image
  • DAMDAM Posts: 2,410 ✭✭
    I voted Allow Eliasberg and other sets from the past to be posted and NOT effect the standings only because of the rule issue. I don't mind going head to head against anyone, in anythng, as long as the rules are the same. I think that's what some folks are missing. Let the best man/woman win.

    To me the entire issue is about rules. And that's my opinion. image
    Dan
  • wallstreetmanwallstreetman Posts: 2,938 ✭


    << <i> Does it matter what others think? >>




    Steve, If you were the only person left on Earth, I guess not!
    You can fool man but you can't fool God! He knows why you do what you do!
  • pontiacinfpontiacinf Posts: 8,915 ✭✭
    bill

    i gotta go #2

    hope thats the answer your looking for

    pcgs claims they want eliasberg shown for reference, and thats all it should be, otherwise they are hipocrits
    image

    Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
  • MyWorldCoinTypeSetMyWorldCoinTypeSet Posts: 1,331 ✭✭✭
    Put them in and let them affect the standings. The Registry should catalog all the great sets, not just the recent ones.

    For those sets prior to PCGS, an estimated grade is ok. For those that are complaining about not allowing NGC coins - get them crossed. If you don't want to for any particular reason, that's your choice.

    Allowing "phantom" coins is dumb.
    Paul

    My World Coin Type Set
  • cosmicdebriscosmicdebris Posts: 12,332 ✭✭✭
    TTT

    One more time to make sure everyone gets a chance to vote before tonight's Q&A.
    Bill

    image

    09/07/2006
  • DAMDAM Posts: 2,410 ✭✭
    Ask Roger to vote. His 29 different names will add to the total. image
    Dan
Sign In or Register to comment.