Home› PCGS Set Registry Forum

Rule change for set awards

RobgettyRobgetty Posts: 1,112
in PCGS Set Registry Forum
I just noticed that the criteria to get a best set award changed from
having a 50% complete set to 65% complete. Anyone know the
reason for the change? (I'm 2/3rds PCGS slabbed for my 1872 set
right now; I didn't realize how close that was to the cutoff!)
Robert Getty - Lifetime project to complete the finest collection of 1872 dated coins.

Comments

  • DAMDAM Posts: 2,410 ✭✭
    I've never understood why a Best of the Registry award was given to uncomplete sets. It makes no sense to me.

    Dan
  • KeyrockKeyrock Posts: 961 ✭
    I always thought most sets could hit the 50% without too much effort. Its the climb past 50% where you really need the keys and semi keys. I think it may be raising the bar and seperating the true devotees to the series from the casual collector. Just my 2 cents...

    Rich
  • RobgettyRobgetty Posts: 1,112
    Dan, don't push for 100%! My 1872-CC dime and quarter are
    damaged, net graded ANACS; I'm not ready to go out and
    get nice examples yet! image

    However, I agree that there needs to be a significant size of
    the collection to show that an actual effort is being made, and
    not just a casual grouping of non keys.
    Robert Getty - Lifetime project to complete the finest collection of 1872 dated coins.
  • mercurynutmercurynut Posts: 3,207
    These awards should only be for complete sets!
  • MistercoinmanMistercoinman Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭
    I agree to get the award 100% should be the first criteria.
    JR Newsletter
  • DAMDAM Posts: 2,410 ✭✭
    Sorry Rob, my comment wasn't meant to bash or degrade anyone's set.

    I find it odd that PCGS decided to allow a partially complete set to be considered 'finer', than a set 100% complete 'in any grade'. As an example let's take a 100% complete set with a Set Rating of 59.34 and compare it to one 98% complete with a Set Rating of 67.32. How about a 100% complete set with a Set Rating of 62.13 verses one that's 98% complete with a Set Rating of 62.17. In each example which is 'finer'? The complete set, or the near complete set?

    I think we would all agree the higher the set rating, the nicer (in most cases) the set will be. My beef is in each of the examples only one of the sets is 'complete', regardless of the Set Rating/Weighted GPA (if it is rated). I understand PCGS wanting to recognize a set that's a work in process, perhaps destine to be the finest. But what about the set that is complete? If there needs to be a threshold, I'd rather see it at the 90-95%, level. As for the partial sets, if they get recognized, it's when they're complete.




    Dan
  • RobgettyRobgetty Posts: 1,112
    I agree that a complete set should rank above a partial set; how you
    would do it fairly is another matter. In the case of 2 really close scores,
    you could fairly argue that the complete one is the better accomplishment.
    The part that might throw flags up is a complete set averaging a VF-XF level
    vs. a 95% complete set averaging MS64. Which is the better set? I know that
    I would rather have the 95% MS64 set, but where is the line drawn?
    I suppose if PCGS keeps raising the bar 10% or so each year it will keep
    sets moving in the right direction and start filtering out a lot of the partials.
    Robert Getty - Lifetime project to complete the finest collection of 1872 dated coins.
  • RELLARELLA Posts: 961 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I've never understood why a Best of the Registry award was given to uncomplete sets. It makes no sense to me. >>



    << <i>These awards should only be for complete sets! >>



    << <i>I agree to get the award 100% should be the first criteria. >>



    Those who made these comments...do you feel that way about these sets?:
    Liberty Seated Half Dimes (1870-S is unique)
    Liberty Seated Dimes (1873-CC NA is unique)
    Liberty Seated Quarters (1873-CC NA only five known examples)
    Liberty Seated Half Dollars (1853-O NA only three known)
    Libery Head $5 Gold (1854-S only three known)

    RELLA


    Do not fall into the error of the artisan
    who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft
    while in fact he has had only one year of experience...
    twenty times.
  • DAMDAM Posts: 2,410 ✭✭
    RELLA,

    There are 2 sets for proof Liberty Nickels, one includes the 1913. I suppose there could be two sets for the examples you gave too.

    PCGS has done a good job of providing Registry Sets for a variety of collecting tastes. I applaude that. But to award someone a certificate for an incomplete set is odd, to me... IMO.







    Dan
  • RELLARELLA Posts: 961 ✭✭✭
    The first two I listed do have varieties that do not require the unique coins but the last three require the coins I mentioned even in the basic set for the series.

    RELLA
    Do not fall into the error of the artisan
    who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft
    while in fact he has had only one year of experience...
    twenty times.
  • dbldie55dbldie55 Posts: 7,735 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As said, PCGS is very responsive to customer requests. I am sure if the need was there, they would create the sets where the unique coins would not be needed. I do remember one of them (not sure which unique coin it was), but David Hall said that for the one person that owns it, there should be a place for him to show it.

    My favorite incomplete set is TDN's proofs. No finer set has ever been put together, but due to plastic, the set was not complete. Anyone who thinks that his set does not deserve the award is crazy. (of course, he is now selling all of the PCGS coins from the set)
    Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Sign In or Register to comment.