It's time to address this 'conflict' in registry grades and rankings...!?
saintguru
Posts: 7,724 ✭✭✭
I have been involved and studied the Registry and it's system for 2 years now, and am a participant as well. I think it's an amazing concept and builds enthusiasm that is wonderful for the coin community.
However, I find a fundamental flaw in the system of reaching position rankings; one that does not seem to accurately combine grade and rarity. Let me explain.
In the grading, one set could have a rare coin (or entire set for that matter) in ms60 and another could have an ms68. Both receive 'virtually' the same set points. I say 'virtually' because ther is a difference of a few hundreths of a point but certainly not anything meaningful. So you have Collector #1 who is accumulating as many coins as possible in any grades that can be found, while Collector #2 is carefully picking GEM coins, which are worth multiples of their lesser-graded counterparts and their rarity is infinately higher, certainly a significant numismatic quality. Theoretically, and in a few actual cases, Collector #1 could have a complete set of a series with an average GPA of 60, while Collector #2 could have 53 of 55 coins with a GPA of 68...all the while Collector #1 has a higher ranked set! This is where PCGS needs to define the purpose and "meaning" of the Registry, since, at the top of every list of sets it says, "ALL TIME FINEST" and "CURRENT FINEST". There seems to be a conflict in the term "FINEST". I never considered completion the defining component of the term, especially in numismatics, where one of the most critical determinants in every aspect of a coin is the GRADE.
That leaves us with the conflict of "what makes a fine set?", and ultimately "what makest the finest set"? Is it a completed set of lower end coins, or a 95% complete set with very low-pop GEMS?? Certainly the dollar value of the sets is one undisputable measure, but for academic reasons we can avoid that argument as a sole determinant. Nobody ever looks back on history at the 100% complete Joe Schmuckatelli set of Lincoln Sets in circulated grades and says, "Man, that was a fine set". But look at the Stewart Blay set, which is certainly a "grade-intenseive" set and I maintain that THAT is indeed worthy of "FINEST". However if Stewart was missing three dates, he most likely would rank #2! In my opinion, "FINEST" encompasses all the measures that numismatics values...rarity, appearance and grade...with completion being a less defined measure.
So, is the registry doing the most accurate assessment to those slightly less-than-complete sets with ultra-high end coins rating lower than the 'more complete' but lower grade coins? I think there has to be a blending process that assigns a value that weighs BOTH quantity and quality, within reason. I'm not an agent of NGC, however they have a very accurate mathematic formula that does indeed address the problem outlined here. Clearly one can site extremes that would invalidate some principles, like a set with all GEM key-dates but only at 40% completion...somewhere there probably should be a minimum completion percentage. I do understand that money spent is a capitalistic bias, but what are we collecting here? None of the historical greates sets were built with low grade coins, ie. Eliasberg, Carter, Garrett, Norweb. The hobby endears the term "finest-known" yet it's discounted in the realm of this topic. I certainly appreciate the desire to include the less capitalized collector, but somehow there might be 'categorization' relating to the more "sophisticated" (don't go after me on this term!), collections.
I accept the Registry's system, regardless of my stance on this issue. I appreciate it's visibility and the ability to see what people are doing. I am sincerely asking the participants here to weigh in with their thoughts. Hopefull my point is understood. I am not being elitist as much as questioning what we are really looking for as the models of the best of the best.
Jay Brahin
However, I find a fundamental flaw in the system of reaching position rankings; one that does not seem to accurately combine grade and rarity. Let me explain.
In the grading, one set could have a rare coin (or entire set for that matter) in ms60 and another could have an ms68. Both receive 'virtually' the same set points. I say 'virtually' because ther is a difference of a few hundreths of a point but certainly not anything meaningful. So you have Collector #1 who is accumulating as many coins as possible in any grades that can be found, while Collector #2 is carefully picking GEM coins, which are worth multiples of their lesser-graded counterparts and their rarity is infinately higher, certainly a significant numismatic quality. Theoretically, and in a few actual cases, Collector #1 could have a complete set of a series with an average GPA of 60, while Collector #2 could have 53 of 55 coins with a GPA of 68...all the while Collector #1 has a higher ranked set! This is where PCGS needs to define the purpose and "meaning" of the Registry, since, at the top of every list of sets it says, "ALL TIME FINEST" and "CURRENT FINEST". There seems to be a conflict in the term "FINEST". I never considered completion the defining component of the term, especially in numismatics, where one of the most critical determinants in every aspect of a coin is the GRADE.
That leaves us with the conflict of "what makes a fine set?", and ultimately "what makest the finest set"? Is it a completed set of lower end coins, or a 95% complete set with very low-pop GEMS?? Certainly the dollar value of the sets is one undisputable measure, but for academic reasons we can avoid that argument as a sole determinant. Nobody ever looks back on history at the 100% complete Joe Schmuckatelli set of Lincoln Sets in circulated grades and says, "Man, that was a fine set". But look at the Stewart Blay set, which is certainly a "grade-intenseive" set and I maintain that THAT is indeed worthy of "FINEST". However if Stewart was missing three dates, he most likely would rank #2! In my opinion, "FINEST" encompasses all the measures that numismatics values...rarity, appearance and grade...with completion being a less defined measure.
So, is the registry doing the most accurate assessment to those slightly less-than-complete sets with ultra-high end coins rating lower than the 'more complete' but lower grade coins? I think there has to be a blending process that assigns a value that weighs BOTH quantity and quality, within reason. I'm not an agent of NGC, however they have a very accurate mathematic formula that does indeed address the problem outlined here. Clearly one can site extremes that would invalidate some principles, like a set with all GEM key-dates but only at 40% completion...somewhere there probably should be a minimum completion percentage. I do understand that money spent is a capitalistic bias, but what are we collecting here? None of the historical greates sets were built with low grade coins, ie. Eliasberg, Carter, Garrett, Norweb. The hobby endears the term "finest-known" yet it's discounted in the realm of this topic. I certainly appreciate the desire to include the less capitalized collector, but somehow there might be 'categorization' relating to the more "sophisticated" (don't go after me on this term!), collections.
I accept the Registry's system, regardless of my stance on this issue. I appreciate it's visibility and the ability to see what people are doing. I am sincerely asking the participants here to weigh in with their thoughts. Hopefull my point is understood. I am not being elitist as much as questioning what we are really looking for as the models of the best of the best.
Jay Brahin
0
Comments
The good news is: imagine how much common date early Lincolns in MS67 RD would sell for if the point system rewarded them more fully!
I would also say that the finest SET of all time typically includes a complete set. I understand your favorite series contains a coin that is incredibly rare. I would ask you this question, would a set that cointains ALL of the St. Gauden's double eagles in 63, including the most rare (but excluding the 1933) be better than a set that is all 66s but lacks the two or three incredibly expensive coins? There has to be a factor involved for acquring the complete set.
It is an interesting debate.
What this means to me is that the PCGS Set Registry ranking system is accurate for most instances - so is it really worth extensive and time consuming changes to 'enhance' the system? Perhaps when the Registry is complete, but certainly not now. We still want our Pattern Registry! [oh, and did I mention Gobrechts!]
While I am all for the most accuracy possible in the Registries, it's important to remember that there are limited resources available for their creation and maintenance. I personally don't feel that it's necessary to revamp the scoring to fix transitory problems in rankings - at least not at this stage of the Registry.
I would unequivocally take the set of mS66 anyday of the year! Hands down, no question. A set in ms63 is not a difficult challenge, (although there are no slabbed 27-d's in ms63
Well - since I was well aware of the rules before even starting to build that set, of course it is fair. Further, the rule tends to benefit the vast majority of collectors involved, which is probably a good thing as well. Finally, the reality is to a collector that cares to compete in the registry, those final holes will be filled in anyway and all concerns resolved. I will eventually buy my $25 coin and be in the top 10 or top 5 sets anyway.
But, I believe Saintguru is correct in his assessment of how the registry rewards collectors- and completeness is BIG. Just like they used to tell you in grade school when you took those all important standardized tests - LEAVE NO BLANKS.
Wondercoin
I think tradedollarnut counters with some valid points, and I think more collectors need to understand how the numismatic industry defines what constitutes a GREAT COLLECTION. I certainly sympathize with saintguru's frustration and think he makes some fair points. But I think the broader question collectors need to ask themselves is: Does he simply want a great set for the "here and now" or does he want a collection that will be talked about in the year 2054?
I'm confident that condition will always play a role in defining great collections. But I also believe that 50+ years from now, when the subject of say, the John Doe $10 Indian Collection is brought up in numismatic circles, very few people are going to immediately say, "yeah, his 1926 in MS67 sure was nice" or "wow, his collection had a 1911 in 66". Rather, (in my opinion) people are going to immediately want to know what Mr. Doe's 1911-D and 1920-S were. In other words, three or four issues are probably going to define the “Long Term Greatness” of that collection.
I believe this scenario can be applied to nearly every 20th century series of gold, silver and copper coinage. Stewart Blay has built a phenomenal complete set of cents that I believe is one of those collections that WILL be discussed 50 years from now. But again, I doubt anybody attending the ANA Expo in Y2054 is going to give a rip about Stewart's post-1940 examples graded 67RD.
Partner / Executive VP
Heritage Auctions
Or, just take the weights away. Then the overall rank stands on grade alone without considering rarity.
Or, finally, leave as is, recognize rarity as a legitimate factor in recognizing a superior set.
Dick
BTW, I sure wish there was a spell checker on this system.
Remember that I was not talking about sets that were not significantly completed...I'm not referring to a 40% set beating out a 96% set because of grades...as I said there has to be a line somewhere (in a perfect world). But this obsession with completion is overblown...
Perhaps it's just a matter of taste. Some want quantity over quality, some the other. I'd take one case of 1961 Chateau Petrus over 10 cases of Chateau Bob anyday.
If you get what I'm trying to get across, that's great...I'm certainly not whining, because if you look at my original post, I never said ME or MINE. I was creating a forum to discuss the issue of what makes "FINEST" in regards to the registry. Frankly, I think the competition aspect is detrimental to the art, but we all fall for it. I'm right there.
I enjoy participating in the PCGS Set Registry for fun. I cannot devote the kind of money necessary to truly be an owner of a great collection. But, I can be the owner of a complete collection at a level of cost that I am comfortable with. To be able to post my coins and share comments on this forum is worth it to me. I just don't see a "conflict" between those of us who strive for the "pop top" and don't care if they have a complete set, and those of us who strive for a complete set and don't have a "pop top". True, there is more MONEY to be made in the former, but there is plenty of ENJOYMENT to be made in the latter.
I think the PCGS weighting system is about the best for all concerned and I appreciate the fact that it DOES give consideration to completion as part of the rankings. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Wondercoin
I guess I'm suggesting that perhaps human nature's desire for "completeness" is equal to human nature's desire for "quality". Its just a thought . . . .
Partner / Executive VP
Heritage Auctions
the whole term "Finest Known Set" is really a misnomer and egotistical in itself. what it really should be is "Highest Rated" or "Highest Graded" or "Highest Registered" Set. by PCGS calling a set "Finest Known" they give the impression that they have viewed every set to know which is the best.
if you have a set which pleases you and was assembled with a goal of completion and excellence, why would it matter if Joe Fabeets is ahead of you in the Registry rankings. though the answer may strike a nerve and irritate soem, it's very simple-----ego.
the Doctor is now out!!!
al h.
A) A case of 1961 Petrus?
Partner / Executive VP
Heritage Auctions
Take a look at my situation. I have a GPA of 68.49, which would put me at #3 on the set registry. There is no doubt that my collection is far more valuable than many of those above me. However, it is a "SET" registry not a "COLLECTION" registry. My set is not complete, and it certainly should not be ranked above others with a complete set simply because I have a bunch of high grade coins. When my set is complete it will then be ranked accordingly. I don't see this as a "conflict" at all.
Jack
The case, Todd..although it's a tough choice...and I guess that's the answer to the riddle here. Some desire completion/quantity, and some prefer quality....and it's all a matter of personal satisfaction. That's better.
And some are driven to both!
However, I don't think that everyone would agree on the weighting for each
coin in some of the sets right now, let alone how to weight each coin by grade.
The system works right now; I personally lean towards the 'complete' being
more important than 'high grade missing a few', but that is just my personal
choice. (And I always like looking at the ultra high end coins that some people
have!)
We can all agree to disagree...one thing we all have in common is that we are passionate about our "orbs"!!
Steve, you're only 1.69 away from the 3rd all time as well.
Overall Weight for coin= (Weight in $3 basic set) X (Weight in Type set) X (the grade)
For 1854 $3 = (1) X (5) X (50)=250
For 1854-D $3 = (8) X (5) X (50)=2000
By weighing the coins in this manor both rarity and quality are both represented in type sets. This can be done only once all of the various basic sets are weighted. It can work for type commems just as well.
What do you all think of the idea.
Overland Trail Collection Showcase
Dahlonega Type Set-2008 PCGS Best Exhibited Set
<< <i><STRONG>"I have the current 3rd place set behind Stewart and Doug in the 1909-1958 Lincoln Proof Registry."
</STRONG>Steve, you're only 1.69 away from the 3rd all time as well. >>
Many of us felt Roger accomplished his "quick" registry and ban from these boards in an inappropriate way. I'm one who would like to see PCGS change that "all time" listing to some name more appropriate. In reality, I shouldn't be anywhere near the top. I'm there because some of the top players chose to either not collect the proofs or to not display the proofs (particularly the Matte proofs) in this registry IMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I wasn't here for that. What was considered inappropriate in how the set was formed and why was the owner of the set banned ??? >>
sliderider, I'm sorry but I don't want to bring that thing up here again. In retrospect, I should not have even mentioned it. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
My recollection is that there was NO connection between the "quick registry" & the "ban from these boards". If someone had as a goal to be the first person to complete all 12 of the Lincoln registry sets within 1 year and to then sell all the coins after the accomplishment that's their right. Of course it isn't their right to conduct themselves in an inappropriate manner with respect to things they might have posted here on these boards - WHETHER TRUE OR NOT.
That's a great idea...or at least incorporate it into the formula...but I can hear the Bolsheviks coming allready!!
I would choose the nearly complete die variety collection for the difficulty and time it would take to collect, and for all of the interesting die varieties to study.
There is definately no right answer, just different opinions. But I choose completion over grade.
Bill
That's not true and you'd know it if you'd have read this entire thread.
It's an interesting comment that Sliderider makes about having deep pockets. I do think it is easier for collectors with significant resources at their disposal to complete their collections. At least in the Lincoln series, a lot of the top coins never hit the market and are offered to the deep pocketed buyers for quick sale.
TDN, you of all collectors seem to defend the completion argumeent, yet you know how difficult it is to ferret out the "ultimate" grades. Would you give applause to someone who finished one of your sets in au58 while you are laboring over ms65-67's for years to build the finest set?? Surely you "get" what I'm talking about.
For instance: The trade dollar proofs. I'll take the 100% complete set in hand picked PF62 over the 95% complete set in PF66. Or, if you prefer MS, then the 20 centers. I'll take the 100% complete set in MS62 over the 95% complete set in MS66.
In both instances, I assume the missing coin is the big one.
keoj
of the simplest would just be to weight the sets according to the difficulty of getting the grade
rarities. Sets with mostly all grades equally easy to find but with many date rarities would get a
higher bonus for completeness than a set with mostly grade rarities.
Of course the easiest system would just use a logrythmic bonus based on completeness.
<< <i>In an hour, I could partially complete a MS67 Roosie set using 'Buy It Now' on ebay. Where's the effort? >>
I'll have to leave it to someone else to prove this isn't true for the silver Roosies, but it
couldn't possibly be less true for the clads. Not only are these in strong hands but there
are surprisingly few of any issues available on e-bay.
I picked the most difficult (non variety, regular issue) and searched PCGS 1983. Incredibly
there was not a single one on e-bay!! There wasn't a quarter listed either though. So I
just tried 1983 dime. Guess what? None!!! Zero. Figuring someone would say they just don't
bother trying to sell crap on e-bay, I tried 1983 set. This time I hit the jack pot. There was
one set composed of circulated coins. There was one 1980 to date SEGS set in MS-70 (whooppee),
and there were two 1983-P souvenir sets. Bingo- - sortta. There are some high grade dimes in the
Philly souvenir sets but it's less than 1% that would even be true MS-66.
One would have to suspect that finding gem Trade dollars on ebay would be easier if one had
the money to afford them.
If you want effort than trying putting these sets together raw. Try finding the varieties without
reference books. Try finding the great old pedigreed clads. Try finding nice gem coins on ebay.
Really almost any series can require about as much effort as the collector is willing to put into it.
<< <i>Cladking- Let me get this straight. You are now telling us that putting together a set of MS67 clad Roosevelts is a more difficult task than putting together a set of gem MS Trade dollars? Me thinks you have been picking mushrooms in the cow pastures again.
No. I'm very literal. I meant only (and exactly) what I said.
...And the cow pastures disappeared long ago in this area. The mushrooms grow like never before though.
I looked before I wrote. There were quite a few on ebay today. Didn't see any MS60's tho...
Edited to add: Keoj's Condition Census Weighting is a really neat concept. It shows the differences between a top end set with high populations available [and lots of undergrades] vs a really tough set with few coins in the top pops and fewer undergrades.
Keoj: just for the fun of it, why don't you do saintguru's set? Let's see how that baby stands up!
to have all three words in the description. There probably weren't many '84's or '85's in any case.
I think a system like the NGC weighting system, that takes into account the grade more heavily, would eliminate THAT possibility.
PCGS should also take into account the pops into the system on a dynamic basis somehow. Obviously the weights need to be DRASTICALLY readjusted for most if not all sets. But if you think that'll happen anytime soon I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale along with the "NEW" pop report that actually lists ALL coins graded including ALL errors AND varieties AND those less than VG AND breaks out all the detail for the VG-VF, etc.