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??
Who would be able to define the difference between such coins or high end graded coins for that matter? Certainly, if the population report numbers were accurate, a better point system could be in place. Perhaps doing a periodic recount of the low-pop gems would help or a pop concensus of only those coins in the registry sets combined, could rarity be properly awarded.
Depends on the series, the coins missing and the beholder... 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.
Whether MS or PF, I would take the 95% complete set in MS66! The reason is, once I locate that one missing MS66 big one to complete the set, I'll know that I'll have one heck of a set! Picking the lower graded set means I'm looking at a lot of upgrades, more expenses and a lot of headaches playing the catchup game with the MS66 set! lol
if you get stuck the way you've outlined, you're probably involved in the Registry for reasons that may be a bit egotistical-----being #1 with the illusion of having the Finest Set.
How many know that but could never admit it!
The bottom line/reality is, that if someone really cares that much about his set's ranking (as opposed to its "quality" or rarity), in most cases, he can add the (lower grade) pieces required to elevate the set's position, anyway. It's just a matter of whether the registry participant chooses to add such coins (despite their less-than-stellar grades/quality) merely to improve his ranking. In other words, will the collector willingly sacrifice a bit of his (pure) collecting soul in compromising his collecting principles, in order to obtain a higher ranking?
Well put in one sense but perhaps those stellar coins should have a point deducted for being inferior coins.......because their only purpose in the set is to show a higher % of completion! Quality is much more important than a so so filled grid of slabs!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
With gold I wouldn't even look at the top pops where only a handful exist in that grade. If there's only 5 of a coin in top pop, but 30 collectors in the registry, they can't all have top pops. Someone is going to have to dip down into the next grade pool, which is the coins I'm talking about here. I can make a large chunk of a gold set from second tier pieces in almost no time given the funds to do so. Given UNLIMITED funds, I could get the top pop pieces, because everything is negotiable at some point.
Even if a ranking was to be set on the rare quality and type of a coin there would still be quite a few objecting to that system. Think about the price of the Morgans (not too long ago) and the community selling them as rare and a majority of them being melted down. What happened, a hoard of the coins were discovered and the ones that had them wanted the coins destroyed with the ones that did not have them wanting them. The value and rare quality of the coins vanished almost overnight. If the above, and when it occurred the grading system would have to be changed again. Your set SaintGuru (if you had one) and all the others would or could go from the #1 set to the #1000 set. Think about it, the current grading system bases the coins on an even field and does not have to change should a MS69-70 hoard be found of a once rare type coin. I for one like the current system that is in place.
I've been collecting Lincoln cents for now over twenty years, before anyone thought of Registry sets. I always had a goal of COMPLETION for my collecting. I set my goal based on my own desires and realized from day 1 that I would not be trying to get the finest coins in existence, but only a nice example of each one. I knew I could find a 1957 D in a piggy bank my wife's father had saved for her. In fact it is in my collection today. A very nice MS65RD (IMHO). I also knew that I would have to pay some significant money to get a 1909 SVDB in uncirculated condition, which I ultimately did. I guess this "completion" concept instead of "finest available" concept was why I collected in the first place.
It seems to me that since the Registry concept came about a few years ago, the emphasis is on "finest available" instead of "completion". This is particularly true for those who collect as an investment or "to make money" from coins. The fact is that in today's market, ONE pop one coin in the Lincoln cent series can and often is worth more than a complete collection. I think this discussion on this thread shows the conflicts of thought we each have concerning how we collect. Which is right and which is wrong? Or maybe BOTH can be right. I know for me, based on what's right for me, the emphasis is on completion of my set, which I have accomplished and on selective upgrading as I desire. Steve
If you were going to use value to weight the Registry, what value would you use? $69,000 for a top pop 09-S Lincoln? $40,000 for a 70DCAM 1963 Lincoln? The task of updating the weights would never stop for PCGS. Collectors would complain incessantly .... well, they do anyway, but then they really would! It's completely unworkable.
Granted, NGC's system initially more accurately portrayed the values of the coins. For now. The market is fast changing and I'll bet that the individual coins are nowhere near current market value after even a couple of years. For instance, the NGC weight on an MS67 09-S Lincoln is 1,969 points. Is that even close to being accurate? And the task at hand is an impossible one - heck, I've been after them to update the scores for This Set for two years now and they still haven't done it. Imagine that, one of the finest sets on the entire NGC Registry is allowed to sit for over two years with grossly inaccurate scoring - just an example of the monumental task of keeping those market based scores accurate.
So, no, I highly doubt PCGS wants to get into a mess like that - even if it more accurately portrays the relative ranks.
that you don't stress the value of a great coin in top grade as opposed to a much easier obtaind lower grade?
Value occurs in all grades. In many series, it's harder to complete a hand selected, high end for the grade, eye appealing set of mid grade unc coins that to buy the holder on the high end - and leave out a few of the toughest coins. Which one deserves more respect from the numismatic community? From the Registry?
I'd take a complete set of beautifully toned and flashy MS64's over a 95% complete set of all white MS66's. The former is composed of individual works of art, the latter just sits there and looks the same....
Frankly, I know that the best or second best set of Saints is UNSLABBED!! Of course, we can only work with what is put in front of us. It's like crowning the greatest Heavyweight boxer. Who know how many men in all parts of the world could probably whoop his butt? Same concept. You work with what you know exists. The BEST is only the best "advertised".
I'm not sure I agree. Was the Share Collection any less of an achievement because it wasn't on a Registry? Is the Pogue Collection diminished because it's not on a Registry? Not really.
However, in my mind, it does diminish a collection somewhat if it's completely hidden away and not shared with the collecting community. But that doesn't mean it has to be listed and compete to be the champion of their field. The Registries are means to an end, not the defining moment.
What I meant was the the BEST that we KNOW OF, for Regisrty purposes is only the best advertised. We can't analyze sets we can't see. By no means do I believe that the Registry reflects all sets. There are so many collections in dark old mansions inhabitated by widows or eccentrics. Point is that there can be better or top ranking sets that are little-known or unknown. So I do agree with you. That was my point.
JB- You say there is fault in the current ranking of the registry sets at PCGS. I agree with you on this whole heartedly. Before we can fix the problem, there needs to be something cleared up, though. When you say you want to compare and rank the sets to find which one is the best, we need to define exactly what we are referring to by the term "best". Does best mean the most attractive, the highest graded, the most valuable or some other measure. The highest graded PCGS coins are by no means the "best" coins out there unless that is what you are referring to. If that is your contention, then I say your argument is flawed already. How would you compare two coins of exactly the same date and mint mark with the same PCGS grade where one is a just make it coin with average eye appeal and another is a just miss next grade coin with exceptional eye appeal? I have seen numerous instances where the nicer coin has brought many multiples of what the lesser quality coin has. How would you account for this? Are those coins to be given equal weight? I know of no fair way to account for this. Does anyone out there have any suggestions?
David...I disagree with nothing you say...of course there are variances between coins of the same grade...of course a PCGS set with no NGC coins may not have the better coins...but all I intended to do is to discuss how to rate sets within reason and that's all...it's not a perfect system, and no matter how refined, the issues you bring up will always be there...and unslabbed, unknown coins as well. I'm merely looking at what is pratical with what we can see and know. I'm not looking to CROWN the best sets...how many times have two coin experts disagreed on a really fine coin...there is so much subjectivity involved, I refer back to the parallel of collecting fime art. But let's find a way to improve the "real world" with what's workable.
JB- I used an extreme example to try and make a point to you. Even if PCGS were to go to the much better weighting system used by NGC in their calculation of point values given to individual grades for each date and mintmark, there will be those that argue that the system is flawed. First of all, who at CU has the time and knowledge to correctly weigh each and every coin in every grade. Secondly, the system has to be constantly updated to account for new coins being discovered and graded as time goes on to keep the weighting accurate. Who will do this? Should we get experts from these boards in each series to come forward to help with all this? Even if we manage this, will DH agree to this? There are enough people who go along with the current flawed system so that DH probably sees no reason to try and fix it.
Stewart- While that is a relatively accurate way to determine which is the best set, I contend that the only truly accurate way to determine which set is best would be to sell each set at the same auction and see which brings the most money. After all, we are really all capitalist pigs and as such the value of the set should be the real definition of "BEST SET".
MS68...you're trying to apply a highly variable subject to a scientific standard. You seem to be looking to extract what is the "exact" best, 2nd best set, etc. It's not possible using the criteria that you presented. Who could ever sit down and nit-pick, coin by coin to decide this stuff, and frankly who cares to g to that extent? It's the concept...that somehow there can be a BETTER way to apply a "template" approach to unseen slabbed coins and rate the sets. It's not a presidential election where accuracy is imperative, it just needs to be improved. I don't care where I rank, per se. I just would like to see the collector who goes the extra mike for high-grades get the extra credit over the collector who owns a lesser, easier found grade. Nothing more, nothing less. This business thrives on Condition rarity, finest-known, yet when it comes to the registry many act as if they are meaningless when compiling rankings. That's what surprises me. We oooh and aaah when the fimest coins come up in auction and the rooms fill up to see them sell, then they fo into a registry set and are treated practically equal to their lower counterparts.
I don't believe that every #1 set is the best set...I've seen many examples where lower sets were FAR superior in every sense of the trade, except for % completed. And I have seen #1 sets that are far and away the best.
Stewart, if there are a number of sets that are at parity of completion, then I agree.."Let the games begin"! SHOWDOWN!! It's all in fun...I HOPE!!
Speak for yourself ! Auctions prices can be manipulated as you know so well.That would be the worst way to determine the best collection.Maybe you've been living in Las Vegas too long.There are people who enjoy coins for other purposes other than Greed.
Should we get experts from these boards in each series to come forward to help with all this? Even if we manage this, will DH agree to this?
Ok, lets bring all this to a vote! All those in favor of having David Hall regradeing the top five collections in every series in the registry, say "aye", those oppose say "nay"! lol Really folks, this thread is going no-where! Are we going to say that a brilliant coin is a higher aspect of a grade than a beautifully toned or a coin that sports an EDS strike in a same date/grade dilemma! I can see a showdown where there is a side by side comparison of each coin in every series but the question still remains, will a brilliant coin be regarded as the better coin over a beautifully toned coin in the same date/grade of a coin? Of course we all know that toning is a form of corrosion! But this really doesn't give an answer to the initial question of the thread, a better weight system! I still believe if the pops were correct you would have a better point awarding system. If all the certified slabs had a bar code than everyone would need a home bar code scanner to verify the coins in their registry sets and then once or twice a year you would need a PCGS representative to personally verify your collection by mail or at a big coin show. This could be limited to the lowest of pop numbers where the extra points would need to be considered.
OK, you'all can go back to ignoring me again.....I had my say! lol
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>leo...you got back to the basics!! no ignore!!
A BETTER SYSTEM...IMPROVE ON THE COMBINED PCGS/NGC SYSTEM...THAT WOULD BE INFINATELY BETTER FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS. >>
Thanks! Well then, it seems that the simple solution would lie in what needs to be awarded with an extra point or two! Someone mentioned that the low pops are harder to find and cost considerably more then their counterpart lower graded coins, (an obvious point and something most could agree upon) why not add points to these coins? Aside from that suggestion, I personally don't like how some of the sets GPA is based on added points giving the illusion that the sets actually grades higher than any coin in the set. I'm not going to explain this although each set should have an average grade for a set and then points should be added or subtracted to keep that overall grade in line of the actual average grade of the set........did I just make it sound more complicated then it needs to be........sorry. lol
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
There is a conflict that the registry creates. The registry, adding fuel to the OCD we all seem to share, DOES create a competitiveness that may not be aligned with the true nature of coin collecting. The "old" idea of collecting involved years and years of scouring and searching, and certainly patience was one of the key QUALITIES of a great collector. Inasmuch as the greats like Carter, Eliasberg and Norweb had tremendous resources, they still took decades to assemble their sets. Nowadays, the collecting seems to be a high-octane race, and I am as guilty as the next person. And I will admit that as soon as I listed my "starter set" on the Registry I felt COMPELLED to advance as quickly as possible...that rush of adding a new coin, or a higher grade...Who doesn't feel it?? It used to be a silent hobby, often over a lifetime! But in the modern era of "cyber-media-live-now-instycredit" it's like we are a reality show. WOW! Who stepped on the gas??? Every move we make is instantly telegraphed on the PCGS website. We have become the monster!!
If only things could move a little slower, we'd all have tad more liquidity today.
The only way to define the finest is to have a "Showdown".
Stewart >>
OK, how about this:
Lincoln Cent SHOWDOWN at the 2009 ANA between Stewart and Gerry's Lincoln Cent Collection. All viewers at the show have the opportunity to vote. If any other collector is identified with a comparitive set between now and then, and is recognized as such by the experts, they would also be included in the SHOWDOWN.
Nowadays, the collecting seems to be a high-octane race, and I am as guilty as the next person. And I will admit that as soon as I listed my "starter set" on the Registry I felt COMPELLED to advance as quickly as possible...that rush of adding a new coin, or a higher grade...Who doesn't feel it??
Somehow, I don't feel it! Maybe I forgot to take my medicine this morning! lol I believe the others are in session now and they're about to bring my suggestion to a vote, let's wait and see how that turns out!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
One way of ranking Registry sets is thru the method Keoj offered to describe. It's grade over/under Condition Census Average [CCA] grade. This is a method that shows how a set stacks up to the condition census for each coin. It punishes relatively easy to get coins that aren't in the condition census, and rewards those with grades above the CCA. A truly great set should have significant percentage of coins above the CCA for the date and definitely have an average grade above the overall CCA of the set.
I ran a quick study on the set in question. Seven coins are missing out of 53, but it doesn't count negatively for that. It does, however, show that the average grade of the 46 coins in the set is almost a half grade below the condition census. There are 4 coins out of 53 that have a grade above the CCA, 7 at the CCA and 42 below the CCA.
saintguru: I think you may be off track here. Many collectors in the know, who take the time to look at the registry set lisitngs will also notice the weighted average GPA of the various sets.
For example, when I looked at the Saints Registry sets over a month ago, I noticed immediately that while you were ranked 7th, you had the 2nd highest GPA average. The GPA column is actually shown BEFORE the % of completion or the Set Rating!
Now you know first hand, my privately expressed enthusiasm for some of the pictures of your coins that were not necessarily the most expensive of all the various sets and as a result, you and I have shared numerous and pleasant pm's in which it was quite evident that you indeed enjoy obtaining the finest or close to the finest possible coins for the assigned grade within a sane budget, even if it meant turning down a higher grade slab.
Your enthusiasm for collecting as a hobbyist is quite self-evident and even more so when we exchanged pm's.
Isn't that what is the purpose of the registry set system should be? Those who admire sets such as yours quickly learn that the absolute set ranking is not the absolute measure of quality but that the Weighted GPA oftentimes has just as much if not more meaning (unless it is a 1% completed set).
Now, I have several type sets collection in which I am not even in the top 10 per the registry set. Quite frankly, I do not even recall where I am ranked.
Now, in my type set I had to decide whether to include my 1921 Walker (Jack Lee provenance) in PCGS MS-66 or my 1940 walker in P MS-68. I decided to put the 1940 walker NOT because it was a higher grade but I did not have an internet picture of my 1921 walker! I like to have as many pics as possible! I am so bad with pics that sometimes I have the wrong pics with the listed coins just so I don't lose them on the internet.
Furthermore, I have numerous coins in NGC and ICCS slabs that I don't bother crossing to PCGS. That is why my set will never make it to the "top." Frankly, I do not care. I fully expect that people viewing my sets appreciate the coins within the set for what they are, whether a common POS or a fabulous condition rarity.
For example, I have one slabbed coin that I bought cheap and I say so. It is an overgraded piece of crap from that well known dealer from California who tends to do that sort of thing. Others are coins totally mislabled by PCGS (not the grade but the type!) and so forth.
I do not always seek the finest known unless it is a series I get nuts about (like California Fractionals or other gold or dimes) and in other series I won't ever seek anything more than a circulated coin.
Now, when it came to picking the FE cent, I picked nothing other than the 1856 FE cent in AU-50 for the registry set. Not the 57-58 etc. Why? I always wanted that 1856 and it pleased me to have such a coin. Do I get a bonus for such a coin versus the 1857 and 1858? I doubt it.
I try to combine a little bit of pedigreed, absolute rarity, condition rarity, comedy value, lecturing and pointing out overgraded coins, listing and showing coins that I have pictures of when I have more favored coins, etc. Why? It is who I am as a collector and it pleases me to be able to do an on-line bookkeeping system for some of my coins.
I know the registry set lisitng penalizes me for having the 1955 DDO cent in MS-65RD in my set when others have far less expensive coins allowing them to further complete their set versus mine, but that is ok with me. I cannot expect PCGS to have a system to take all of these variables into account then have such variables change weekly when market values of such coins change vis-a-vis each other!
I hope others are having as much fun as I am. Yet, less than 4% of all my coins are slabbed!
Last, Laura of Legend is sincere when she expresses the view that registry set collecting should be fun and not a competitionj. Yet she does have clients that insist on the competitive aspect of such registry system. While she might preach one way, she is making comments that does not reflect her value system but that of her clients. It is not easy!
I can understand what she goes through. Feeling one way about the system yet needing to satisfy the demands of some of her clients!
Heck, I go through that myself from time to time with this registry system. I do not like the competitive aspect of such registry system! For example, I had my heart set on a fabulois $1 round Liberty California Gold Fractional and both myself and another California Gold Fractional Registry collector bent over backwards for each other to make sure that we were not taking the piece from each other's want list.
<< <i>JB- You say there is fault in the current ranking of the registry sets at PCGS. I agree with you on this whole heartedly. Before we can fix the problem, there needs to be something cleared up, though. When you say you want to compare and rank the sets to find which one is the best, we need to define exactly what we are referring to by the term "best". Does best mean the most attractive, the highest graded, the most valuable or some other measure. The highest graded PCGS coins are by no means the "best" coins out there unless that is what you are referring to. If that is your contention, then I say your argument is flawed already. How would you compare two coins of exactly the same date and mint mark with the same PCGS grade where one is a just make it coin with average eye appeal and another is a just miss next grade coin with exceptional eye appeal? I have seen numerous instances where the nicer coin has brought many multiples of what the lesser quality coin has. How would you account for this? Are those coins to be given equal weight? I know of no fair way to account for this. Does anyone out there have any suggestions? >>
NGC DOES account for this in their registries. It's called the 'star' designation. Coins with exceptional appeal for the grade are assigned a star after the grade. Maybe PCGS should come up with a similar system and add a bonus point or two for having it so the best lookers will get their due. Maybe then some of those wealthy widows and eccentrics would come out of their dilapidated mansions and show their sets to the world.
In case anyone is interested, here's the all time finest non-full bands Roosie list. I am number 18 soon to be 17 when I add two coins I just BINned. I buy only MS67 coins. Is it wrong that I rank higher than some at greater stages of completion, but with lesser grades? I don't think so. I agree with at least two of the viewpoints being argued. The one concerning high grades being important and the one concerning eye appeal. I think out of the coins I have so far, only two have any noticable toning whatsoever. The rest are blast white. I'm more concerned about completion in a minimum grade at the moment and will buy a few just for the plastic and replace them with nicer coins later on. I don't see anything wrong with that. Eye appeal is a subjective thing, anyway. Some people like myself, prefer clean, untoned coins, some others like mild, delicate toning, still others love thick, crusty toning. What you think comprises a beautiful collection, may not be so beautiful to the person standing next to you.
Just because I've brought this discussion to the table and pointed out what I see as flaws in the system doesn't mean that I'm bothered by it. From the onset I've maintained that I am very pleased with what I have assembled and I am not 'threatened" by any sets above or below me. I am concerned with MY set and bringing it to the highest standard I can. As long as a collector feels that they have maintained a standard that they determine to be "special", that is a great goal. That has been my goal.
It does please me to hear you say that you and others pay attention to GPA. I realize that it IS the first number, but the ranking is based on the SET points....however I'm not bothered by that. But really KNOWING that GPA is being noticed when that is one's personal achievement, especially in advanced sets, is all a collector could want to hear. That, and approval when showing coins to others personally.
Missing dates is just the way it is...I made a post about how the competitiveness that the Registry tends to fuel was not really healthy for collecting...it creates a "I-got-less-than-Joe" syndrome.
To please oneself...that is what should be accepted by participants...not getting swept up in rankings. I am a happy collector.
I'm not at all sold on the "keoj" system. I appears to rate based on marking DOWN from perfection...therefore you only get a GOD grade if you have everything in top-POP. I am doubtful of a system that takes away from the top...
I am doubtful of a system that takes away from the top...
Like grading a coin?
The system is what it is. It differentiates between sets that have tons of top pops with tons of undergrades vs sets with few top pops and few undergrades. It shows positive scores for great coins and negative scores for those that miss the condition census.
The leading sets in the Registry have positive scores. Some, such as Cardinal's great set, have scores over +1 [ie: on average, his coins are a full grade better than the condition census average grade]. Sets with a negative score still have some work to do....
But, most importantly of all, collect what pleases you and you alone! All Registry set rankings are an artificial measure and pale in comparison to the personal satisfaction one receives from one's coins. Only you yourself can decide when your set is where you want it. Rankings mean next to nothing....
Like TDN said, its not a perfect system at all. In a nutshell, it relies too much on the POP's to define what a census average is. Thats the downside. The upside is that it completely gets rid of many of the arbitrary aspects on the weighting schemes and lets the real numbers speak for themselves. As TDN pointed out, should a AU-58 73-CC Trade Dollar be counted as much as the top Pop 75-S Trade Dollar? That makes no sense at all to me and doesn't address the concept of rarity at all. NGC does a better job but still a little arbitrary to me (I have no idea of these numbers are derived).
For the point that you brought up regarding
"appears to rate based on marking DOWN from perfection...therefore you only get a GOD grade if you have everything in top-POP. I am doubtful of a system that takes away from the top... "
It's just a number and has no meaning at all. MS-65 seems to be the number that people look at as being "good". To me, some dates in MS-63 are almost "god-like". In fact, there are some dates that a MS-61 would be an unbelievable number. My own Reference collection (yes, it's on the Registry) is probably 4+ points below the census average. Its been a vely hard collection to complete even at this level. The Registry Rank has no huge meaning to me.
<< <i>There is a conflict that the registry creates. The registry, adding fuel to the OCD we all seem to share, DOES create a competitiveness that may not be aligned with the true nature of coin collecting. The "old" idea of collecting involved years and years of scouring and searching, and certainly patience was one of the key QUALITIES of a great collector. Inasmuch as the greats like Carter, Eliasberg and Norweb had tremendous resources, they still took decades to assemble their sets. Nowadays, the collecting seems to be a high-octane race, and I am as guilty as the next person. And I will admit that as soon as I listed my "starter set" on the Registry I felt COMPELLED to advance as quickly as possible...that rush of adding a new coin, or a higher grade...Who doesn't feel it?? It used to be a silent hobby, often over a lifetime! But in the modern era of "cyber-media-live-now-instycredit" it's like we are a reality show. WOW! Who stepped on the gas??? Every move we make is instantly telegraphed on the PCGS website. We have become the monster!!
If only things could move a little slower, we'd all have tad more liquidity today. >>
With advances in communication and the evolution of sales from brick and mortar shops to online, along with decreased travel/delivery times, decades are no longer required to build collections like the great ones did. If someone has equivalent resources, in todays dollars and utilizing todays technology, they could probably do a collection on the scale of an Eliasberg in just a few years. Patience is no longer required, just the money and the knowledge of where to look, and there's nothing wrong with the competitive nature of the registries, because if you know where to look for the rarities, it's a sure bet someone else does, too, then it's down to whoever gets there first, with the most money, wins the prize.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<With advances in communication and the evolution of sales from brick and mortar shops to online, along with decreased travel/delivery times, decades are no longer required to build collections like the great ones did. If someone has equivalent resources, in todays dollars and utilizing todays technology, they could probably do a collection on the scale of an Eliasberg in just a few years. Patience is no longer required, just the money and the knowledge of where to look, and there's nothing wrong with the competitive nature of the registries, because if you know where to look for the rarities, it's a sure bet someone else does, too, then it's down to whoever gets there first, with the most money, wins the prize. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps, but the burnout rate also seems to be exploding as well.
I am also mindful of the fact that I do NOT want to complete my set(s) too quickly (meaning less than 20 years) because I will just burn out that much faster!!!
Sadly, too many others do not share that philosophy.
Comments
Yeah, and 130 of them were fakes.....
Who would be able to define the difference between such coins or high end graded coins for that matter?
Certainly, if the population report numbers were accurate, a better point system could be in place. Perhaps doing a periodic recount of the low-pop gems would help or a pop concensus of only those coins in the registry sets combined, could rarity be properly awarded.
Depends on the series, the coins missing and the beholder... 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.
Whether MS or PF, I would take the 95% complete set in MS66! The reason is, once I locate that one missing MS66 big one to complete the set, I'll know that I'll have one heck of a set! Picking the lower graded set means I'm looking at a lot of upgrades, more expenses and a lot of headaches playing the catchup game with the MS66 set! lol
if you get stuck the way you've outlined, you're probably involved in the Registry for reasons that may be a bit egotistical-----being #1 with the illusion of having the Finest Set.
How many know that but could never admit it!
The bottom line/reality is, that if someone really cares that much about his set's ranking (as opposed to its "quality" or rarity), in most cases, he can add the (lower grade) pieces required to elevate the set's position, anyway. It's just a matter of whether the registry participant chooses to add such coins (despite their less-than-stellar grades/quality) merely to improve his ranking. In other words, will the collector willingly sacrifice a bit of his (pure) collecting soul in compromising his collecting principles, in order to obtain a higher ranking?
Well put in one sense but perhaps those stellar coins should have a point deducted for being inferior coins.......because their only purpose in the set is to show a higher % of completion! Quality is much more important than a so so filled grid of slabs!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
-KHayse
I've been collecting Lincoln cents for now over twenty years, before anyone thought of Registry sets. I always had a goal of COMPLETION for my collecting. I set my goal based on my own desires and realized from day 1 that I would not be trying to get the finest coins in existence, but only a nice example of each one. I knew I could find a 1957 D in a piggy bank my wife's father had saved for her. In fact it is in my collection today. A very nice MS65RD (IMHO). I also knew that I would have to pay some significant money to get a 1909 SVDB in uncirculated condition, which I ultimately did. I guess this "completion" concept instead of "finest available" concept was why I collected in the first place.
It seems to me that since the Registry concept came about a few years ago, the emphasis is on "finest available" instead of "completion". This is particularly true for those who collect as an investment or "to make money" from coins. The fact is that in today's market, ONE pop one coin in the Lincoln cent series can and often is worth more than a complete collection. I think this discussion on this thread shows the conflicts of thought we each have concerning how we collect. Which is right and which is wrong? Or maybe BOTH can be right. I know for me, based on what's right for me, the emphasis is on completion of my set, which I have accomplished and on selective upgrading as I desire. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Granted, NGC's system initially more accurately portrayed the values of the coins. For now. The market is fast changing and I'll bet that the individual coins are nowhere near current market value after even a couple of years. For instance, the NGC weight on an MS67 09-S Lincoln is 1,969 points. Is that even close to being accurate? And the task at hand is an impossible one - heck, I've been after them to update the scores for This Set for two years now and they still haven't done it. Imagine that, one of the finest sets on the entire NGC Registry is allowed to sit for over two years with grossly inaccurate scoring - just an example of the monumental task of keeping those market based scores accurate.
So, no, I highly doubt PCGS wants to get into a mess like that - even if it more accurately portrays the relative ranks.
Value occurs in all grades. In many series, it's harder to complete a hand selected, high end for the grade, eye appealing set of mid grade unc coins that to buy the holder on the high end - and leave out a few of the toughest coins. Which one deserves more respect from the numismatic community? From the Registry?
I'd take a complete set of beautifully toned and flashy MS64's over a 95% complete set of all white MS66's. The former is composed of individual works of art, the latter just sits there and looks the same....
The only way to have a COMPLETE SET OF SAINTS is to have the 33 .
Stewart
I'm not sure I agree. Was the Share Collection any less of an achievement because it wasn't on a Registry? Is the Pogue Collection diminished because it's not on a Registry? Not really.
However, in my mind, it does diminish a collection somewhat if it's completely hidden away and not shared with the collecting community. But that doesn't mean it has to be listed and compete to be the champion of their field. The Registries are means to an end, not the defining moment.
First of all, who at CU has the time and knowledge to correctly weigh each and every coin in every grade. Secondly, the system has to be constantly updated to account for new coins being discovered and graded as time goes on to keep the weighting accurate. Who will do this? Should we get experts from these boards in each series to come forward to help with all this? Even if we manage this, will DH agree to this? There are enough people who go along with the current flawed system so that DH probably sees no reason to try and fix it.
The only way to define the finest is to have a "Showdown"
Let the people decide and vote if they would like and naturally add their two cents
Does anyone disagree with my suggestiion?
Stewart
I don't believe that every #1 set is the best set...I've seen many examples where lower sets were FAR superior in every sense of the trade, except for % completed. And I have seen #1 sets that are far and away the best.
Stewart, if there are a number of sets that are at parity of completion, then I agree.."Let the games begin"! SHOWDOWN!!
After all,We are all Capitalist Pigs
David,
Speak for yourself !
Auctions prices can be manipulated as you know so well.That would be the worst way to determine the best collection.Maybe you've been living in Las Vegas too long.There are people who enjoy coins for other purposes other than Greed.
Stewart
I believe what Barzini said was "after all, we are not Socialists?"
That's more comfortable.
Ok, lets bring all this to a vote! All those in favor of having David Hall regradeing the top five collections in every series in the registry, say "aye", those oppose say "nay"! lol
Really folks, this thread is going no-where! Are we going to say that a brilliant coin is a higher aspect of a grade than a beautifully toned or a coin that sports an EDS strike in a same date/grade dilemma!
I can see a showdown where there is a side by side comparison of each coin in every series but the question still remains, will a brilliant coin be regarded as the better coin over a beautifully toned coin in the same date/grade of a coin? Of course we all know that toning is a form of corrosion!
But this really doesn't give an answer to the initial question of the thread, a better weight system!
I still believe if the pops were correct you would have a better point awarding system.
If all the certified slabs had a bar code than everyone would need a home bar code scanner to verify the coins in their registry sets and then once or twice a year you would need a PCGS representative to personally verify your collection by mail or at a big coin show. This could be limited to the lowest of pop numbers where the extra points would need to be considered.
OK, you'all can go back to ignoring me again.....I had my say! lol
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
A BETTER SYSTEM...IMPROVE ON THE COMBINED PCGS/NGC SYSTEM...THAT WOULD BE INFINATELY BETTER FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS.
<< <i>leo...you got back to the basics!! no ignore!!
A BETTER SYSTEM...IMPROVE ON THE COMBINED PCGS/NGC SYSTEM...THAT WOULD BE INFINATELY BETTER FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS.
Thanks! Well then, it seems that the simple solution would lie in what needs to be awarded with an extra point or two! Someone mentioned that the low pops are harder to find and cost considerably more then their counterpart lower graded coins, (an obvious point and something most could agree upon) why not add points to these coins?
Aside from that suggestion, I personally don't like how some of the sets GPA is based on added points giving the illusion that the sets actually grades higher than any coin in the set. I'm not going to explain this although each set should have an average grade for a set and then points should be added or subtracted to keep that overall grade in line of the actual average grade of the set........did I just make it sound more complicated then it needs to be........sorry. lol
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
If only things could move a little slower, we'd all have tad more liquidity today.
<< <i>
The only way to define the finest is to have a "Showdown".
Stewart >>
OK, how about this:
Lincoln Cent SHOWDOWN at the 2009 ANA between Stewart and Gerry's Lincoln Cent Collection. All viewers at the show have the opportunity to vote. If any other collector is identified with a comparitive set between now and then, and is recognized as such by the experts, they would also be included in the SHOWDOWN.
Let's make it happen!
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Somehow, I don't feel it! Maybe I forgot to take my medicine this morning! lol I believe the others are in session now and they're about to bring my suggestion to a vote, let's wait and see how that turns out!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I ran a quick study on the set in question. Seven coins are missing out of 53, but it doesn't count negatively for that. It does, however, show that the average grade of the 46 coins in the set is almost a half grade below the condition census. There are 4 coins out of 53 that have a grade above the CCA, 7 at the CCA and 42 below the CCA.
A great start - keep it up!
For example, when I looked at the Saints Registry sets over a month ago, I noticed immediately that while you were ranked 7th, you had the 2nd highest GPA average. The GPA column is actually shown BEFORE the % of completion or the Set Rating!
Now you know first hand, my privately expressed enthusiasm for some of the pictures of your coins that were not necessarily the most expensive of all the various sets and as a result, you and I have shared numerous and pleasant pm's in which it was quite evident that you indeed enjoy obtaining the finest or close to the finest possible coins for the assigned grade within a sane budget, even if it meant turning down a higher grade slab.
Your enthusiasm for collecting as a hobbyist is quite self-evident and even more so when we exchanged pm's.
Isn't that what is the purpose of the registry set system should be? Those who admire sets such as yours quickly learn that the absolute set ranking is not the absolute measure of quality but that the Weighted GPA oftentimes has just as much if not more meaning (unless it is a 1% completed set).
Additional comments in the next post.
Now, in my type set I had to decide whether to include my 1921 Walker (Jack Lee provenance) in PCGS MS-66 or my 1940 walker in P MS-68. I decided to put the 1940 walker NOT because it was a higher grade but I did not have an internet picture of my 1921 walker! I like to have as many pics as possible! I am so bad with pics that sometimes I have the wrong pics with the listed coins just so I don't lose them on the internet.
Furthermore, I have numerous coins in NGC and ICCS slabs that I don't bother crossing to PCGS. That is why my set will never make it to the "top." Frankly, I do not care. I fully expect that people viewing my sets appreciate the coins within the set for what they are, whether a common POS or a fabulous condition rarity.
For example, I have one slabbed coin that I bought cheap and I say so. It is an overgraded piece of crap from that well known dealer from California who tends to do that sort of thing. Others are coins totally mislabled by PCGS (not the grade but the type!) and so forth.
I do not always seek the finest known unless it is a series I get nuts about (like California Fractionals or other gold or dimes) and in other series I won't ever seek anything more than a circulated coin.
Now, when it came to picking the FE cent, I picked nothing other than the 1856 FE cent in AU-50 for the registry set. Not the 57-58 etc. Why? I always wanted that 1856 and it pleased me to have such a coin. Do I get a bonus for such a coin versus the 1857 and 1858? I doubt it.
I try to combine a little bit of pedigreed, absolute rarity, condition rarity, comedy value, lecturing and pointing out overgraded coins, listing and showing coins that I have pictures of when I have more favored coins, etc. Why? It is who I am as a collector and it pleases me to be able to do an on-line bookkeeping system for some of my coins.
I know the registry set lisitng penalizes me for having the 1955 DDO cent in MS-65RD in my set when others have far less expensive coins allowing them to further complete their set versus mine, but that is ok with me. I cannot expect PCGS to have a system to take all of these variables into account then have such variables change weekly when market values of such coins change vis-a-vis each other!
I hope others are having as much fun as I am. Yet, less than 4% of all my coins are slabbed!
Last, Laura of Legend is sincere when she expresses the view that registry set collecting should be fun and not a competitionj. Yet she does have clients that insist on the competitive aspect of such registry system. While she might preach one way, she is making comments that does not reflect her value system but that of her clients. It is not easy!
I can understand what she goes through. Feeling one way about the system yet needing to satisfy the demands of some of her clients!
Heck, I go through that myself from time to time with this registry system. I do not like the competitive aspect of such registry system! For example, I had my heart set on a fabulois $1 round Liberty California Gold Fractional and both myself and another California Gold Fractional Registry collector bent over backwards for each other to make sure that we were not taking the piece from each other's want list.
Just some additional thoughts.
<< <i>JB- You say there is fault in the current ranking of the registry sets at PCGS. I agree with you on this whole heartedly. Before we can fix the problem, there needs to be something cleared up, though. When you say you want to compare and rank the sets to find which one is the best, we need to define exactly what we are referring to by the term "best". Does best mean the most attractive, the highest graded, the most valuable or some other measure. The highest graded PCGS coins are by no means the "best" coins out there unless that is what you are referring to. If that is your contention, then I say your argument is flawed already. How would you compare two coins of exactly the same date and mint mark with the same PCGS grade where one is a just make it coin with average eye appeal and another is a just miss next grade coin with exceptional eye appeal? I have seen numerous instances where the nicer coin has brought many multiples of what the lesser quality coin has. How would you account for this? Are those coins to be given equal weight? I know of no fair way to account for this. Does anyone out there have any suggestions? >>
NGC DOES account for this in their registries. It's called the 'star' designation. Coins with exceptional appeal for the grade are assigned a star after the grade. Maybe PCGS should come up with a similar system and add a bonus point or two for having it so the best lookers will get their due. Maybe then some of those wealthy widows and eccentrics would come out of their dilapidated mansions and show their sets to the world.
In case anyone is interested, here's the all time finest non-full bands Roosie list. I am number 18 soon to be 17 when I add two coins I just BINned. I buy only MS67 coins. Is it wrong that I rank higher than some at greater stages of completion, but with lesser grades? I don't think so. I agree with at least two of the viewpoints being argued. The one concerning high grades being important and the one concerning eye appeal. I think out of the coins I have so far, only two have any noticable toning whatsoever. The rest are blast white. I'm more concerned about completion in a minimum grade at the moment and will buy a few just for the plastic and replace them with nicer coins later on. I don't see anything wrong with that. Eye appeal is a subjective thing, anyway. Some people like myself, prefer clean, untoned coins, some others like mild, delicate toning, still others love thick, crusty toning. What you think comprises a beautiful collection, may not be so beautiful to the person standing next to you.
All time finest silver Roosie dimes.
Just because I've brought this discussion to the table and pointed out what I see as flaws in the system doesn't mean that I'm bothered by it. From the onset I've maintained that I am very pleased with what I have assembled and I am not 'threatened" by any sets above or below me. I am concerned with MY set and bringing it to the highest standard I can. As long as a collector feels that they have maintained a standard that they determine to be "special", that is a great goal. That has been my goal.
It does please me to hear you say that you and others pay attention to GPA. I realize that it IS the first number, but the ranking is based on the SET points....however I'm not bothered by that. But really KNOWING that GPA is being noticed when that is one's personal achievement, especially in advanced sets, is all a collector could want to hear. That, and approval when showing coins to others personally.
Missing dates is just the way it is...I made a post about how the competitiveness that the Registry tends to fuel was not really healthy for collecting...it creates a "I-got-less-than-Joe" syndrome.
To please oneself...that is what should be accepted by participants...not getting swept up in rankings. I am a happy collector.
Thanks for the post.
Like grading a coin?
The system is what it is. It differentiates between sets that have tons of top pops with tons of undergrades vs sets with few top pops and few undergrades. It shows positive scores for great coins and negative scores for those that miss the condition census.
The leading sets in the Registry have positive scores. Some, such as Cardinal's great set, have scores over +1 [ie: on average, his coins are a full grade better than the condition census average grade]. Sets with a negative score still have some work to do....
But, most importantly of all, collect what pleases you and you alone! All Registry set rankings are an artificial measure and pale in comparison to the personal satisfaction one receives from one's coins. Only you yourself can decide when your set is where you want it. Rankings mean next to nothing....
For the point that you brought up regarding
"appears to rate based on marking DOWN from perfection...therefore you only get a GOD grade if you have everything in top-POP. I am doubtful of a system that takes away from the top... "
It's just a number and has no meaning at all. MS-65 seems to be the number that people look at as being "good". To me, some dates in MS-63 are almost "god-like". In fact, there are some dates that a MS-61 would be an unbelievable number. My own Reference collection (yes, it's on the Registry) is probably 4+ points below the census average. Its been a vely hard collection to complete even at this level. The Registry Rank has no huge meaning to me.
keoj
<< <i>There is a conflict that the registry creates. The registry, adding fuel to the OCD we all seem to share, DOES create a competitiveness that may not be aligned with the true nature of coin collecting. The "old" idea of collecting involved years and years of scouring and searching, and certainly patience was one of the key QUALITIES of a great collector. Inasmuch as the greats like Carter, Eliasberg and Norweb had tremendous resources, they still took decades to assemble their sets. Nowadays, the collecting seems to be a high-octane race, and I am as guilty as the next person. And I will admit that as soon as I listed my "starter set" on the Registry I felt COMPELLED to advance as quickly as possible...that rush of adding a new coin, or a higher grade...Who doesn't feel it?? It used to be a silent hobby, often over a lifetime! But in the modern era of "cyber-media-live-now-instycredit" it's like we are a reality show.
If only things could move a little slower, we'd all have tad more liquidity today.
With advances in communication and the evolution of sales from brick and mortar shops to online, along with decreased travel/delivery times, decades are no longer required to build collections like the great ones did. If someone has equivalent resources, in todays dollars and utilizing todays technology, they could probably do a collection on the scale of an Eliasberg in just a few years. Patience is no longer required, just the money and the knowledge of where to look, and there's nothing wrong with the competitive nature of the registries, because if you know where to look for the rarities, it's a sure bet someone else does, too, then it's down to whoever gets there first, with the most money, wins the prize.
Perhaps, but the burnout rate also seems to be exploding as well.
I am also mindful of the fact that I do NOT want to complete my set(s) too quickly (meaning less than 20 years) because I will just burn out that much faster!!!
Sadly, too many others do not share that philosophy.