I think there should be a minimum active time requirement to remain at the top of the all time fines

Russ · December 20, 2006 5:17AM

I think it's a load of crap that somebody can just buy a complete set, register it, turnaround and sell the coins a week or two later, retire the set, and remain at the top forever. There should be a minimum hold time.

Russ, NCNE

saintguru · December 20, 2006 5:29AM

There goes my "soon to be bought" PROOF WALKER idea.

TorinoCobra71 · December 20, 2006 5:29AM

TorinoCobra71

scher · December 20, 2006 7:16AM

I would be ok with that..but lets discuss an alternate view...Lets say we were a little on the shyer side(probably not like us russ) and maybe worked a long time acquiring top coins,making top coins,really searchin it out at the auctions and shows etc..but never registered the set..now its time to sell for whatever reason..Might be nice to get it down somewhere official...just another view..
Bruce Scher

Steve · December 20, 2006 7:22AM

Russ,
Can you name names? And sets of #1 all time who have done that?
Steve

Parkekal · December 20, 2006 7:29AM

I agree about the "just for a couple days" being an issue. Bruce has a good point also. Many collectors will not list their coins until they are ready to sell. My view is that the collection should exist for some period certain to remain on the all time list. If someone wants to list it so that the public can see it and decide about the value or purchasing... this still meets that criteria. The set just goes away after it changes hands unless the new owner list it immediately and maintains it on the registry for that "period certain". But what do I know....

fcloud · December 20, 2006 7:32AM

Maybe they should rename the category to retired sets and not all time.

Russ · December 20, 2006 8:27AM

<< I would be ok with that..but lets discuss an alternate view...Lets say we were a little on the shyer side(probably not like us russ) and maybe worked a long time acquiring top coins,making top coins,really searchin it out at the auctions and shows etc..but never registered the set..now its time to sell for whatever reason..Might be nice to get it down somewhere official...just another view. >>

That's a good point. I'm not sure what the workaround would be, but there must be some way to address it. Many of the "flips", though, are pretty obvious to those who pay attention to the Registry and the sales of coins among set owners in their specialty areas.

I just think it's exceedingly unfair to those set builders who have been slowly and carefully building a top set over a period of time to be eclipsed by somebody with a fat wallet buying an entire set just so they can rank it and sell it.

Russ, NCNE

seateddime · December 20, 2006 8:36AM

All times is worthless, many coins in a number one set are the same, besides a real all time great set should be a long project to finish

LindeDad · December 20, 2006 9:01AM

I think a year flag would be a key to the process.

DAM · December 20, 2006 9:02AM

I just think it's exceedingly unfair to those set builders who have been slowly and carefully building a top set over a period of time to be eclipsed by somebody with a fat wallet buying an entire set just so they can rank it and sell it.

Why does it matter "who" registers the set and for "how long". Shouldn't it be about the coins, and not the owner? And why is it unfair to anyone how long a set is registered? If you have the money, buy the coin(s). If dont it's not the fault of someone who does. Besides, the slow methodical collector may one day achieve the finest set; it may just take a little longer.

If you let it, the Registry can become more about one's finances than the hobby itself. Because money buys the best sets/coins... period. No matter what set you collect.

Just my 2 Cents.

Cameonut · December 20, 2006 10:07AM

Lots of good points on this thread.

In my mind, there should be less of an emphasis on the "all time finest" and more on the "Current Finest". To me, a simple way to do that would be for PCGS to list the Current Finest sets first. Then put the all time finest sets below for those who want to see what happened historically.

If someone wants to flex their wallet and assemble an all time finest set, so be it. But if they sell, drop it in a listing at the bottom of the page.

saintguru · December 20, 2006 10:10AM

I know of one dealer (not a major) who did that with a set...and retired it very shortly afterwards and sold all the coins. It was like he entered coins that he had brokered to non-participants, IMO. I know he was acting as an agent for many of them. The set is now in the All Time list and irks me everytime I see it.

Connecticoin · December 20, 2006 11:09AM

<< I think it's a load of crap that somebody can just buy a complete set, register it, turnaround and sell the coins a week or two later, retire the set, and remain at the top forever. There should be a minimum hold time.

Russ, NCNE >>

When the sets are complete, or say, in the top ten, they should be required to open them as well. Who the hell cares if the "California" Morgan set is #1 if all we know about the set is the set rating of "67.22" or whatever the heck it is.

Cameonut · December 20, 2006 11:20AM

<< When the sets are complete, or say, in the top ten, they should be required to open them as well. Who the hell cares if the "California" Morgan set is #1 if all we know about the set is the set rating of "67.22" or whatever the heck it is. >>

I agree - in fact I think all sets should be open - no option.

shuckins · December 20, 2006 11:36AM

keets · December 20, 2006 11:57AM

to me, this is just another view point which tends to highlight the negative aspects of the Registry Set concept, competition to be number 1 and the ego boost it brings. i don't think that's what was in mind when the idea was conceived, but as all worthwhile human endeavors it aways comes into play. i, for one, refuse to let all the BS going on to spoil my enjoyement.

BSHINC · December 20, 2006 12:51PM

Lots of good ideas here. I for one do not have the capital to buy complete sets at one shot.
Putting the Finest Set on the bottom is a great idea. That way people who OWN there sets
can display them at the top.

Great Topic RUSS.

BILL

DMWJR · December 20, 2006 2:18PM

What is different about this than other mega sets that were sold intact long before the registry? Is there a difference?

clackamas · December 20, 2006 4:08PM

Gerry's Lincoln set, if he ever registers it, would be an all time set and AFAIK he won't register it. If he wanted to sell I think it would be fine in my book for a few weeks.

Parkekal · December 20, 2006 8:05PM

I would agree with the suggestions to put the "ALL TIME" list in the secondary position and the "CURRENT" list in the primary position. For me, coins were absolutely 100% of the fun until I found the registry. Now, coins are still a huge part of it; but I have made such good friend while working on my sets. So coins are still the emphasis, but the registry has allowed me to meet people that I would not have encountered in any other way. I appreciate it just as much when I see someone I know complete a set or find a coin they had been looking for. If they are 25 levels ahead or behind me, or collecting something I don't happen to collect really does not matter.... seeing them succeed, sharing in that... and they with me... that has added a dimension to collecting that I had not known before. So thank you to the registry for that.

sonoranmonsoon · December 20, 2006 8:16PM

Russ, you bring up a very good point. It is not to difficult or far fetched to see the following scenario. Dealer A retires a set and sells it to Dealer B. Dealer B retires the set and sells it to dealer C. ETC, ETC. In no time at all, the top five spots in the all time list could be the same set. That would take a lot of the fun out of the competition side of registries. Of course this would only affect the all time list. The current list would only have the set listed once. A time limit, could help solve this problem. As most dealers would think twice about tying up their inventory during the waiting period.

On the subject of sets being forced to be open for viewing. I know a lot of people believe this, but I do not agree. I think it should remain the owners option as to whether they want to open it up for viewing or not. People have registries for many reasons. Not all of us want them seen. As far as I am concerned, it is their registry set, therefore their choice. An interesting compromise might be to leave viewing optional while the set is active, but require it to be open for viewing after it is retired.

USCGCraig · December 20, 2006 9:08PM

I agree with sonoramonsoon. Retired sets must be opened for all of us to see and enjoy. That would hopefully put a crimp on the Daler A selling to Dealer B then to Dealer C etc.

BJ, can you folks move the active sets to the top and the retired sets to the bottom?

I'm sure we could have a 90-180 day waiting period for a set to be considered an "All-TIme Finest". Dealers would think twice about holding up their inventory and it's a short enough time for a collector to put their set on the active site and sell it/auction it.

CarsonCityGold · December 20, 2006 11:03PM

<< What is different about this than other mega sets that were sold intact long before the registry? Is there a difference? >>

It's a different subject than Russ's title, but still something that needs to be addressed. It doesn't matter if they were sold intact or not. WHY are sets (Bass, Eliasberg, etc.) listed that were not in existence at the time the registry started?? Obviously most were not slabbed and grades posted are opinions based on previous descriptions. These sets should absolutely NOT be listed in the Registry !!! If PCGS wants to set up a different area for all time great sets prior to the registry, then that would be acceptable. These were great sets and deserve the praise of a job well done, but not in the registry ranks.

Russ · December 21, 2006 2:00AM

<< Gerry's Lincoln set, if he ever registers it, would be an all time set and AFAIK he won't register it. If he wanted to sell I think it would be fine in my book for a few weeks. >>

If he wanted to register it for one day and sell it I would have no problem at all with him remaining at the top. He didn't buy the set lock stock and barrel to flip it.

Russ, NCNE

Drizzt · December 21, 2006 2:46AM

...and what about using the same coin in several different registry sets? Is that 'right'?

WaterSport · December 21, 2006 2:49AM

As in life, not all things are created equal. Those with the most money will have the best sets. Unfortunately, the one point difference between #20 and #21 in the Lincoln series is about $10,000 - $15,000. I am sure this is true in other series.

I think most of us here can appreciate the coins and the sets but once they are sold who cares, obviously not the previous owner. I especially do not care for “investors” who buy and then sell. But there are NO rules when it comes to collecting coins.

Most here just want a crack at the recognition of their sets and the current system prevents this in so many ways. I was miffed when PCGS changed requirement that you had to have 100% instead 90% completion in order to qualify for pedigree nomination if you are in the top 5.

I think PCGS would do us all justice if they would come up with other recognition like:

Keep the active sets just that, ACTIVE. Move the retired sets to some other location.
Remove sets with one year of NO activity.
Recognize with postings or comments or highlights sets that have grown the most, in a year by number of coins or grade or maybe even a rare pop condition/grade coin.
Asking to display other sets from folks who live near the shows they plan to attend. Not just the mumero uno sets.
They do not even have to do this with staff time. This could be an earned requirement of the big dealers who want advertising or dump huge amounts to be slabbed. Heck, even we collectors could be solicited to make recommendations as we watch each others like hawks.

But just like our other recommendations it will ALL fall on deaf ears.

WS

DMWJR · December 21, 2006 3:22AM

<< 

<< What is different about this than other mega sets that were sold intact long before the registry? Is there a difference? >>

It's a different subject than Russ's title, but still something that needs to be addressed. It doesn't matter if they were sold intact or not. WHY are sets (Bass, Eliasberg, etc.) listed that were not in existence at the time the registry started?? Obviously most were not slabbed and grades posted are opinions based on previous descriptions. These sets should absolutely NOT be listed in the Registry !!! If PCGS wants to set up a different area for all time great sets prior to the registry, then that would be acceptable. These were great sets and deserve the praise of a job well done, but not in the registry ranks. >>

Oh my ..... don't let TDN see this .....

I think the board term for what you are describing was "ghost sets."

tradedollarnut · December 21, 2006 3:39AM

I'm ok with 'estimated grades' from the great sets of the past .... it's those 'phantom coins' that get me all worked up. Eliasberg could have bought a circulation strike coin if he wanted to but proofs were considered 'better' then so he didn't. So we'll give him a complete set of circ strikes on the Registry in easily achieved grades.

I suppose that works in sets like Barbers, where the Philly coins aren't such a high percentage of the set - but if they ever do it in Seated Dollars I'll be screaming like a banshee!

Nysoto · December 21, 2006 3:50AM

There is a US coin set that needed a five figure raritiy to get over 90% and be put on the all time finest list. The set owner obtained the rarity, and the set was retired in a week or so. Why was it retired so soon? Was the cert number plucked from an old auction record?

I have 80% in the flowing hair and draped bust half dollar basic set, the next two coins are $75,000 each for a VF 1796 and 1797. The coins are actually readily available, just expensive. Under the current rules, I could negotiate a sale with a pre-arranged contractual buy-back after a few days (essentially a rental), list the coins, see my set as the all time finest, and retire my set.

Of course I will not, as I plan to keep my set for a lifetime and do not need the ego boost. It is only a small part of my early half variety collection.

Russ has a good idea. The turnover of registry sets is very high, as set owners go into debt to finance their short-term top ranked sets to stroke their ego's.

BaronVonBaugh · December 21, 2006 10:14AM

I think a period of one year would be reasonable. I agree that a minimum time limit should be established. Currently on any of the smaller sets a person could just hunt down numbers on ebay and other sites, post them and have a complete set. There was a recently a MS sac set that was only listed for one day. I don't know if it was made up from coins he owns or coins he got the numbers for from various sites. No it was not number 1, but any short term set should be rejected.

leothelyon · December 21, 2006 10:59AM

I don't believe it matters since they're throwing these sets together to only profit. Sure it would be great to be noted by some auction house that the set rated such and such but if the coins are already pop tops..........won't they sell anyway? Are we hoping to prevent investors/imposters to profit or from having an ego trip?

Leo

PQpeace · December 22, 2006 5:22AM

I agree with Russ..

I recently flipped a short set,and will try to have mine removed from the all time finest..
Good point,
Larry

TAClough · December 22, 2006 1:09PM

<< I agree with Russ..

I recently flipped a short set,and will try to have mine removed from the all time finest..
Good point,
Larry >>

If the coins were together in a set (group) what does it matter if it was for six years or one day?

The set that PQpease is talking about, I think, is the short set of silver MS Kennedy's. That set will probably never be put back together as I know it is now broken up and is part of three different sets and all three collections are avid Kennedy Collector's. My son has the currently highest set of silver MS Kennedy’s and he has no interest in parting with them. On the same note, he doesn’t have a problem with being listed as the third finest set either. I hope Larry keeps his set listed in the finest group because in my son’s set we list where we were able to locate the coins (we think it adds to the pedigree of where the coins came from).

JMHO,
Tim

RR · December 22, 2006 1:30PM

Under the scenario Russ stated, I agree. It's BS if someone does as Russ describes. That goes against the prupose and integrity of the Registry program in my view.

RR

DIMEMAN · December 22, 2006 3:59PM

I agree with most everything mentioned here except the removal of a set from current list after one year of no activity. When or IF I ever complete my complete dime set I would still want to upgrade when possible and I never really would consider it done. It WILL be a current project to me for the rest of my life. If for some reason I would lose interest or quit looking for upgrades I would then retire the set, but it should not be retired without my permission because of no activity for a certain time period.

Also, I agree with the others who think all sets should be open to see by the rest of us!

JMHO Jon

Stooge · December 22, 2006 4:02PM

<< I agree with most everything mentioned here except the removal of a set from current list after one year of no activity. When or IF I ever complete my complete dime set I would still want to upgrade when possible and I never really would consider it done. It WILL be a current project to me for the rest of my life. If for some reason I would lose interest or quit looking for upgrades I would then retire the set, but it should not be retired without my permission because of no activity for a certain time period.

Also, I agree with the others who think all sets should be open to see by the rest of us!

JMHO Jon >>

What if Jon gets to a point where he only needs the extremely tough early dimes and doesn't add in 1 year. Sometimes it takes years to find the right coin.

Later, Paul.

cho10 · December 22, 2006 7:46PM

<< 

<< I think it's a load of crap that somebody can just buy a complete set, register it, turnaround and sell the coins a week or two later, retire the set, and remain at the top forever. There should be a minimum hold time. Russ, NCNE >>

When the sets are complete, or say, in the top ten, they should be required to open them as well. Who the hell cares if the "California" Morgan set is #1 if all we know about the set is the set rating of "67.22" or whatever the heck it is. >>

As the Registry is a place where some collectors inform other interested people about the state of their collection (or collections) keeping the collection "secret" should not be a problem while the set is being built. I think it is safe to say that a Morgan Dollar Registry set that includes 2 or 3 common date MS62's or MS63's will not be visited very frequently.
I agree with the other posters about:
a) a minimum time span of ownership to qualify for the All Time Greatest list
b) any sets in the top 10 should be obliged to not keep their sets publicly viewable.
My Morgan with Variety set is among the top 10 (for the time being) and is fully visible with images so I am not preaching about the behavior of others.
If somebody has security concerns about revealing the composition of their sets they should not be participating in the Registry program in the first place.
When you do something that involves the Internet staying anonymous is dicey at best.

atom48coin · December 23, 2006 12:07PM

I agree with you! I've spent some time trying to build my sets only to get bumped down by someone who rushes in and then rushes out. As much as I like the new V2 registry information, it's also somewhat defeating to see a history of those little down arrows, indicating you've been bumped. I don't recall the old version having anything so blatant. Ah.... ignorance was bliss......

MoneyLA · December 24, 2006 7:45PM

when I sold my proof silver washington set it was #1... and while it remains on the all time finest list, it has since dropped far down the list.

there is a notation that my set was sold.

personally, I wouldnt mind seeing a date when the set is first registered, and a second date when the set is sold.

however, reconstructing that time line might be impossible now.

adding a start date to new set listings on the registry is something that can be done easily. perhaps someone has a history of when sets were first listed.

I still have the "2001 PCGS Set Registry" softcover publication showing my set's ranking... interesting to see how the sets stacked up back then when the Registry was in its infancy.

Casabrown · December 25, 2006 1:13AM

I agree with Parke's comments.

Casabrown

LindeDad · January 1, 2007 5:39AM

Has anybody brought this subject up on the Q&A with CoinKing or Homerunhall?

Stooge · January 1, 2007 6:47AM

<< Has anybody brought this subject up on the Q&A with CoinKing or Homerunhall? >>

You're serious right? Have you looked at the Q & A board? In the last 30 days CoinKing has answered a total of just 3 questions. I myself still have 3 questions into CoinKing that he hasn't answered and they were simple questions.

Later, Paul.

LindeDad · January 1, 2007 10:38AM

Was hoping we could find an easy question to wake them back up.

Stooge · January 1, 2007 11:04AM

<< Was hoping we could find an easy question to wake them back up. >>

Understood...

Here is a question I posed to CoinKing:

What do you think of the Roosevelt Dime? Have you ever collected it yourself? What do you think of FB's vs. Non-FB's? Where do you see its future.

I also asked this one: Why after 14 Multi-million $$$ auctions is John Ford Jr. not in your H.O.F.?

Can't remember the 3rd right off hand.

Later, Paul.

I think there should be a minimum active time requirement to remain at the top of the all time fines

Comments

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection