The Numerical Rank of Your Set Has Little Relevance To its Value and Desirability and is Virtually
dragon
Posts: 4,548 ✭✭
While I will admit the PCGS registry program is an ingenious marketing and promotional tool as well as a great way to get casual collectors motivated to purchase coins and complete a set, the whole premise of ranking registry sets based on their cumulative PCGS grades (with the exception of certain modern sets) is inaccurate, vague, meaningless, and completely arbitrary for the following reasons:
1) As any serious collector knows, the numerical grade on a slab doesn't actually reflect a coins 'true' value or desirability in MANY cases. The variance in quality between two coins of the same grade can be tremendous (generic moderns excluded). Many PCGS coins are worth 90% of bluesheet bid (and rightly so) while others of the same numerical grade are worth multiples of that based on various factors. This is a fact of life in the slabbed market and cannot be reflected within the registry system.
2) similar to #1, The registry program does not give credit for exceptional eye appeal or beautifully toned pieces within a set. This is especially significant for commemms and Morgan dollars. Which would you rather have, an unbelievably vibrant toned MS65 piece that is worth 15X-20X bid, or an MS66 piece that is low end an just got bumped last week? Yet which coin is perceived as 'better' as far as the registry is concerned?
3) Without being able to compare your set side by side with others in your catagory other than by generic numbers on a screen, a participant has no way of knowing if the sets ranked higher or lower then his/hers are actually better or worse in total quality. Many sets are comprised of superb quality, handpicked coins for the grade while others are clearly not.
4) Per the many discussions regarding 'leased coins, old tags, stolen identities' etc, PCGS nor any individual currently has any way of knowing whether certain participants actually owns or has ever even seen the coins that they have registered.
With so many people bickering up and back regarding relatively minor changes within the resistry system and rankings, I feel they are missing the 'big picture' in that the entire registry program (again with the exception of some modern sets) is inherently flawed and completely arbitrary by its very nature as far as the ranking of sets by grade alone, and not taking into consideration all of the varibles which exist from set to set.
Dragon
1) As any serious collector knows, the numerical grade on a slab doesn't actually reflect a coins 'true' value or desirability in MANY cases. The variance in quality between two coins of the same grade can be tremendous (generic moderns excluded). Many PCGS coins are worth 90% of bluesheet bid (and rightly so) while others of the same numerical grade are worth multiples of that based on various factors. This is a fact of life in the slabbed market and cannot be reflected within the registry system.
2) similar to #1, The registry program does not give credit for exceptional eye appeal or beautifully toned pieces within a set. This is especially significant for commemms and Morgan dollars. Which would you rather have, an unbelievably vibrant toned MS65 piece that is worth 15X-20X bid, or an MS66 piece that is low end an just got bumped last week? Yet which coin is perceived as 'better' as far as the registry is concerned?
3) Without being able to compare your set side by side with others in your catagory other than by generic numbers on a screen, a participant has no way of knowing if the sets ranked higher or lower then his/hers are actually better or worse in total quality. Many sets are comprised of superb quality, handpicked coins for the grade while others are clearly not.
4) Per the many discussions regarding 'leased coins, old tags, stolen identities' etc, PCGS nor any individual currently has any way of knowing whether certain participants actually owns or has ever even seen the coins that they have registered.
With so many people bickering up and back regarding relatively minor changes within the resistry system and rankings, I feel they are missing the 'big picture' in that the entire registry program (again with the exception of some modern sets) is inherently flawed and completely arbitrary by its very nature as far as the ranking of sets by grade alone, and not taking into consideration all of the varibles which exist from set to set.
Dragon
0
Comments
-I strongly disagree with your statement, completely arbitrary by its very nature. I would happily and blindly trade a PCGS MS66 for your PCGS MS67- any series.
Since you've summed it up so nicely I'll only add some photos as a punctuation mark... which would you rather own after the PCGS label has faded to grey?
Measly MS64... Franklin 1958-D PCGS MS64 FBL
Or monster MS65... Franklin 1958-D PCGS MS65 FBL
Pathetic PR67... Eisenhower 1972-S PCGS PR67 DCAM
Or perfect PR70... Eisenhower 1972-S PCGS PR70 DCAM
Dog,
There is an 69pl in the "Bermuda Trading" set, two 69's in Andy Hansen's "S" mint mark set and in his Regular set im assuming but its not viewable, one 69 in Mike Casper's "S" MM set that im also assuming thats in his base set. There has to be a few more im forgetting about.
"Because I can"
myurl The Franklin All Old Green Holder Set
All good points, especially #1. Unfortunately, in the opinion of a professional statistician (me), the concept of averaging numerical PCGS grades is a fatal flaw in any ratings system, and can not be corrected by some simple weighting scheme.
What is needed, at least in concept, is a system that reflects, in someway, the value of the coins in a set. I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that if sets were ranked by market value, they would be little disagreement with the rankings. Several posters in this forum have made essentially this point. There are any number of ways to work towards this goal. In fact, it is my understanding that this is the concept that NGC uses. However, since they don't reveal their procedures, no one knows how well they have implemented it.
Still each coin is different. So there are price ranges for given grades. There are super coins of lower grades that are nicer than some graded higher as shown by supercoin's examples. But there may be disagreement even on this. For example some might like super's original MS 66 Frank over the boring white 65 one
So is the whole thing pointless? Well it helped me focus my collecting. I learned about the forum, joined in, and have learned tons about coins. I have learned from dragon and many others who think little of registries. I have learned from Keith, Cosmic and many others who enjoy registries. So for me it has been more than worthwhile.
I do like the idea of NGC's * for PQ coins of a given grade, and giving a bonus for those coins in the registry.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here - I will downgrade ANY of the coins in my registry set in order to include one with exceptional toning. I currently have three nickels that I will probably cross to PCGS to list them in my set. Two of them may cross at the assigned grade (an ANACS 67 and an NGC 66). The other (NGC 67) I'm sure will be downgraded to a 66, but that's ok with me as it has far more eye-appeal than the current example listed in my set.
I like participating in the registry, and I like seeing my set move up through the ranks point-wise, but I get more of a kick by including coins that I ENJOY LOOKING AT again and again. And those who take the time (and spend the $$$) to build a set with exceptional eye-appeal will reap the financial rewards when the time comes to sell.
Ken
Modman: You left two words out of your position that would have made it valid- BLAZING WHITE.
Consider Modman's position now. Now, I would happily trade, ESPECIALLY KNOWING THAT THE GRADING SERVICE GUARANTEES THE GRADE. IT'S A "NO BRAINER".
This is why guys like R. Green elected to do his entire Mint State Wash Quarter set in white. Sure, you could argue with the grade on a "squeeker" MS67, but, at best, there would be a "shining star MS66 eually as nice". The other 99.9% of the time, the MS67 Ruled.
So, now you get into another Registry issue. White vs. toned coins. Rick T. pointed out that he has never seen a brilliant PCGS-MS67FBL Franklin. Now, say one Registry set has a toned 1958(p) MS67FBL and the other set has the blast white MS67FBL. So, one set has a five thousand dollar toned coin and the other set (might) have a $20,000 world class "rarity".
Also, getting back to Dragon's point, in the case of TONED coins, you have monetary differences that are huge. I own a monster toned Wash. quarter or two that I would price nearly 10x the price of the average toned piece in the same grade. Agreed.
So, where does this lead us? Nowhere bad. I am in the process of selling next week a Registry set for a board member that is a collection of exceptionally high end coins, many monster toned. It just happens to be a top ranking set as well and before the potential buyer even studies the coins in person, his first attraction to the set was the fact that it was the top ranking set of its kind at this time. Did the Registry assist in the marketing of this set? Of course it did. Did the Registry set the price of the set-of course not. The seller will do that based upon THE QUALITY OF THE COINS IN THE SET, period, end. Wondercoin.
It sounds like complaint 1 and 2 have more to do with third-party
grading than with the registry itself.
I don't think something that is ninety-something percent accurate
is "virtually pointless".
Value does not always equal desirability (maybe I don't think
the toned wonder you paid 20x for deserves deserves 19x, or any,
more points).
Maybe you can get PCGS to put an asterisk at the top of each
registry page:
*warning: Grades and eye appeal can vary and do not always directly
correspond to price. Do place too much emphasis on the ranking.
Ranking accurate plus or minus 5 (five) places.
-Keith H
Even if such a method was adopted, there would be the arguments about the ability of the judges, the fact they work for PCGS etc.
While it's true that the number can't beat the good ol' eye for judging quality of a high-end coin, I just don't see how you could incorporate that into an online, "self-serve" kind of system (like we have now).
madmike
The Registry does what it is intended to. Since nothing is perfect, they are in the process of trying to refine it. The addition of weighting and more required coins is a refinement. What they do may not be correct the first time, and constructive criticism is the only method that will improve it.
If you want to compare sets based on grade and asthetics, you would need to set up something like this at coin shows. Then you would have a panel of judges who would give each coin a grade for appeal and find the "Best of Show". Something like what they do for car shows. The registry cannot be the best system for this reason, as sets would have to be based on a panel of judges opinions which is not feasable in it's current configuration. Then when a set was being sold, you could advertise all of it's finishes at coin shows throughout the nation.
So Dragon, I think I agree with you, and still like the idea of a registry, but only for it's intended use.
It seems to me that the value of a ms66 versus the value of a ms67 is not a matter of whether an INDIVIDUAL collector prefers one to the other, or what he/she would pay for the two coins – it is a matter of how collectors as a whole (known as the MARKET) value them as determined by the economic laws of supply and demand.
I doubt that any feasible rating system could take into account what may be (usually are) the significant differences between (same issue) coins given the same grade, eg ms67, by PCGS. Any system has to be based on an average value for those coins with the same grade.
If we assume that a rating system should reflects values, as defined above, then: Any system that involves averaging PCGS grades across issues is bound to be faulty because values are not proportional to PCGS grades, certainly not among different issues within a set. No weighting system will correct this flaw.
Unfortunately, for us PCGS fans, NGC is off on a much better track in their rankings system. Too bad they won’t reveal more details of what they are doing.
Gerry: It really isn't "too bad" in my opinion. NGC spent a great deal of money developing a state of the art Registry. The information you ask to see, as you know, is proprietary in nature. It would be nice to get a printout of the secret ingredients in the KFC chicken coatings, or the forumla to make Coke at home. But, that isn't going to happen either. Bottom line is if a system works, that's all that matters-right? Have you even registered your set at NGC? If not, you might be very impressed that their "secret system" reads your set virtually perfectly once you do test it out?
Bottom line: The proprietary protections NGC gives to its Registry tables does not bother me in the least. In fact, it makes perfect sense. Once a bunch of sets get registered in a particular series, collectors can see "true relative value weighting" at work. Wondercoin.
The NGC "star" designation is for exceptional eye appeal.
I agree.
I have a 1971P MS64 Ike (have passed up on 6 or 7 1971P MS65 Ikes) and a 1971S MS66 Ike (have passed up on 4 or 5 1971S MS67 Ikes) which I guess reenforces your point.
Supercoin,
Excellent example, as always (thanks for using that ugly, bald, nasty, coin series that few care about to make that example).
I love Ike dollars and all other dollar series !!!
I also love Major Circulation Strike Type Sets, clad Washingtons ('65 to '98) and key date coins !!!!!
If ignorance is bliss, shouldn't we have more happy people ??
More subjectivity ...
I love Ike dollars and all other dollar series !!!
I also love Major Circulation Strike Type Sets, clad Washingtons ('65 to '98) and key date coins !!!!!
If ignorance is bliss, shouldn't we have more happy people ??
If two coins with the same ranking are that far apart, it seems to me worse to introduce weightings. Say some 67FBL toned Franklin is a pop 1 heavily weighted coin -- one dog can now rule a pack of nicer coins. With the old simple (and more relaxed, I might add, judging by the board traffic at the time) system, the guy who buys that coin doesn't get a big advantage, it's just another coin.
But when that dog is weighted, it's possible (even likely) that it will garner a price even further beyond what it deserves for the label. This registry-driven pricing is bad for the hobby. Registry-mania already happened with that 53-S Franklin which sold for $65K and shortly thereafter for $33K (approx figures, and I'm assuming, safely I think, that was a registry collector), wouldn't that debacle have been even worse if that coin got the weighted rating it "deserved"?
I'm not saying we should try to save people from themselves -- if they want to throw away $30K that's their business -- but setting up a system that overly encourages that doesn't seem like a good idea either. And, I don't think, is in PCGS' long-term interest (or selfishly, in my own interest as a PCGS hostage). I don't see how people getting badly burned on PCGS coins is good for PCGS.
Three-line summary of all my yapping above...
1. Any ranking system based on slab grades is inherently and fatally flawed in determing which set is "best".
2. Adding weighting to such a ranking system magnifies (weights) that fatal flaw.
3. It's just a game!! Keep the rules simple to encourage a lighter spirit and more participation.
1. Any ranking system based on slab grades is inherently and fatally flawed in determining which set is most valuable – if someone has a different definition of “best” he is repealing the market place laws of supply and demand which all of us have to live with.
2. Adding weighting to such a ranking system may not magnify that fatal flaw, but it certainly won’t correct it.
3. Yes, it is only a game and unless you have a proven better system (like NGC may very well have) as evidenced by some sort of consensus of experts, don’t mess with it; this in fact is a principle of medicine and science.
ModMan, please drop in and solve it for us in the quick way that only you can (as long as you do not critique the clad coins again) ...
I love Ike dollars and all other dollar series !!!
I also love Major Circulation Strike Type Sets, clad Washingtons ('65 to '98) and key date coins !!!!!
If ignorance is bliss, shouldn't we have more happy people ??
My points #1 & 2 were not complaints about 3rd party grading but simply facts of life regarding certified coins. Also, I strongly disagree with some of the points you made such as:
1) what is 90% accurate? I don't think that anyone would consider 3rd party grading as a whole to be 90% accurate as reflected by the fact that so many coins have been/are/will be cracked out of holders and regraded a different grade.
2) If 3rd party grading itself is not accurate or more importantly consistent, how then can a system of registering 'entire sets' of coins be accurate?
3) How can you say that value doesn't equal desirability, what someone is willing to pay for something in an open market ALWAYS equates to its desirability. If the market values a killer toned coin at 19 times the price of an average white coin, why shouldn't a coin like this be given extra credit, after all, the open market price is the ultimate criteria for a coins value and hence desirability, NOT an arbitrary, nameless, faceless, generic number on the holder, registry system, right??
Dragon
However, I dont think it pointless to rank sets. To me it as more of a guideline and the inclusion of pictures can really demonstrate the quality of a set without having to travel 100s or 1,000s of miles.
The problem comes in when one individual is proclaimed number XX, whatever that number may be. It is more like a grouping to me.
Those in it for the challenge of being number one will never resolve the toned versus white arguments. And for the uninitiated, it is kind of like watching the Westminister Dog Show. The really great dogs from different breeds all look great and how do you pick one as best in show?
One thing is fairly certain and that is PCGS has a good concept here and even with all the bickering (myself included), it is a great idea and I am very happy they have A) started Registry Sets and
Best Regards,
Mike De Falco
Visit Our Website @ www.numisvision.com
Specializing in DMPL Dollars, MONSTER toners and other Premium Quality U.S. Coins
*** Visit Mike De Falco's NEW Coin Talk Blog! ***
That was my whole point in starting this thread, while people are bickering about added varieties and CAM vs. DCAM weightings, how about the fact that 2 coins with the same numerical grade on the holder can be LIGHT YEARS apart as far as quality and market value, yet they are seen by the registry as 'identical'??
Dragon
Why not just rank the coins according to price paid. Submit your receipts with slab info and VOILA-- you can buy your way to the number one spot fair and square!
Obscurum per obscurius
"I'm only asking $3000 for this coin, but if you were to pay $5000 instead you could move up a couple notches in the registry..."
I agree that Registry score cannot indicate the importance or worth of a collection, and I don't like the Registry's use of the term "finest" when listing the top scoring sets. However, I believe the Registry is valuable as a tool to organize the PCGS-graded portion of a collection and to see what other collectors are doing. It's interesting and fun.
The beauty of this hobby is that no one entity can determine value and each collector can set their own goals. There is no reason to get hot about the way a Registry is scored or to feel too proud about a Registry score for its own sake. No method can identify long-term value and importance. Only time will tell which of us will leave a mark on numismatics, and I believe that PCGS Registry score will have little to do with final assessment of a collection's importance.
No, no, no-- you have it all wrong.
The fact is that PCGS is the one entity that is determining values and shifting collectors' goals. The Set Registry ranking IS the one method that ultimately decides long-term value and importance by changing the way collectors think about the entire concept of coin collecting. Once collectors only focus on the Set Registry rankings of coins slabbed by PCGS, raw coins, coins in other slabs, etc. will be rendered completely irrelevant. They won't count, no matter how nice they look or how valuable they used to be. Ranking will be the sole factor in determining a coin's value. PCGS won't need to resort to Orwellian coersion, collectors will gladly participate in the manner of Huxley's Brave New World. Take your soma holiday, collectors, and bump your set up in the Set Registry by adding some high grade slabs. It will make you feel better.
Obscurum per obscurius
Ah, the future!
Obscurum per obscurius
I would like to add, as a qualifier, that it is my impression that most of the collectors towards the top end of the Registry rankings spectrum do, indeed, know a good deal about the series which they are collecting. I believe these people, for the most part, are not typically individuals who either desire or are content with a drab or just made it coin for the grade in their set. While not every piece in their collections may be a "wonder-coin" or even higher end for grade it is my impression that these are passionate collectors who know a good coin when they see one and are determined in their quest for overall excellence and eye appeal. In short, they take pride in their acquisitions. Hence, perhaps the "problems" of the objective numbers and comparing rankings or scores is a little overestimated. I venture that most, by their very participation in the Registry, are driven, well motivated and perfection seeking people who know what they collect and what they are doing. I think the nature of the people involved in this endeavor will likely be a great equalizer (although not at all perfectly so because of the technical issues such as weighting that may be debatable in many cases as has been discussed here). This common thread will make comparative ranking of sets much more meaningful.
I, for one, feel that the Registry has helped reinvigorate "the quest" for many collectors as well as increased the true market value of fine collections purchased years ago by knowledgable people. It is also helping to support the value of higher end pieces at the rarified level of the spectrum purchased "slabbed" in the recent era and providing their purchasers with a floor which might be somewhat tenuous in the absence of a Registry system.
Good luck to all!
wonderboy - zip your pants up !!
1) I think it's possible for two WHITE coins of adjacent grades to bring approximately the same in the marketplace, depending upon aesthetics (other than toning, since they are white).
2) It is possible to have a higher ranked set that would bring less money in the market due to limitations of the current weighting system.
3) I have passed up coins in higher holders that were dogs even tho they would have helped my set rating. Fortunately, later I found even higher coins that were PQ.