A Serious question about Registry Weights.

ModMan

I understand the need to weigh the value of each coin in a series. I not only understand that need, but mostly agree with it. Obviously a 1932-S in MS63 even MUST be weighed higher than a 1956 in MS67 (now, MS68? That's a different story. . .).

What about the Modern Type set? Will a coin that costs MORE but is just as common (or scarce) as a lesser valued coin weigh out with more points? For example: The set requires a gold bullion coin. The collector may choose a 1/10 ounce all the way up to the one ounce. Right? Well, obviously the 1/10 ounce coin is much less expensive than the one ounce coin, yet they are both equally as easy to obtain.

Should the one ounce Eagle be weighted more than the 1/10 ounce Eagle?

Should the collector who chooses to add the 1997SMS Jefferson not receive the same weight as the 1998-S SMS Kennedy (logic being the Kennedy costs more although is just as easy to find and purchase).
All the above assumes they are the same grade (MS69, in these examples).

Does PCGS take all this in consideration?

cosmicdebris

I too would like to know the answer to these question. I have a 1997 SMS MS69FS nickel I am considering selling. The only thing holding me back is the weighting. Right now in the Modern Type 1900 to present I have a PR69DCAM nickel in it. If the 1997 MS69FS nickel has more weight I will be adding that coin and removing the proof.

RegistryCoin

I'll have to wait a bit longer before making any decisions about the weighting.
So far, in the clad qtrs, the weighting vaulted me into my rightful position atop o' da heap,
but in the silver qtrs, I dropped a couple of places due to the addition of the overdates and double dies, and got leapfrogged by none other than our own very David Hall. Congrats, Dave.

Steve

I will admit I am a newbee to the Registry, but this subject gets me wondering WHY you place such value in this whole weighing process. I completely agree there should be weighing. BUT, until the Registry is really established and RECOGNIZED throughout the hobby, I believe anyone who pays out big bucks just to be #1 in one of the sets is just throwing their money away. In two or three years, this whole Registry thing will most likely be VERY different from what it is now. The PCGS registry is without a doubt, in my mind, a nice marketing tool that allows folks like me to present my meager slabbed coins to appear on the internet for my personal enjoyment. I could NEVER own a REAL top set but for the immediate future, I sure can see my name listed in the top 50 in four collections. It's fun, but don't get carried away. The only way most of you can profit from this spending spree on high grade modern slabs is to sell off your sets as quick as you can. Maybe that is what you are attempting to do anyway. Just my opinion guys. Steve

keithdagen

ModMan,

Does the title of this thread imply that many of your questions you post are "less-than-serious?"

My gut feeling is that Type sets will be weighted based on the rarity of the slot rather than the coin in the slot. This is the easiest way to do things. So for your bullion example, the collector has about 60 or so coins they can use for the slot. It would be their choice to use a rarer coin, generally the half and quarter ounce coins with lower mintages, than an easy to obtain 1/10th ounce.

Keith

RegistryCoin

I gotta admit that there is an extra ego boost, when a set you've long said 'bye-bye' to, makes a surge towards the top of the registry. Like Steve says, what's the point?. But when you don't even own the set anymore, it can be pretty cool.
Mayabe I'm starting to appreciate and like this weighting stuff.

keithdagen

RC,

Did you own any of the new required coins on the silver side that are now "missing" from your set? I got the impression that some of retired sets had them but didn't go to the hassle of listing them.

Keith

RegistryCoin

I probably had the finest known of all four at one point, but only two were left in the "optional" section of the registry when the set was retired. I feel pretty lucky that those two were still mentioned there, otherwise I'd have fallen further. Mitch?

cosmicdebris

Steve maybe you can have petition PCGS to let you put them in the retired alltime finest set. SInce you did own them but were not needed until now I would say they would have been in there. PCGS does list other sets with guestimated grades from older collections.




edited for spelling errors

RegistryCoin

When it came to the "optional" coins, I have to admit, I had only a passing interest until it was too late. We must wait for the photographic memory to awake and confirm this for us.

wondercoin

Registrycoin: You owned outright at the time you had your set registered:

1. 1934 Light Motto PCGS-MS67 (2/3 total pop actually)
2. 1950s/d: PCGS-MS66
3. 1950d/s: PCGS-MS66

You also have the 34DD in PCGS-MS66 "in your hands", but decided to let it be sold along with one of your DOUBLE 34 Light Motto PCGS-MS67 coins, because the 34DD was "not needed for the Registry". In other words, you had never written the actual check for the 34DD, which is why I have separated it out. You can discuss the details of that coin with PCGS if you decide to pursue this.

I understand that another major quarter set owner (from the All-Time List) is already in talks with PCGS to correct this problem as well.

Hope that helps. Wondercoin.

RegistryCoin

Well there you have it. Thanks, Mitch.
34 min. to respond, Mitch. What were you up to? Don't you know that personal healthcare and sustenance, is at best, secondary to our needs, here?

keithdagen

My personal opinion is that, for a closed set, once a set is 100% complete under the rules it competed at and is retired, it should stay at 100%, even if new coins are added to the set. Of course, that doesn't apply to currently circulating series, but for all others, it should.

RC,

I hope that you will petition PCGS to add the overdate that isn't listed in your set yet you owned. That would stick you back around #3 or #4 on the list, unless my math is fuzzy. With the new weighting scheme, hard to say for sure.

Keith

RegistryCoin

Yea, but that would put me back ahead of David Hall. I'm not sure I'd like to do that.... hmmm
Hey, spooly? Would you please check into this for me? If this is possible, just ask wondercoin for the cert. numbers. He probably has those memorized as well. Thank you.

fantasiize

ModMan,

I will not answer you for 2 reasons:
1. You were critical of the Ike series 3 times in the last 24 hours (both directly and indirectly)
2. I do not know the answer