Registry set Divisor ## ? HELP

scher

What is it all about.?.I understand what it means that a coin has a value set between 1 and 9 but what how does the divisor number come into play..am i correct that a coin with a value of 5 say its 67 grade coin has the weight of 5 coins at the grade of 67 and a coin with a value of say 2 has the weight of 2 coins at the grade and so on..how does it all add up and what does the "divisor number" have to do with it all..
thanks
Bruce Scher

TahoeDale

Bruce,

I don't know either, but BJ Searls will. Write her at BSearls@collectors.com

good luck.

scher

Thanks Dale...ps some of barber quarters were sure handsome i saw recently from your old set..real WOW stuff.
Bruce

tradedollarnut

The divisor number is something that I asked BJ to include in every set - it quickly shows you the sum of the individual weights so you can calculate a weighted grade average.

For instance, if you have a set that is comprised of a 3 weight, a 4 weight and a 5 weight, then the divisor number should be 12.

DIMEMAN

Bruce,

In your example a coin with a weight of 5 in 67 would be worth 335 points.

Jon

tradedollarnut

<< <i>Bruce,

In your example a coin with a weight of 5 in 67 would be worth 335 points.

Jon >>



Yes, add up all the (weights times the grades) and divide by the divisor number to get the weighted grade average. Some sets are quite large and it's handy to have that number shown rather than to manually calculate it.

DMWJR

Bruce, take the Proof Mercs for example. The seven coin set is weighted as follows:

1936 - 4
1937 - 3
1938 - 2
1939 - 1
1940 - 1
1941 - 1
1942 - 1

The set has a divisor of 13, or total weighted coins, although there are only seven coins in the set. Now, let's say we have the following collection with corresponding weights:

1936 - PR67 x 4 = 268
1937 - PR68 x 3 = 204
1938 - PR68 x 2 = 136
1939 - PR68 x 1 = 68
1940 - PR68 x 1 = 68
1941 - PR68 x 1 = 68
1942 - PR68 x 1 = 68

Total points for this collection are 880.

880 divided by 13 is 67.692.

(does that number ring a bell??)

Hope that helps

leothelyon

<< <i>Bruce, take the Proof Mercs for example. The seven coin set is weighted as follows:

1936 - 4
1937 - 3
1938 - 2
1939 - 1
1940 - 1
1941 - 1
1942 - 1

The set has a divisor of 13, or total weighted coins, although there are only seven coins in the set. Now, let's say we have the following collection with corresponding weights:

1936 - PR67 x 4 = 268
1937 - PR68 x 3 = 204
1938 - PR68 x 2 = 136
1939 - PR68 x 1 = 68
1940 - PR68 x 1 = 68
1941 - PR68 x 1 = 68
1942 - PR68 x 1 = 68

Total points for this collection are 880.

880 divided by 13 is 67.692.

(does that number ring a bell??)

Hope that helps >>



6 x 68 + 67 = 475/7 = 67.8571 Without weights
(9 x 68) + (4 x 67) = 880 /13 =67.6923 with weights

It appears this divisor element (weighted number system) of the equation actually penalizes the GPA rather than benefits it.


Leo

tradedollarnut

The 'divisor' does nothing of the sort, it's merely a summation of the weights. Now, if you have lower graded high weight coins then yes, your GPA is lower. Such is a weighted system.

scher

Thanks guys that really helps..and I catch the irony of your example Doug..Cool set.
Bruce

leothelyon

<< <i>The 'divisor' does nothing of the sort, it's merely a summation of the weights. Now, if you have lower graded high weight coins then yes, your GPA is lower. Such is a weighted system. >>



Well, that certainly sucks since most scarcer dates will usually grade lower than the overall set. Golly gee.......the registry system is flawed afterall.


Leo


Edited to add; As long as we're all playing by the same rules, right?

tradedollarnut

Why does counting the tougher dates more create a flawed registry system?

DMWJR

Bruce, that was an awesome set, and the shortest series I could think of to give you a concrete example. It just so happens that it was a little more personal.

Sometimes I think the confusion comes from understanding the weighted GPA vs. the Set rating. They have the same result when the sets are complete.

But, when the set is incomplete they are different, and two different divisors are used. For instance, take the same set below and delete the 1936 PR67.

The total points for the collection are 880 - 268 = 612.

If you are calculating the set rating, you still divide by the same divisor of 13: 612/13 = 47.07

But if you are calculating the weighted GPA of the set (without the 1936) you subtract the 4 coin weights (13-4) to get a new divisor of 9.

The weighted GPA of the set is 612/9 = 68.00 which is logical since all of the coins are PR68's.

leothelyon

<< <i>Why does counting the tougher dates more create a flawed registry system? >>



I've already shown the math two posts ago. The tougher dates usually receive more weights than common dates. And they usually don't grade as high as the common dates. If I add a pop one MS64 coin to my 66.74 GPA set that carries a weight number of 4 then I need to add four MS64's to my total and GPA. Adding those four MS64's is like adding four coins that grade MS64. This only drags the GPA down futher than necessary since we had to add so many MS64's. Of course, the GPA improves if the coin grades higher than the overall initial GPA of the set.
But if the high weighted coin grades lower than the overall initial GPA of the set then the GPA takes 4 hits with having to add 4 lower MS grades. And the tougher dates were given more weights to enhance the GPA but this is not true if the coin grades lower than the overall GPA of the set.
It would be better for the GPA if some tougher dates were only given a weight of one rather than weights of 2 through 10. Imagine, if you will, adding a MS64 coin with a weight of 10 to a set. Adding 10 MS64's to a set that has a GPA of 67.88 will lower the GPA much farther than if only one MS64 was added to the GPA. In other words, having to shell out more money for the tougher dates that usually grade lower on average than most of the other coins, why does my GPA show a substantial loss when I add that coin to my set? Perhaps less weights should be given to the tougher dates if they grade lower than the overall GPA of the set and more weights should be added if the coin grades higher.

And here's another finding. Whether a set is weighted or not, the difference after doing all that math is only one tenth of one percent for a GPA. If everyone in the top sets has every coin for a set, how does this weighted system benefit anyone?


Leo

tradedollarnut

It would be better for the GPA if some tougher dates were only given a weight of one rather than weights of 2 through 10

Now this idea would create a flawed Registry system! Better no weights at all!


Actually, it is indeed a little flawed to just weight the dates and not the individual grades. The most precise method would be using the price guide to weight the coins.

leothelyon

<< <i>It would be better for the GPA if some tougher dates were only given a weight of one rather than weights of 2 through 10

Now this idea would create a flawed Registry system! Better no weights at all!


Actually, it is indeed a little flawed to just weight the dates and not the individual grades. The most precise method would be using the price guide to weight the coins. >>



Don't you mean the other way around; weight the individual grades and not just the dates? Please elaborate!


Leo

Steve

Having the highest GPA for an incomplete set should NOT determine rankings. The benefit of the PCGS weighting system to someone like me is, although I can't afford the VERY best of the Lincoln cent proofs, I was able to get ALL of the dates for my collection. That put my overall ranking higher. That is as it should be in my opinion. If others acquire ALL the required dates and their GPA exceeds mine, then they will rank higher. Until they aquire those dates they will rank lower even thou they have a higher GPA. The PCGS set registry program is set up with the intent to COMPLETE the set. The weighting system in place assures that fact. Steve