PCGS Survey is out!
kieferscoins
Posts: 10,017 ✭
I just got David Hall's survey in my e-mail. You may want to check yours. Here it is:
An Important Message From David Hall
For All Set Registry Participants
The PCGS Set Registry has grown tremendously during the last year.
It is now an important part of the rare coin market. We believe
the Set Registry is popular because it serves the needs of
collectors of high grade coins. And we believe the Set Registry
is popular because it is fun.
Our job at PCGS is to service the needs of coin buyers, and the
better we service those needs, the more successful we will be as a
company. Our Set Registry is just one of the things we do, but it
is one of the most important things we do. The PCGS Set Registry
is a new service...and an evolving service. We consider it a work
in progress.
As the Set Registry evolves there are issues that arise and
obvious improvements that can be made. We are committed to the Set
Registry and we are committed to continually working on improving
it. That involves not only adding features, but also changing some
of the features already in place. And whenever there's change,
there's bound to be at least a little controversy.
One of the great things about the Set Registry is the passion
displayed by the participants. The fact that you care so much
makes us that much more enthusiastic about committing time, money,
and resources to improving the Registry. We also think the
Registry is great. And it's a lot of fun for us too.
As we move forward with additions and improvements to the Set
Registry, we would greatly appreciate your input. Currently, we
have six issues we need to resolve; adding sets, changing sets,
weighting, how to weight qualifiers, how to weight cameo proofs,
comments and set discussions. If you have an opinion on these
issues, we love to have your input. I've listed the questions
we're trying to answer below, along with a brief explanation of
the issues.
Please read the issues and if you feel it's appropriate, let's us
know what you think we should do. Just hit the reply button and
place your comments next to each issue to which you wish to
respond.
Adding Sets...
There are a lot of sets that we need to add to the Registry. We
don't really need any helping in adding the "traditionally"
collected sets. But we'd like to hear your feelings on
"mini-sets", partial sets, and "combo" sets. An example of a
mini-set would be a set of Texas silver commemoratives. An example
of a partial set would be the 1941 to 1947 "short set" of Walking
Liberty halves. An example of a combo set would be any type coin
set.
1. What do you think about mini-sets, i.e. should we do them,
which ones should we do, etc.?
2. What do you think about partial sets?
3. What do you think about combo sets?
Changing Sets...
There are some sets that are simply listed incorrectly (wrong
coins...mostly in the few type sets we have up). No problem, we're
changing those. The issue here is varieties. We feel that one of
the short-comings of the Set Registry is that it doesn't include
the major varieties that everyone cares about and everyone has
collected for many decades...coins such as the 1937-D 3 legged
Buffalo nickel and the 1955 Double Die Lincoln cent. We want to
add the major varieties to our set listings. Our feeling is that
we should add the varieties that have a long tradition of being
part of a set, like the coins listed above. Basically, you can
look at a 1980 Redbook and get an idea of the coins we're talking
about. Frankly, we feel that many of the varieties that have been
added to the Redbook in recent years are minor varieties that are
only of interest to ultra specialists. We feel that if you can't
see the variety easily with your naked eye, then it doesn't need
to be a required part of the Set Registry.
4. What do you think about varieties?
Weighting...
The object of the Set Registry is two-fold. First we want to give
collectors a way of measuring their set building progress against
others working on the same set...we want to list the sets in the
order of overall quality. Second, we want to allow beginning
collectors to see their options...to understand want the various
sets actually look like.
Our previous method for ranking sets was to average the grades in
the set. The problem with this is that it gave just as much value
to a high grade very common coin as it did to a high grade rarity.
It pretty obvious that a weighting method is necessary. In fact,
many of you have requested a weighting system and many of you have
told us you like our new weighting system. The issue is, which
weighting system should we use. Here are the questions:
5. We are using a weighting system of 1 to 10, giving the rarities
10 times as much importance as the most common coins in a set.
What do you think of the 1 to 10 scale?
6. Do you have an alternative suggestion for weighting sets...
remembering that the object is to determine who has the "best"
set?
Qualifiers...
Some sets have distinct qualifiers to the grades...full band
Mercury dimes, full bell line Franklin halves, full step
Jefferson nickels, color on copper coins, etc. We have been
deducting a point for non-qualified coins, i.e. non-full step
nickels, non-full band dimes, etc. Perhaps this is not enough.
After all, a full band 1945-P dime is worth many, many multiples
more than a non-full band. Here are the questions:
7. How much should we deduct for non-qualified coins?
8. Is there a different way to approach this issue?
Cameos...
Cameo and Deep Cameo coins are a very special qualifier issue.
There are actually several eras affected and each era has
different characteristics. The pre-1916 proofs are almost all
cameos, however PCGS has just recently begun recognizing them.
The 1936 to 1942 proofs are almost never cameo. The 1950 to 1977
issues are sometimes cameo and sometimes not, and they have been
avidly collected and recognized by PCGS for a long time. The 1978
to date issues are all cameo (actually, deep cameos). Here's how
we're thinking of handling the various eras. Please let us know
what you think.
9. For pre-1916 proofs we are counting cameos and non-cameos the
same since many collectors already have a lot of coins that have
been graded before PCGS began to recognize coins of this era as
cameos. We are adding a bonus point for deep cameos. What do you
think?
10. For 1936 to 1942 proofs, since they almost never come cameo,
we are adding one bonus point for cameo and 2 bonus points for
deep cameo. What do you think?
11. Here's the complicated one. For 1950 to 1977 proofs we are
currently deducting one grade point for cameo (versus deep cameo)
and deducting two grade points for non-cameo. The issue is the
real rarities, such as the 1959 Franklin in deep cameo. For the
1959 half, a PR66DCAM is worth a ton more than a PR68 non-cameo.
Perhaps we should deduct more. Perhaps there's a different method.
What do you think?
12. For 1978 to date we have been deducting points as we do for
the 1950 to 1977 proofs. What do you think?
13. Any other comments on the cameo issue?
One final issue we'd like your feelings about. We have a section
for set descriptions in the set listings. We have been editing the
set descriptions to be sure they're appropriate, etc., which is a
very time consuming process. We also have a comments area next to
each coin in each set. We have recently put up the "Pop" and Pop
higher" numbers (hope you like this new feature), so the listings
are getting a little crowded. Additionally, there's so many new
sets being registered that it's hard to keep up with them. Here's
some questions;
14. What if we eliminated the set description section...this would
allow us to put up sets much faster???
15. What if we didn't edit the individual coin comments and changed
the column heading to say "Owner's comments"???? We'd then want to
write the complete set descriptions ourselves, and we'd only do
them for the top five or so sets????
Thanks for taking the time to read this. BJ Searls, Rick Montgomery
and I look forward to hearing from you.
David Hall
An Important Message From David Hall
For All Set Registry Participants
The PCGS Set Registry has grown tremendously during the last year.
It is now an important part of the rare coin market. We believe
the Set Registry is popular because it serves the needs of
collectors of high grade coins. And we believe the Set Registry
is popular because it is fun.
Our job at PCGS is to service the needs of coin buyers, and the
better we service those needs, the more successful we will be as a
company. Our Set Registry is just one of the things we do, but it
is one of the most important things we do. The PCGS Set Registry
is a new service...and an evolving service. We consider it a work
in progress.
As the Set Registry evolves there are issues that arise and
obvious improvements that can be made. We are committed to the Set
Registry and we are committed to continually working on improving
it. That involves not only adding features, but also changing some
of the features already in place. And whenever there's change,
there's bound to be at least a little controversy.
One of the great things about the Set Registry is the passion
displayed by the participants. The fact that you care so much
makes us that much more enthusiastic about committing time, money,
and resources to improving the Registry. We also think the
Registry is great. And it's a lot of fun for us too.
As we move forward with additions and improvements to the Set
Registry, we would greatly appreciate your input. Currently, we
have six issues we need to resolve; adding sets, changing sets,
weighting, how to weight qualifiers, how to weight cameo proofs,
comments and set discussions. If you have an opinion on these
issues, we love to have your input. I've listed the questions
we're trying to answer below, along with a brief explanation of
the issues.
Please read the issues and if you feel it's appropriate, let's us
know what you think we should do. Just hit the reply button and
place your comments next to each issue to which you wish to
respond.
Adding Sets...
There are a lot of sets that we need to add to the Registry. We
don't really need any helping in adding the "traditionally"
collected sets. But we'd like to hear your feelings on
"mini-sets", partial sets, and "combo" sets. An example of a
mini-set would be a set of Texas silver commemoratives. An example
of a partial set would be the 1941 to 1947 "short set" of Walking
Liberty halves. An example of a combo set would be any type coin
set.
1. What do you think about mini-sets, i.e. should we do them,
which ones should we do, etc.?
2. What do you think about partial sets?
3. What do you think about combo sets?
Changing Sets...
There are some sets that are simply listed incorrectly (wrong
coins...mostly in the few type sets we have up). No problem, we're
changing those. The issue here is varieties. We feel that one of
the short-comings of the Set Registry is that it doesn't include
the major varieties that everyone cares about and everyone has
collected for many decades...coins such as the 1937-D 3 legged
Buffalo nickel and the 1955 Double Die Lincoln cent. We want to
add the major varieties to our set listings. Our feeling is that
we should add the varieties that have a long tradition of being
part of a set, like the coins listed above. Basically, you can
look at a 1980 Redbook and get an idea of the coins we're talking
about. Frankly, we feel that many of the varieties that have been
added to the Redbook in recent years are minor varieties that are
only of interest to ultra specialists. We feel that if you can't
see the variety easily with your naked eye, then it doesn't need
to be a required part of the Set Registry.
4. What do you think about varieties?
Weighting...
The object of the Set Registry is two-fold. First we want to give
collectors a way of measuring their set building progress against
others working on the same set...we want to list the sets in the
order of overall quality. Second, we want to allow beginning
collectors to see their options...to understand want the various
sets actually look like.
Our previous method for ranking sets was to average the grades in
the set. The problem with this is that it gave just as much value
to a high grade very common coin as it did to a high grade rarity.
It pretty obvious that a weighting method is necessary. In fact,
many of you have requested a weighting system and many of you have
told us you like our new weighting system. The issue is, which
weighting system should we use. Here are the questions:
5. We are using a weighting system of 1 to 10, giving the rarities
10 times as much importance as the most common coins in a set.
What do you think of the 1 to 10 scale?
6. Do you have an alternative suggestion for weighting sets...
remembering that the object is to determine who has the "best"
set?
Qualifiers...
Some sets have distinct qualifiers to the grades...full band
Mercury dimes, full bell line Franklin halves, full step
Jefferson nickels, color on copper coins, etc. We have been
deducting a point for non-qualified coins, i.e. non-full step
nickels, non-full band dimes, etc. Perhaps this is not enough.
After all, a full band 1945-P dime is worth many, many multiples
more than a non-full band. Here are the questions:
7. How much should we deduct for non-qualified coins?
8. Is there a different way to approach this issue?
Cameos...
Cameo and Deep Cameo coins are a very special qualifier issue.
There are actually several eras affected and each era has
different characteristics. The pre-1916 proofs are almost all
cameos, however PCGS has just recently begun recognizing them.
The 1936 to 1942 proofs are almost never cameo. The 1950 to 1977
issues are sometimes cameo and sometimes not, and they have been
avidly collected and recognized by PCGS for a long time. The 1978
to date issues are all cameo (actually, deep cameos). Here's how
we're thinking of handling the various eras. Please let us know
what you think.
9. For pre-1916 proofs we are counting cameos and non-cameos the
same since many collectors already have a lot of coins that have
been graded before PCGS began to recognize coins of this era as
cameos. We are adding a bonus point for deep cameos. What do you
think?
10. For 1936 to 1942 proofs, since they almost never come cameo,
we are adding one bonus point for cameo and 2 bonus points for
deep cameo. What do you think?
11. Here's the complicated one. For 1950 to 1977 proofs we are
currently deducting one grade point for cameo (versus deep cameo)
and deducting two grade points for non-cameo. The issue is the
real rarities, such as the 1959 Franklin in deep cameo. For the
1959 half, a PR66DCAM is worth a ton more than a PR68 non-cameo.
Perhaps we should deduct more. Perhaps there's a different method.
What do you think?
12. For 1978 to date we have been deducting points as we do for
the 1950 to 1977 proofs. What do you think?
13. Any other comments on the cameo issue?
One final issue we'd like your feelings about. We have a section
for set descriptions in the set listings. We have been editing the
set descriptions to be sure they're appropriate, etc., which is a
very time consuming process. We also have a comments area next to
each coin in each set. We have recently put up the "Pop" and Pop
higher" numbers (hope you like this new feature), so the listings
are getting a little crowded. Additionally, there's so many new
sets being registered that it's hard to keep up with them. Here's
some questions;
14. What if we eliminated the set description section...this would
allow us to put up sets much faster???
15. What if we didn't edit the individual coin comments and changed
the column heading to say "Owner's comments"???? We'd then want to
write the complete set descriptions ourselves, and we'd only do
them for the top five or so sets????
Thanks for taking the time to read this. BJ Searls, Rick Montgomery
and I look forward to hearing from you.
David Hall
0