My response to PCGS Registry survey
mansco
Posts: 229 ✭
I thought I'd share my response to Mr. Hall. I hoped that by doing so, the board might give me some feedback on the feasibility of my positions:
January 8, 2002
Dear Mr. Hall,
It was a pleasure and pleasant surprise to receive your survey eliciting feedback regarding the Registry. The Registry has added a new dimension to coin collecting and it is my hopes that the feedback you receive is considered and that your goal of putting the Registry at the forefront of the hobby is achieved. To that end, following are my survey responses.
1. Mini-sets enable a wider audience to participate in the Registry. Not all collectors can afford to build meaningful complete sets. By expanding the Registry to include a wide variety of mini-sets will enable many serious but budget minded or constrained individuals to participate. While everyone can’t be an Eliasberg, Bass, Lee, or even a Hall, we can all exhibit pride in our collections with mini-sets being an anchor. Personally, I’d like to see the Liberty Double Eagle series broken down and there are numerous ways to do so, e.g., Type I, II & III, by mintmark, by date, etc. Commems also can be broken down as suggested in your letter.
2. Partial sets should be added for the same reasons stated above.
3. It would be hypocritical of me to say Combo sets should not be allowed. Seriously, type sets are how many a collector gets started. I believe type sets are a cornerstone of coin collecting.
4. I believe very strongly that varieties should NOT be considered a part of the set to make it complete. While varieties add a high degree of interest to the hobby, the coins were not planned as part of the series. Most series have one coin for a date and respective mintmark. Just because there are mint errors, why does that justify inclusion in a set to be complete. However, I do go after major varieties, but have always believe that they are supplemental to the set and think of them as a bonus. I think that sets should be considered complete with the regular coins, but that sets that include varieties should get bonus points. It would seem that this approach gives full credit to the collector who puts together a full set, but also rewards the collector who goes the extra mile and includes the varieties.
5. The weighting system is indeed interesting, and is an improvement over the average grade of each coin. On the face of it, it appears to make some sense. However, when you begin to think about it, the new scheme devalues the differences in grade in favor of simply having the coin in the collection. Clearly, I think you want to recognize the grade as well as the existence. Without employing higher econometrics to what is suppose to be a fun endeavor, there should be a method of weighting that encompasses specimen rarity, individual coin grade, and recognizes condition census.
6. The only simple alternative weighting scheme that comes to mind is to weight coins by the generalized value given the coin by the daily coin price guide. It may not be the “best” set, but it would delineate the sets by value. This assumes reasonable accuracy is reflected by the daily price guide.
7. I think you make a big psychological mistake by detracting points from a coin you (PCGS) assigns a grade to. When I buy an MS64Franklin, I’m perturbed that you treat it like an MS62 because it lacks FBL’s. Whereas, if you gave me bonus points for my MS64FBL, I’d be more likely to focus on the FBL’s. I guess one of the things I’ve been trying to say, is think about the little guy and reward the serious collectors. Don’t penalize anyone, but reward many. I don’t think you can have a standard deduct or discount for “non-qualifiers”, but you should give premiums for distinct features like FBL’s, full steps, or full bands, etc.
8. See answer #7.
9. Couldn’t agree with you more. Give bonuses.
10. Let’s go back to my answers for 7 & 8. Give bonuses for cameo and deep cameo designations. The good thing about giving bonus points rather than deducting points is that if there is a super rarity you can give a larger bonus!!
11. SEE 10.
12. SEE 10
13. SEE 10.
14. I think set descriptions should be optional only when you have completed a significant portion of a set. A set description which gives a bit of background about the set, it’s pedigree, or pertinent interesting factors makes the viewing experience more enjoyable. A 1000 word description on a set that is 5% completed can be rather annoying. It leaves way to much to the imagination rather than provide any useful knowledge.
15. This approach may be the best use of everyone’s time and effort.
Thank you for allowing me to comment. I may take the liberty of posting my comments on the message board.
Mansco Perry
mansco@visi.com
January 8, 2002
Dear Mr. Hall,
It was a pleasure and pleasant surprise to receive your survey eliciting feedback regarding the Registry. The Registry has added a new dimension to coin collecting and it is my hopes that the feedback you receive is considered and that your goal of putting the Registry at the forefront of the hobby is achieved. To that end, following are my survey responses.
1. Mini-sets enable a wider audience to participate in the Registry. Not all collectors can afford to build meaningful complete sets. By expanding the Registry to include a wide variety of mini-sets will enable many serious but budget minded or constrained individuals to participate. While everyone can’t be an Eliasberg, Bass, Lee, or even a Hall, we can all exhibit pride in our collections with mini-sets being an anchor. Personally, I’d like to see the Liberty Double Eagle series broken down and there are numerous ways to do so, e.g., Type I, II & III, by mintmark, by date, etc. Commems also can be broken down as suggested in your letter.
2. Partial sets should be added for the same reasons stated above.
3. It would be hypocritical of me to say Combo sets should not be allowed. Seriously, type sets are how many a collector gets started. I believe type sets are a cornerstone of coin collecting.
4. I believe very strongly that varieties should NOT be considered a part of the set to make it complete. While varieties add a high degree of interest to the hobby, the coins were not planned as part of the series. Most series have one coin for a date and respective mintmark. Just because there are mint errors, why does that justify inclusion in a set to be complete. However, I do go after major varieties, but have always believe that they are supplemental to the set and think of them as a bonus. I think that sets should be considered complete with the regular coins, but that sets that include varieties should get bonus points. It would seem that this approach gives full credit to the collector who puts together a full set, but also rewards the collector who goes the extra mile and includes the varieties.
5. The weighting system is indeed interesting, and is an improvement over the average grade of each coin. On the face of it, it appears to make some sense. However, when you begin to think about it, the new scheme devalues the differences in grade in favor of simply having the coin in the collection. Clearly, I think you want to recognize the grade as well as the existence. Without employing higher econometrics to what is suppose to be a fun endeavor, there should be a method of weighting that encompasses specimen rarity, individual coin grade, and recognizes condition census.
6. The only simple alternative weighting scheme that comes to mind is to weight coins by the generalized value given the coin by the daily coin price guide. It may not be the “best” set, but it would delineate the sets by value. This assumes reasonable accuracy is reflected by the daily price guide.
7. I think you make a big psychological mistake by detracting points from a coin you (PCGS) assigns a grade to. When I buy an MS64Franklin, I’m perturbed that you treat it like an MS62 because it lacks FBL’s. Whereas, if you gave me bonus points for my MS64FBL, I’d be more likely to focus on the FBL’s. I guess one of the things I’ve been trying to say, is think about the little guy and reward the serious collectors. Don’t penalize anyone, but reward many. I don’t think you can have a standard deduct or discount for “non-qualifiers”, but you should give premiums for distinct features like FBL’s, full steps, or full bands, etc.
8. See answer #7.
9. Couldn’t agree with you more. Give bonuses.
10. Let’s go back to my answers for 7 & 8. Give bonuses for cameo and deep cameo designations. The good thing about giving bonus points rather than deducting points is that if there is a super rarity you can give a larger bonus!!
11. SEE 10.
12. SEE 10
13. SEE 10.
14. I think set descriptions should be optional only when you have completed a significant portion of a set. A set description which gives a bit of background about the set, it’s pedigree, or pertinent interesting factors makes the viewing experience more enjoyable. A 1000 word description on a set that is 5% completed can be rather annoying. It leaves way to much to the imagination rather than provide any useful knowledge.
15. This approach may be the best use of everyone’s time and effort.
Thank you for allowing me to comment. I may take the liberty of posting my comments on the message board.
Mansco Perry
mansco@visi.com
0
Comments
I have not yet replied to my questionaire, but would agree with most of your statements, particularly in the sense of giving bonuses for varieties and desirable attributes instead of penalizing for not having including them in a set.
Thanks for sharing your response!
Ken
Greg
David, thanks for soliciting our input. My comments are below as you requested.
I enjoy my Registry Sets very much. It has focused my collecting habits and collection.
Please consider surveying Registry Set collectors regularly. I think you'll find that many of us are anxious to help you improve the Registry and you may get some great ideas!
Regards,
> Chris Kalnik
1. I like the idea of mini sets for the commems.
2. Partial sets are ok for those series that have traditionally been collected in this fashion (e.g., Walking Liberty short set).
3. I enjoy collecting Type Coins and have several sets registered that I am actively working on. I suggest that you add a Copper, Nickel, Silver set from 1900 - Present in both MS and PR.
I also would like to see you add Year Sets in MS, PR and combined (three sets for each year). I already am actively working on sets for the birth years of myself, my wife, and my kids. I think that sets should only be compared to other sets of the same year (after all, how could one compare my birth year-1956 with 1804 or 1909?). If this proves too difficult logistically, perhaps you could group sets by decade.
4. I think you should be very careful about adding varieties and ensure that you only add MAJOR ones (e.g., 1937-D 3 legged nickel and 1955 DDO cent). I will be very upset if you add the 1951-S DD Franklin. I don't feel it is necessary for a complete MS Franklin Set.
In any case, please give us reasonable (more than 72 hours) warning before you make any changes to existing sets. I don't think it's fair to Registry participants who have complete sets to spring a change on us with little or no notice.
I do appreciate your use of the Registry News link on your web page to communicate with us. Thanks and please continue.
5. Fine with me. Every system is going to have shortcomings. The advantage of the 1 to 10 scale, in my opinion, is its (relative) simplicity.
6. Why don't you extend the use of the 1 to 10 scale to the Qualifiers discussed below? That way, for each date, the relative rarity of FBL vs. non-FBL or FB vs. no FB coins could be set (e.g., 1953-S Franklin in FBL could be an 8 or 9 or 10 and non-FBL could be a 3 or 4 or 5using the pop report or price as the way to fix the 1 to 10 scale).
7. I don't think you should arbitrarily deduct 1 or 2 or X points for qualifiers, it should be based on the relative rarity of each date (i.e., rarity of 1953-S FBL vs. non-FBL Franklin). Please see my answer for number 6 above and number 8 below).
8. Yes, assign each date different weights, using the 1 to 10 scale, for FBL or non-FBL or FB or no-FB or RD, RB, BN. Maybe more complicated, but much fairer than arbitrarily deducting X number of points.
9. For the CAM vs. non-CAM, a reasonable approach, since many of the coins already graded are not designated as cameos even though they are. However, aren't the DCAMs much rarer? Why not use the same approach as I suggested in my answers to 6,7, and 8 above?
10. Again, this is arbitrary. Why not use the same approach as I suggested in my answers to 6,7, and 8 above?
11. Again, this is arbitrary. Why not use the same approach as I suggested in my answers to 6,7, and 8 above?
12. Again, this is arbitrary. Why not use the same approach as I suggested in my answers to 6,7, and 8 above?
13. No.
I do like the addition of the Pop and Pop higher numbers. If you would like to clean up the page, why not have two pages for each set, with the Owner's description and comments about each coin on the second page?
14. Have you really had problems with people entering "inappropriate" descriptions? If not, why don't you not edit the descriptions and only delete them if someone complains about a particular one? Just label it clearly that the descriptions are the Owner's words. If you have had many problems, then I would vote to have the descriptions removed in the interest of adding/changing sets more quickly.
15. Again, if I were you, I wouldn't bother editing the owner's comments unless you are having frequent problems with "inappropriate" comments. This also applies to the set descriptions.
Comments?
Chris
09/07/2006
1. For difficult sets, mini sets are great. They offer the collector a chance to own several coins, providing a good representation of that design without costing the collector an arm and a leg for many different dates. Many collectors don't want to own 97 Morgans......10 is just fine.
2. Partial sets are good for very long sets, those sets that include 75 or more coins, and have disctinct types so that the set can be logically cut into pieces.
3. Combo sets are good as well, and I don't have a lot of experience in this area, so I am in no position to offer any further opinion.
4. Varieties are just that...varieties. They need not be required in a set, but, for example, there are quite a few varieties of the 1880-CC dollar, but a collector must own the "regular" issue to put the coin into the set, I believe that any of the varieties should be eligible for inclusion as a coin in the part of the set that counts, and extra varieties should add extra points to a set, or what is the point in having them their.
5. It is no better than the old system....see number 6.
6. Since wee cannot check each and every coin in a set to see who's is better, value is as close as we can get to an actuall representation of who has the "best" set. Why is it that one collector can have 20 common dates MS64, and rank higher than someone who has 19 common dates in 67? Rarity also is a factor that must be considered, but going by value would show this.
7. Don't really care, not my area of collecting.
8. Don't really care, not my area of collecting.
9. Don't really care, not my area of collecting.
10. Don't really care, not my area of collecting.
11. Don't really care, not my area of collecting.
12. Don't really care, not my area of collecting.
13. Don't really care, not my area of collecting.
14. Set discription is a very important part of the registry..who cares about a bunch of numbers unless the collector can explain what, if anything, is so great about the coins.
15. Unless you examine a set in person..how can you write a description of it? Oh wait, I forgot, you only care about numbers, the coins inside the holders don't mean $hit to you.
Kyle Knapp
Copper
Lincolns are common in RED. So Red should be the standard.
RED = Same
Red Brown -1
Brown -2
Now Large Cents are NOT common in RED. So:
Red +1
Red Brown = Same
Brown -1
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
Either way, if a point is added or a point is taken away- your coins will stack up the same against all others as they are now.
-I just don't like the idea of 'bonus' points.
On a related topic: Some well known (Red Book) varieties should remain a standard, required part of the Registry. Other, much lesser known and unpopular ones should not. Kind of like what it is now (other than the 34 DD in the Washington series).
peacockcoins
You didn't really say "$hit" to David Hall, did you?
Oy vey.
Guys,
I know it may seem like it, but I just wanted to make sure
everyone knew that, logically, there is no difference between
giving bonuses for FB/FH/etc and subtracting for non-FB/nonFH/etc.
Several of you seem to have a definite preference.
Similarly people who want to not require varieties but then give
bonuses if you have them. Again, there's no difference between
requiring them and deducting or not requiring them but adding.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with how you feel, but you're
argueing over six of one, half dozen of the other.
FYI,
-Keith H
As to varieities,
A major difference is that if the set is completed you are eligible for pedigree submission. On the Washington silver registry, a set was number 2 before the inclusion of varieties and the weighting scheme. This set was eligible to be pedigreed, which I believe overtime adds value to a set, or at least recognizes the distinction of the endeavor. When the varieities were added, several lesser quality sets were placed above this prime set simply because it lacked a variety that the other collectors had. His coins were higher graded and a much more desirable set, but now simply due to the new weighting methodology given a significantly lower rating.
By adding the varieties, it has a significant impact on the set rating which because of the weighting scheme reduces the set rating significantly. My argument is that given that there may be no logic to some of the varieties added to a set, and as we've seen through the threads, there definitely is no consensus as to what variey is included or excluded, by defining a complete set as one with all dates and mintmarks as originally intended by the US Mint without regard to errors makes logical sense.
Not everyone agrees that a set is incomplete if it does not include varieties. My point is that a set should be considered complete with all dates and mint marks...unless no set is complete unless it includes all varieties. I, for one, believe that a prime goal of Registry is to strive for a pedigree.
So, I'll take 7 from the baker's dozen...you can have the six.
With regard to qualifiers (FBL. full steps, etc.), I would maintain that the difference between an MS64 and an MS64FBL is that one should be a 64 and the other a 65 or more or alternatively one should be a 64 and the other a 63 or less. One has a better strike than the other or grades should be AG1 to MS140 rather AG1 to MS70 (or 1 to 210 if we talk about cameos and dcams). But I'll grant you there is less difference in that regard other than there is more room to delineate distinctions by designating a premium than applying a discount. Remember an asset has no upper limit, they all have a lower limit of zero.
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!