K.I.S.S.

braddick

Keep It Simple! I'm enjoying the variety of responses to the survey sent out. What jumps out is most of the fun of the Registry is the simplicity of it- even with the addition of 'weights'.

Let's work on the Registry like you would a 1965 Mustang. Easy to find what you need and what needs fixing.
Please, let's not turn the Registry into some exotic foreign formula race car.

Simple sets. Simple rules.
Not dozens of sub-sets and year sets and partial sets...

MacCoin

I agree with you Pat, keep it simple! but when I frist see the post w/kiss I was wondering who you were coming on to.

RegistryCoin

Wow, Pat. What a coincidence. I used those exact words, k.i.s.s., in my response to a question or two in the questionaire, and the idea, Keep It Simple, ran through all my answers.
Is there any other concept that will surely work, and be acceptable?
I assume that pcgs worked the numbers, and found a balance between the additional costs involved with providing the "improvments" and maintenance thereof, and the additional revenue generated due to the new interest(s). Why create more than is necessary, or something that is less than cost efficient? That wouldn't be in anyone's interest, even ngc's.

keithdagen

Rock and roll all night? Party every day?

Guess that's what I get for listening to the radio too much.

My responses were along the lines of -- add new sets that will generate interest (commem mini-sets, basic type set, year sets); keep weighting as simple as possible; require only well-known traditionally collected varities; don't penalize retired sets for new set changes; and keep the DCAM system in place, except possibly penalize more points for the 1950-1964 coins to help keep the cost and rarity differential in place.

Keith

Dog97

And just what the heck is wrong with year sets Braddick? The Mint sells more year sets than anything else. It's the most popular and best selling item that keeps the Mint and most dealers in business. I have over $10,000 and my 1997 alone alone and I'm working on 5 different sets. That in itself should deserve a catagory in the Registry. I agree the sub-sets and partial sets are going too far but that's not my gig so I can't say they shouldn't be allowed.

braddick

Dog, I know your 1997 year set has a special place in your heart (as well it should) but please don't take my comments as to disparage it.

Now, if PCGS picked up on year set Registries, we'de be talking about adding over 200 more registrys. Plus, how would they rate each one?
Would your 1997 set compete against one from the 1800's? If so, is that fair? Some years also saw minimal coinage production and not all types were minted. Would that "partial" set compete against yours? How would PCGS decide what set ranks in the all-time top five finest?

I just don't think the Registry is designed to accomplish everyone's collecting goals. Your example of a year set is one of them.

keithdagen

Pat,

I think that the general suggestion for a year set was -- add it when requested, don't assume 200+ years at once -- then, only have competition within they year. Dog's 1997 set competes against only 1997 sets, and wouldn't compete against a 1804 set.

Keith

cosmicdebris

Man I said the same thing but not for the sets for the extra points or deducted points. One rule for everything. Don't add points here deduct points there. For example David have different rules for the proofs depending the the date range. I said keep it simple add 1 bonus point for cam and 2 points for DCAM for all proofs. As for the smaller sets I see many people want them and if they did do them I would do my birth year set.

Dog97

Cosmic & Keith have the right idea. I wouldn't mind being second to the King of Siam Proof Set even if they were weighted that way. K.I.S.S means Keep It Simple Stupid and since I'm rather simple I say my MS/67/68 set would outrank your AG3 set if we were to collect the same years.

Even though I don't care for short or partial sets myself any additions to the Registry will have nothing but a positive effect on our hobby, us as collectors and certianly to the dealers who sell us these coins. If PCGS needs to make disc space for these sets they can delete the Testing Forum and give us that space.