Enough is Enough !!
CarsonCityGold
Posts: 1,856 ✭
This subject has been discussed before, but it looks like PCGS is adding more "classic" sets to the registry. These are sets like Eliasberg, Bass, Etc., that are being listed in the registry even though most did not exist at the time the registry started and most were never slabbed by PCGS!!! Three of the five all time finest sets in this category were NOT entered following the same rules that you and I have to follow. They were entered by PCGS and NOT the owner.
How can a set make it to "All Time Finest" if was never entered as current?
Now they have aded the "Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection" to the Carson City Gold sets. linky The grades are listed as estimated and many are listed as cleaned or polished.
Let me say up front that some of these sets are truly spectacular. The fact remains that they do NOT belong in the registry. Put them in another section and pay them their respect. Since the rules state the coin has to be PCGS slabbed to be eligle for the registry, then follow your own rules PCGS.
I understand that the golden rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules", but try to play fair!
These sets belong in a special section away from those of us that have to play by the rules!!!!!!!!
How can a set make it to "All Time Finest" if was never entered as current?
Now they have aded the "Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection" to the Carson City Gold sets. linky The grades are listed as estimated and many are listed as cleaned or polished.
Let me say up front that some of these sets are truly spectacular. The fact remains that they do NOT belong in the registry. Put them in another section and pay them their respect. Since the rules state the coin has to be PCGS slabbed to be eligle for the registry, then follow your own rules PCGS.I understand that the golden rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules", but try to play fair!
These sets belong in a special section away from those of us that have to play by the rules!!!!!!!!
0
Comments
if it was not for these old and now broken up sets, smithsonian set, and etc..
there would not be anyone seriously trying to do the set except one or two.
it appears some flunky needs to justify their job since most of the work
has already been done.
Creating a list of Finest Sets of All Time which does not include the holdings of (in this category) Eliasberg, Bass et al renders the whole thing meaningless IMHO.
I applaud PCGS's efforts to include these great collections and thus put current sets in proper perspective.
money out of the pocket....none of what we go through! Don't they get a coin of every denomination from the Treasury?
I doubt that Congress asked PCGS to place the set in the registry. I don't agree with a change in the rules in the middle of
the game.
Ok, some sets are absolutely fantastic, if they are still together. If they've been broken apart then they are not a set now and
should never be included.
If the coins are not in PCGS slabs then ban them from the registry. After all, IS IT NOT the PCGS registry sets?
If they can't be graded then they can't be included.
Perhaps the email we all got was a cover for doing just this. Did you all respond to include non PCGS coins in the registrys?
Bob
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
find the coins online and just use the cert numbers. now you too can have
a set that is one of the finest without doing any real work or having the
set intact.
newer collectors really do not care about dead people and their broken up
sets. we care more about the current sets that people own who are not
6 feet under.
i guess it is time to stop using the registry eh?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>I have to agree with this. The sets should be listed in a separate group, on the same page as "Historic Landmark Sets". The registry is for participants, not dead collectors. >>
Agreed. These sets were never registered by the owners, so others should not have to compete with them for "all time" status.
<< <i>So body bagged coins can get an estimated grade??? >>
It's crazy that they are giving cleaned coins a shot at the registry sets for these high end fantasy sets.
edited for spelling
You wouldn't believe how long it took to get him to sit still for this.
<< <i>Let me get this straight. They are including raw coin sets based on estimated grades but they won't include NGC graded coins. Am I missing something? >>
nope, you've got it right. they want bragging rights for something they didn't earn.
<< <i>Let me get this straight. They are including raw coin sets based on estimated grades but they won't include NGC graded coins. Am I missing something? >>
Not missing anything other than raw stupidity. Talk about crapping where you sleep - this is a major faux pas on PCGS' part... Unless they are trying to ruin interest in their registry program.
Not that I really care.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
We put the estimated grades up for the all-time classic sets...Eliasberg, Bass gold, and the Smithsonian collection are the sets we've done most with...
because these are sets we seen in the past and made extensive notes about...and in the case of Bass, we actually graded the coins.
We assumed that those working on sets would enjoy comparing their sets to Eliasberg, Bass, and the Smithsonian collection.
Imagine spending a number of years working on a significant gold set and then being able to say "better than Bass, Eliasberg, and the Smithsonian collection."
And how could we have an "All-time finest" category without including these monumental sets in the Registry?
Seems like the right thing to do.
David
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me get this straight. They are including raw coin sets based on estimated grades but they won't include NGC graded coins. Am I missing something? >>
Not missing anything other than raw stupidity. Talk about crapping where you sleep - this is a major faux pas on PCGS' part... Unless they are trying to ruin interest in their registry program.
Not that I really care. >>
IMO, PCGS and NGC cheapened their Reg sets when they started the whole private set stuff
is anyone else annoyed at registry sets that have won the top prize year after year that are not even able to be seen? I noticed the top set for the US type set, and you cannot even click on the set, let alone see any pictures or grades.
I'm not saying the owners of these sets should give any info that may risk their security, but why is it that a person is allowed to take the top spot when others vying for the same award can't even see the grades of the coins they are competing against? Imagine taking your classic Corvette to a car show, only to have the judge award the 'best in show' to a car that is only available to the judge's eyes and hidden from the other entrants view!
I don't "get it", anyone else?
<< <i>We assumed that those working on sets would enjoy comparing their sets to Eliasberg, Bass, and the Smithsonian collection. >>
I would and do enjoy comparing my set to the great sets of all time.
I understand that my set is not in the same league as those sets.
My longevity proves I'm still a work in progress.
The Registry is a competition. You give awards. You have rules.
The normal procedure for making the "All Time Finest" is to work your way through the "Current Finest".
Everyone should have to play by the same rules.
A level playing field is critical to the integrity of any competition.
These classic sets deserve recognition in a separate area.
Mr Hall, I appreciate your imput and time. I agree that these sets deserve recognition, but not in the Registry competition playing by a different set of rules.
Thanks, CCG
My #1 Low Ball Peace Dollar Set
<< <i>
<< <i>We assumed that those working on sets would enjoy comparing their sets to Eliasberg, Bass, and the Smithsonian collection. >>
I would and do enjoy comparing my set to the great sets of all time.
I understand that my set is not in the same league as those sets.
My longevity proves I'm still a work in progress.
The Registry is a competition. You give awards. You have rules.
The normal procedure for making the "All Time Finest" is to work your way through the "Current Finest".
Everyone should have to play by the same rules.
A level playing field is critical to the integrity of any competition.
These classic sets deserve recognition in a separate area.
Mr Hall, I appreciate your imput and time. I agree that these sets deserve recognition, but not in the Registry competition playing by a different set of rules.
Thanks, CCG >>
Well said, and exactly the point. I hope that Mr. Hall does in fact take note.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
The historic sets are already separated from the current
sets in the registry, so what's the problem.
I don't even look at the "All-Time Finest" sets, but it
doesn't bother me that they are there. I only care about
the "Current Finest" sets, and they are already in their
own section.
Also, I don't think NGC holders should be included in
the PCGS registries. For that matter, I don't think
PCGS holders should be included in the NGC registries
either. It's the whole apples/oranges thing. You've
got two different sets of graders, playing by two sets
of rules, which could be similar in some instances, and
differ in others.
~
"America suffers today from too much pluribus and not enough unum.".....Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
I find them fun to glance at, and do not feel im in competition with them in anyway.
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>This subject has been discussed before, but it looks like PCGS is adding more "classic" sets to the registry. These are sets like Eliasberg, Bass, Etc., that are being listed in the registry even though most did not exist at the time the registry started and most were never slabbed by PCGS!!! Three of the five all time finest sets in this category were NOT entered following the same rules that you and I have to follow. They were entered by PCGS and NOT the owner.
How can a set make it to "All Time Finest" if was never entered as current?
Now they have aded the "Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection" to the Carson City Gold sets. linky The grades are listed as estimated and many are listed as cleaned or polished.
I understand that the golden rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules", but try to play fair!
These sets belong in a special section away from those of us that have to play by the rules!!!!!!!! >>
I believe I had this same topic about 2 or 3 months ago on the Registry Forum. I did quite a bit of research about the so called "Estimated Grades" and found that most coins were estimated from old auction catalogs and hearsay. Some were viewed by Mr. Hall in the 70's and 80's. Even though most of these grades are somewhat accurate, for us registry nuts, a fraction of a point means top dog. I have great respect for Elieasberg, Bass and etc. and even have serveral of the pedigree coins " I do not believe these should be in the PCGS registry All Time Finest". Even the coins that I have are the ones they estimated and are not graded that high. Ex: Eliasberg 1904 Proof Barber dime estimated grade PR64. The one I have is a 1904 PCGS proof 63 Eliasberg (OGH). PCGS should make a Registry Respect List for these Awsome Coins.
The Smithsonian Collection just published in this category has 6 coins described as problem coins.
The main reason I have participated here has been the previous purity of the competition.
I have worked very hard on my collection to acquire coins that would stand up to the PCGS standards for grading.
I buy the coin, not the holder, and then crossover (if not in a PCGS holder) to participate here.
Now your asking me to compete against coins that don't meet your standards. It just doesn't make sence.
My #1 Low Ball Peace Dollar Set
<< <i>One of the core philosophies of PCGS is not to slab/grade problem coins.
The Smithsonian Collection just published in this category has 6 coins described as problem coins.
The main reason I have participated here has been the previous purity of the competition.
I have worked very hard on my collection to acquire coins that would stand up to the PCGS standards for grading.
I buy the coin, not the holder, and then crossover (if not in a PCGS holder) to participate here.
Now your asking me to compete against coins that don't meet your standards. It just doesn't make sence. >>
<< <i>One of the core philosophies of PCGS is not to slab/grade problem coins. >>
Another core philosophy is to be flexible when the coin is rare which seems to be used here.