PCGS Has Spoken......
python1
Posts: 789
Well, I just read the email about the response we all shared in returning their questions email. I am so-so on the email I recieved. I am still trying to soak up all of it, but the one thing I did figure out, I will sell my Buffalo collection asap. I dont have the kind of funds it will take to get the 18/17,nor do I care about that coin, I was ok with the 3 legged, but what ever.....someone will love the set.... oh well it was fun while it lasted.........
0
Comments
Pat Vetter
It was pretty clear that the members of this board would have preferred to keep things as they were, which means the respondants that were spoken of must for the most part not be members of this board.
In general, sounds a though they really listened, and are trying to accommodate.
How about that! "Hundreds of replies" to the survey!
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
"Hundreds of replies" to the survey, but they still didn't get it.
The only compromise they made here to the varieties was to the big spenders. If you have money, PCGS is now going to make you spend it if you want to have a 100% complete registry set. Sounds like an easy way to get in to peoples' pockets.
I'm waiting to see their full readout before pulling my sets. Dave
I agree, I will wait to see the real results are as they come out before I pull the Buffalo set....I was just sure that they were really paying attention to MY responses to THIER poll. Well, so much for that IDEA..
I sure HOPE PCGS listened to all of the Merc guys & gals, not to include the varieties! (wait and see)
I also added a #16 to THIER poll: For them to ADD the top 20 to the new 2002 registry book, not just the top 5, and my main problem with the top 5, just take a look at the buffalo set, and you will understand, I am so glad that someone REALLY loves the nickel enough to put three sets together (not real sure the point of this), and trying to get in the top 5 with all of them....that is my point...real tough to take over the same person in 3 spots.
My Dimes
<< If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right the first time! >>
This company has so much potential, but like so many other aspiring business, management just doesn't get.
Tom (only collecting for the fun of it, of what I like to collect, TYPE!)
dbldie55: My friend, have you ever spent 10+ years working day and night to build a #1 Registry set. I have-you can read about it in the 1999 Registry Book. Don't tell me I don't understand the collector position
Look, everyone that even starts to collect MS Silver Quarters goes in knowing full well that even if they could locate every MS67 silver quarter imaginable (and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process), they will likely be stuck with only MS65 1932d,s coins. Just a fact of life. So, now that collectors need to add a 1950s/d quarter in MS65 (around an $800 coin) among others, is really no big deal, imho. Why worry that you can't afford a 1934DD in MS66, when you can't EVER buy a 1932(d) in that grade either!! Just continue building the very best collection YOU can afford. I really do believe most collectors who acquire these additional coins will be pleased they did ten years from now just as those who did 5 years ago are "pleased as punch" today. And, even if you chose not to buy these extra coins in super high grade, then buy them a couple grades from the top grade at "cents on the dollar" to fill the holes. It really isn't a "big deal" and, for the record, PCGS did not change the game "midstream", imho. I tell everyone that imho we are probably just in the "top of the second inning" of this registry ballgame even at this point (and it could even be a "double-header")!
This has all been hashed over before.
The point is that PCGS is using this wisdom against the opinions of their collectors to further alienate and dilute the Registry. You will see very few sets that are 100%, which in itself has to be a marketing ploy to keep people buying. But does making them mandatory make them available? No, not at the prices they command.
So I ask, what is the point in even starting or trying to make a set that one doesn't have a chance in he|| to complete using their new MANDATORY standard? Yeah, I know, "buy a F-12 and throw it in there". Well guess what, an F-12 doesn't get a RD or FB designation so folks still can't complete a goal listed above that they could before. Is that the idea, everyone just throw anything in their registry set? If that's the case, maybe we should move our coins to a company that respects their collectors as much as their collector's respect their services. It is becoming clearly evident that it is not PCGS that is listening or caring about ALL of their collectors.
Dave
I am not talking about building a #1 registry sets, I am talking about a collector building a complete set (by the common definition, that seems to have changed recently here). You seem to keep making it a money game, which I am not sure it is. Just because you think they should be required does not mean everyone feels the same way and on these boards you seem to be in the minority. If they choose to sell a set because of it, it is their decision.
For what it is worth, I have two complete Washington Quarter sets. I have no varieties, but my albums have no place for them, so they are not required.
Again , I applogize if I offened anyone with me trying to make this a better registry.
My Dimes
<< If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right the first time! >>
Keith
Why do you consider a set complete only on the merits of what PCGS considers it? Your set is complete if you think it is complete. Even under the new rules, your Buffalo set will still rank well if the rest of your set is well matched, because very few people can afford the 18/17 in high grades.
Keith
I would think that the Strong Reverse (or Die Pair 2) would be the required 22 Plain Lincoln. The Weak Reverse or Weak D were caused by heavily worn dies, not the die with the D originally polished off.
Keith
I agree with Keith, it will probably be the stong rev.
My Dimes
<< If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right the first time! >>
I thought the only real difference between some of the weak reverses and the strong reverse was a new reverse die was used with an existing worn obverse die because the reverse die broke. Meaning some of the weak reverse coins are missing the D just as much as the strong reverse one.
It makes sense... I hear PCGS is going to start slabbing varieties (Like NGC) in a big way. Why not support that move by requiring them in the Registry?
If varieties are added to the Lincoln MS Set I will be deleting my set.
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
Would that not have been a win-win scenario for everyone?
I have some incredible varieties but am the first to realize that they are not for everyone.
Best,
Oreville
Among other things, I am assembling a classic Gold Commem Type Set (long-term goal). PCGS Set Registry only has a full 13-coin set for Gold Commems. I only want to collect nine - just one Grant, one Lewis and Clark, one McKinley and one $50 Pan-Pacific (in my dreams). I do not expect PCGS to create a set like this just to please me and the other knuckleheads who think like me. I will still register what I have, and I'll never be 100% in PCGS' eyes. Who gives a rip; when I get all nine coins, I'll be 100% in my eyes.
I also have to disagree with the statements that "collectors" don't want to include varieties. I've been collecting for almost 35 years, and I've known many collectors who considered classic varieties like the three-legged Buffalo, certain key overdates and double-dies as part of a complete set. I really don't think PCGS is doing anything exotic or hostile with these proposed changes. If you choose to leave the registry (which many of you appear to really enjoy) over this, I think you need to reconsider why you collect and what your goals are. If your worth as a collector can only be validated by a third party's rating system, you're in for a lot of disappointments.
I like the idea of adding key varieties to a complete Registry. It gives each set personality and raises the bar- eliminating those not 'really into it' but still allowing everyone a chance to play.
peacockcoins
Jim
I hear what you are saying but there are other factors here.
Before varieties, these sets were all standardized. While some folks like yourself didn't particularly want to adhere to the PCGS definition of a set, others did and chose to collect along those parameters. That is fine for both types of collectors. The old standard sets also appeased the variety/error collectors by allowing them to showcase their gems as optional coins. Now, by making them required, PCGS is making the registries for the HAVES only as no common collector can afford to make those purchases with the goals they originally set out with.
Along with the idea of personal goals, there is also the friendly competition that abounds here. Now there can be no competition because most won't be able to complete a set. The PCGS numbers show a standard. Does that mean we make a thread for those that are only going to compete at the 92% completion level standard? Or perhaps the 94% level? Of course not. But PCGS with this move did alienate a majority of collectors IMO. While some folks collect on their own and don't share in the board's enthusiasm for the hobby, where is the fun for the majority that do? Again, PCGS just stifled it.
I really don't think folks here base their value as a collector on PCGS's or and other 3rd party opinions. They certainly don't base it on other collector's opinions or even other collections. Their pride and joy is their collection itself. That is where we derive and place value. Unfortunately, like many other facts of life, there has to be someone that makes a judgement on something to effect its standing, whether a coin's grade or an employee's efficiency report. They all have a standard with which they are measured against but it is open to many factors, including the human opinion factor. The thing that has so many folks rattled is that PCGS, in spite of the majority, is making a change that serves only the minority. Why? To make more money of course.
I would agree with your last statement if folks were talking about stopping collecting. But I believe folks are merely saying that they don't need to stick around and suck up to PCGS and their registry sets. Why try to complete a PCGS Registry Set if you can't? Just leave it at home and complete your own Registry Set. As for using it to maintain an electronic version of your coins, Heritage has a much better system that is also free. So does NGC. So why put up with PCGS politics and standards when you can go elsewhere for the same price?
My collections are an enjoyment and a never-ending project. I will upgrade them until the very end. And when I pass on and my family does whatever with them, they'll know I enjoyed every minute I spent on them. Right now, there's not much enjoyment trying to collect them with PCGS. Dave
If I try real hard (
Your passion on the subject suggests completing a set as defined by a third party is a key objective, and you'll go searching for an organization that meets your needs. This is what I struggle with. Why? You can showcase your set without varieties on this Registry. You can add comments in the owner's sections that clarify your goals, so someone looking at your set can see that you are not collecting varieties.
Perhaps your problem is that you can't get a high rating or a 100% by your name without varieties. But leaving the Registry for that seems like an NBA bench warmer leaving the league to play on a city team. Sure, you'll look better by comparison, but you really aren't any better. And the reduced challenge could cause you to get worse. I can see leaving the PCGS Registry because you think it's second rate, but not over this variety issue. However, to each his own. You must decide what helps you enjoy collecting and follow that star. My posts are not intended to knock you - I'm just expressing how I feel, and suggesting that, perhaps, PCGS heard from a lot of people like me in their survey.
Having said all that, I still do not think that those of you who are upset with this decision should "pick up your coins and leave the registry". If you truely don't like varieties, then just don't buy any. If the motivation of the registry for you is to compete, then buy the missing variety in a grade that fits your pocketbook.
As a Lincoln Cent collector, I will never have a 100% complete collection because I will never be driven to spend large sums of money on coins of the past thirty years, minted in the billions which then need to be slabbed. I have those coins raw and am perfectly happy.
Bottom line is that the Registry is what each collector wants it to be. Those who have the money and want to be number 1 can do it. That's fine. I can enjoy my participation as I wish also. So can each and everyone else. Good luck.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Thanks...
Linked here.
Keith
The Registry Set premise and being a top contender IS SUPPOSED TO BE HARD, VERY HARD, AND A VERY EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING PROPOSITION. If it was easy and any casual collector on a budget could rank even anywhere near the top on many of the tougher classic series, it would lose all of its appeal, respect, prestige and challenge.
Assembling a top notch, world class set of Buffalos, Morgans, Saints, Mercs, or any other classic series is SUPPOSED to take many years and cost 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars, sometimes in the millions, and few people have the patience or financial resources to complete such a set, that the way it is, and should be IMO. That should NOT however discourage anyone from working on the very best set they can do, nor discourage anyone because of minor changes in any sets composition or rules. The rules apply to everyone involved not any 1 individual.
Remember, if ANY 11 average Joe's could put on a uniform and beat the Rams or the Steelers, would you still want to watch pro football or have respect for it??
Dragon
Thanks for the link Keith, sounds like post-1980 coins get a bit more of a "free ride" as far as varieties, because they don't have to "prove themselves" in the Red Book.
So, looks good for the Goodacre especially since it's already recognized by PCGS, but bad for the 1972 Ike types since they're pre-1980, not in the Redbook, and not currently recognized by PCGS. But, they are clearly visible with the naked eye.
Hmm... sounds like some Ike lobbying is in order, though I think I'll wait for the current wave of suggestions to subside first.
09/07/2006
I appreciate your comments and do understand where you're coming from. I also sugggested two (or more) sets for the haves and the have-nots. I'll press on and get over it and I like your suggestion regarding the comments. With PCGS allowing Owner's Comments, I can now register my set's goals and my discomfort level with PCGS.
Dragon, we would ONLY expect you to tell us like it really is
Pat said that this raised the bar, separating the set collectors from those not really in to it. I say it lowered the bar and separated the haves from the have-nots. Only two collectors can now have a full red Lincoln set, thereby lowering the bar. Only the haves can afford those two cents, thereby separating collectors.
Ironically, it's the have-nots who pour more money into PCGS coffers trying to make these gems! In the end, I also think it's the have-nots who enjoy their gems more. I'm done rambling, thanks. Dave
Indian Head Eagle ($10) - Type 1: No Motto, With Period, Wire Edge (1907)
Indian Head Eagle ($10) - Type 2: No Motto, With Period, Rolled Edge (1907)
Standing Liberty Double Eagle ($20 St. Gaudens) - Type 1: High Relief (1907)
Not me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
09/07/2006
Always a risk of an optional coin becoming mandatory. Besides, it would certainly shake up the standings for a while. With a Type set, the problem of "variety" coins isn't as critical, but I would love to know when they are going to be weighted.
Keith
I think if you are in favor of PCGS adding all the variety coins to their sets in midstream,you have to be a coin dealer who will make more money selling PCGS coins.I don't think anyone else who thinks they are finished,or near finished with their set will be happy about this.
How many of you told PCGS NOT to add the Variety coins to the registry sets ?
I sure did.
I read the survey results,and it says :
4. Varieties. We will be adding major, traditionally collected varieties to the Registry. As a rule of thumb, look at the 1980 Redbook. If a variety is in the 1980 Redbook, we will probably add it. If it's not in the 1980 Redbook, we probably will not add it. For coins struck after 1980, the basic rule is that if it is a major variety that is easy to see with the naked eye we will probably add it. An example of what we will do is the Buffalo nickel set. We will add the 1918/7-D, 1937-D three legged Buffalo, and the 1938-D/S. We will keep the other Buffalo nickel varieties as optional. Note that we welcome your input on which varieties to add. Please let us know your opinions on your favorite sets.
Will we all have to go out and find a 1980 Redbook ?
In my 2001 Redbook, it lists about 18 Morgan Variety coins.I sure hope I don't have to go out and find 18 more coins that I have no interest in owning.
Flame suit on
Larry
POB 854
Temecula CA 92593
310-541-7222 office
310-710-2869 cell
www.LSRarecoins.com
Larry@LSRarecoins.com
PCGS Las Vegas June 24-26
Baltimore July 14-17
Chicago August 11-15
The reasons for people to leave the Registry is that it appears to be the only way to get PCGS to listen. While I won't stop collecting, why should I spend any time pursuing an endeavor that I can't, or refuse to, complete. If my set will never be complete why participate in the Registry. I can still get enjoyment out of my collection, but the competition brought on by the Registry becomes less meaningful if not meaningless.
So, if those of us who don't agree with some of the rules, why waste our time and participate. But with fewer of us participating, then my opinion is that the Registry becomes less meaningful and less competively worthwhile. Not all participants who compete are arguing about it because of the dollars involved. I just want to see more participation not less. 1870 sets in the registry, particularly when I have about 15 sets registered, is not a lot of sets. Diluting the participation will make THE Registry less of a marketing vehicle for PCGS.
So, after this diatribe, I plan on joining Spooly and making one fine plea to David Hall (probably on deft ears), but I would encourage all of those who agree that PCGS is making a mistake by including varieties, I urge you to send a note to Mr. Hall and if we are ignored then let's let the issue die and either accept it and participate or reject it and not.
I'll probably participate regardless, but my enthusiasm is waning.
That is really what bugs some of us. I sure do like being complete. When I got there with the proof Jeffs it felt great. But then what? I started another set. So really no matter what PCGS says I'll never be complete as long as I continue collecting
So I agree with blato1. And I told PCGS that I don't feel strongly but wouldn't mind if varities were added.
Mr. Hall are we listening??????????????????????????
09/07/2006
Imagine having to also include the 3 legged buffalo, 1955 DD Lincoln, and so on and so on the type sets would just keep on growing.
As it is there are already too many Kennedy's and Ike's in the 1900 to present set. There should be only 2 Kennedy's and 2 Ikes. Just the design changes you do not really need the silver and clad, do you?
I could go on and on but we have been through it all before.
Stop the MADNESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe they should create one huge VARIETY/TYPE set and include only and all the VARIETY/TYPES in there and leave the other sets alone.
09/07/2006
Varieties (non type sets) - they should be considered as optional and given bonus points, that way I, little fish, could complete a set and all the big fish could fight for the top 5.
Varieties (type sets) - for that matter, type sets in general. I have no clue how these sets are going to be weighted/rated, therefore, no comment.
Also, since most of the discuss on this thread has been on varieties I have started another thread to discuss the other points of the survey (please take a look and discuss).
Thanks,
Larry
20th C. Type Set
1976 Proof Set