Poll: Yes, PCGS is listening in regard to varieties - please respond.

solid

Let me first say that I did not get my survey mailed back in time, so I
have no room to complain about PCGS's ultimate decision in the matter. I
had every intention of responding, and even started writing my comments,
but had several pressing deadlines and did not get it finished.

I did, however, feel compelled to write David Hall regarding the idea I
presented in a thread here awhile back. He replied, saying that he
"loved the idea" and asked if I would "take the pulse" of the board
members to see if this is a workable solution to the Great Variety Debate.

Basically, the idea I presented was that a collection would be listed as
100% complete once it contained an example of each date/mintmark that
the mint purposely intended for distribution. Those collectors
that included any/all of the PCGS-recognized varieties could attain sets
that would be listed as more than 100% complete.

For example, given a theoretical 100-coin set with 10 recognized varieties,
a collector who has all 110 coins grading MS67 would achieve a total set
score of 73.70 (average grade of 67 x 110% complete). This seems to be in
line with the thinking that an individual coin can score more than 70 once
the bonus points are factored in.

I would assume that some varieties would be weighted higher than others
based on their rarity, value, etc.

I believe this approach of scoring varieties would acheive the following:

1) Each collector can decide for themselves which coins constitute a
complete set. If you choose only to collect the traditional date/mintmark
coins, your set will be shown as 100% complete once you achieve that goal.

2) This will totally avoid the endless debates regarding which varieties
should/should not be made mandatory, who makes that decision, and what the
motivation is for requiring certain coins.

3) Those collectors that choose to go the extra mile and include varieties
in their set will be recognized and rewarded for their efforts.

4) This also gives special recognition to top collections in certain cases.
For example, in the MS Jefferson nickel 1938-64 registry, The Corso Collection
is listed as the #1 set. Frank recently purchased a 1964 SMS MS68FS coin for
his set. My guess is that this coin would not be made mandatory under the
current guidelines since only a handful are known to exist. With the system
I proposed, he would get rightful recognition for including this super coin
since it is a PCGS-recognized variety.


In practice, using this sytem of scoring, all of the top sets will include
varieties and will consequently achieve higher total set points.

Collectors who choose not to include varieties may only be ranked 5th or 10th
or 20th, but their sets will be shown as 100% complete (thus achieving their
personal goal).

I welcome your comments here, and will email them to David Hall once this
thread drops off the front page. I have also included a poll in an attempt
to summarize the opinions presented.

I would also like to thank David Hall for considering additional options in
regards to the registry. I feel that PCGS is listening and truly wants to
make the registry work for everyone.

Thanks,

Ken Claypool

(edited to include the following)

A couple weeks ago I posted a mockup web-page showing how sets could be listed
with and without varieties. I have included it again here with some modification.

Note that you can now sort the rankings by the Standard Set or by the Extended Set.

Try it Here!

Mr. Green, who has no interest in varieties (but does have the finest standard
set), can click to sort the rankings by the standard set and see his set at the top
of the list!

I have no idea if PCGS would list the sets in this manner. I am just attempting to show how it could be listed, and that anything is possible through proper programming!

kranky

That's a fine idea. Credit for those who want to include varieties, no penalty for those who don't.

python1

This is exactly what I ask David Hall to do for all of us, in an email I sent yesterday, I still have not recieved a response from him, but it sounds like he is in favor of this according to your discussion with him, this is great!
Great minds think alike.

cosmicdebris

Absolutely Fabulous Idea.

keoj

Like the idea and the compromise. Just one question, did he say that recognizable varities are out of the '80 Redbook or that he was going to use something else like F&S?

keoj

dldallen

To me that is a good compromise. It is a win-win situation for everyone.

My initial response from PCGS was not as candid and did not appear to address a compromise position as you depict ( and us others stated in our responses) here. Perhaps the voices are being heard now. Not sure why they weren't before. But if this compromise can come to fruition, I'm all for it. Dave

solid

keoj,

We had no further discussion regarding which varieties would be included. My
letter simply mentioned "PCGS-recognized varieties".

Thanks all - keep those replies coming!

Ken

clevegreg

Great idea Ken ! I think that would satisfy most folks and reward those who wish to stretch the envelope.

Greg

CarlWohlforth

Sounds good to me.

Popcoin

I think this is a great concept, all varieties optional with bonus points. I agree totally.

How would this affect the type sets? 1921 HR Peace, SLQ's. etc.

Larry

blato1

I have no problem with this approach, and can support it if it makes the Registry more fun for everyone.

keithdagen

Larry,

Have a feeling it would not affect the Type sets. Varieties really only affect the series sets.

Solid,

Great idea. Would be a definite compromise, but PCGS would have to change the weightings on the varieties a little. Most of the Washingtons are weighted so heavily that by adding those four coins, your set would be 150% complete.

Keith

Flash

That sounds like a very good compromise to the varieties debate. I support it.

Gerry

Ken:

I’d like to emphasize one point: Your interesting and thoughtful suggestion is simply a way of reporting the set completion statistic in a different way.

However, as you imply in the latter part of your post, the rankings of sets would be NO different than if varieties were included in the overall calculations, as has been PCGS’s plan up to this point.

So, sets with varieties will almost always tend to tbe ranked higher, even if they are of significantly lesser quality overall.

As far as rankings go, the registry will emphasize completeness as much as ever, and the definition of completeness for a set will include the varieties.

Also, a question: if PCGS were to adopt your reporting system would they still restrict the sets to major varieties? It seems to me they should. Or, would they allow all varieties (that they recognize) to be eligible for these “bonus” points?

oreville

I am not sure about this one.... I do not like the idea of a set going above a 69.99 or rather a 67.00 when all of the coins are MS-67. I even have difficult accepting anything above a 67.00 but perhaps we can use the asterisk like Roger Maris had for so many years * after the grade and no extra credit for varieties OR the following:

I would say the following...make a set with a dual grade. One for the mainstay coins within a series and a second for the variety coins. I do want to see the distinction between the two.

Preferably I would like to see two classes of series sets. One without varieties and the other WITH varities. The owner of a set with varieies gets to be in either class he chooses but in the non-variety set class he does not get penalized for not having any or all the varieties and then when he wants to shift to the more exotic (to some) with varities category he will get penalized for not having all the varieties. Otherwise we will distort the meaning of the numerical score such as a 73.44 when no coins exceeded MS-67.

robbnsc

Yes, I do believe that Collector's Com is listening to us. The idea of making rare and costly varieties optional is a good thought. However, I feel that it is comparing apples against oranges to have all sets graded on one forum. This gives wealthy collectors an advantage over collectors (who said life was fair). Maybe these collectors ahould have a venue where they compete against other high spending collectors?

Also, in my respose to David, I mentioned using a ten point logarithmec scale, instead of a value sale. How is this scalar measurment system going to work. I suspect that there is a low (less than you would think) correlation between absolute cost and rarity. Cost difference is greatly skewed by set popularity, much more than the scarcity logarithmic scale.

Perhaps you can not answer this question and will have to defer it to someone at Collectors.com. Thanks for paying attention to us little guys.
Charlie

keoj

Oreville:

I think that the dual grade is a good suggestion. It always bothered me in college when people had a 4.2 average when 4.00 is what you strive for. (Unfortunately, I was not the 4.2 person)Dual grades would allow for everyone to orient their collection the way that they want to.

Good work.

keoj

Gerry

Here is a variation on Ken’s idea, and maybe a simplification: Don't change calculation procedures at all. Where sets are listed, show ratings and rankings SEPARATELY for the Current Finest (Including Varieties) and for the Current Finest (Excluding Varieties). Ditto for All-Time Finest, if that’s important. Then someone could rank high on the one basis even if he/she didn’t rank high on the other.

I don’t want to divert this thread to another topic, but is keeping the All-Time Finest list important to most of you? As has been pointed out, there are redundancy problems with the concept once a set is sold.

mansco

Solid,

Like I said in one of your threads, it's what i had proposed but thought you articulated it better. It's what I responded to David Hall with when I returned my survey. It's a SOLID idea. It should make everyone happy. I hope Chairman David and the others at PCGS listen to you and implement.

Mansco

merz2

I must admit that your idea is the best I've seen so far.Simple yet effective.Kudo's and I hope it is adopted.

NIckelCollector

Ken:

I really like your recommendation. My response back to PCGS was similar. Since Jeffersons probably have over 15 – 20 collectible varieties, I suggested a separate Jefferson variety set. This would enable some to collect the Jefferson circulation strikes and other to collect the varieties only, or both. I further recommended an overall weighting for the entire series, similar to your proposal (110%). Your proposal is much simpler. Great idea!!!


Frank

dpoole

Constructive thread and creative ideas. This is the Board at it's best!

solid

Thanks to everyone for your replies and voting in the poll. I will email these
results to David Hall over the weekend.

Obviously, no ranking system is going to be perfect. I suggested this method
as a possible compromise that might appeal to a broader number of participants.

The weighting/scoring of varieties would need to be worked out so that a
reasonable result is achieved. You certainly would not want to see a set of MS63
coins with a few varieties thrown in outranking a set of MS67's without varieties.

A couple weeks ago I posted a mockup web-page showing how sets could be listed
with and without varieties. I have included it again here with some modification.

Note that you can now sort the rankings by the Standard Set or by the Extended Set.

Try it Here!

Mr. Green, who has no interest in varieties (but does have the finest standard
set), can click to sort the rankings by the standard set and see his set at the top
of the list!

Ken