My own one coin wonder set.

CarlWohlforth · February 5, 2002 11:25PM

I added a 1956 Jefferson nickel to the NGC Proof Jefferson Registry. It is a pop 3 coin. It was graded PR 68 DCAM by PCGS. Now I am #1 in that catagory.

If anybody passes me up I have 4 more very low pop coins to add so this is another "test" set.

Does this change my mind? Nope. I still think a complete set should beat my one expensive coin.

wondercoin · February 6, 2002 12:06AM

"Does this change my mind? Nope. I still think a complete set should beat my one expensive coin."

Carl: Answer this question (yes or no would be preferred): "should a complete set of low grade coins (many not even worth the grading fee paid to grade them) beat out a one coin wonder"?

Wondercoin.

CarlWohlforth · February 6, 2002 1:05AM

Yes.

Spooly · February 6, 2002 2:43AM

Let's see... A collector spends years making a real "set of coins" vs someone who buys "one" coin and calls it a "set". ???

I don't think this will ever get worked out until NGC makes a statement. But hey... it's NGC's program... so it's their call. But from what I hear.... NGC is looking into changing the system to stop the "one" coin "sets".

You go Carl... I find it neat that a collector with all those rare low pop coins is speaking out!

pop1 · February 6, 2002 3:05AM

I guess it's time for me to "speak out", however, I've said a lot, but only to create discussion.
Personally, I'm just going with the "system" as currently in place at ngc. I find quite interesting, their weighting characteristics, and everyone's responses.
Do I think a "one coin set" should outweigh a full set?
I guess the answer is; it depends on what that one coin is, and the weight given to it by ngc.
Perhaps, if and when ngc changes its policies, we'll get an explanation, and a better understanding of their system.

wondercoin · February 6, 2002 3:17AM

"Let's see... A collector spends years making a real "set of coins" vs someone who buys "one" coin and calls it a "set". ???"

For the 100th time, the Registry honors and recognizes great coins, not great collectors. It doesn't matter if the collector spent 50 years and built the complete set of MS63 Roosies from the cash register at his dad's 5&10. It matters little when the end result is a collection of common coins, not worth the grading fee.

I'm also tired of folks trying to paint this as "the haves" and the "have-nots". The "rich" vs. "poor". How rediculous.

Bottom line is if collectors want to make the Registry like the annual family picnic with the sets being viewed like the family pictures being passed around (everyone going "goo-goo, ga-ga" over whatever they are shown, like an MS63 set of Roosies), that's fine. Those collectors will only be cheating themselves in the long run imho. And, the Registry will likely be viewed by many as nothing but a joke. For me personally, I could care less-there is always tons more junk to sell than great coins, as collectors work to "complete" a set of low grade coins for the highest possible rank

Wondercoin.

FullSteps · February 6, 2002 3:44AM

I would love to see a PCGS write-up where they are featuring the alltime finest set of X and X consists of 1 coin when the sets behind it are 99-100% complete of every date/mint. This would be seen as a joke and a slap in the face of those assembling a full set.

Perhaps a registry subset category is in order called Wonder Coins where individuals list their all-around finest single coin for people to ooh and aah over. Examples (1804 dollar, 1913 Liberty nickel, 1933 Saint).

Tim

Cocoinut · February 6, 2002 4:09AM

I have to disagree with Mitch, or at least with the example he uses. A set that can be assembled as easily as MS63 Roosies will never have a shot at the top position; the competition will beat it quite handily. Try using that logic on a more difficult set, say Barber quarters. Should a person that has a single monster MS68 1901-S (and nothing else) be rated higher than someone who has a complete set in MS64, except for the 1896-S, 1901-S, and 1913-S??? NO!! Because no matter how you cut it, a single coin is NOT A SET. Other board members have advocated a minimum percentage completion to be considered for a registry set. I don't think there should be a minimum to enter the set, but there SHOULD be a minimum for the set to be ranked in the Top 5. It would indicate some degree of commitment to actually work towrd completing the set, and not just that a person has a single pop 1 coin. Besides, anyone who can afford a pop 1 coin can certainly purchase the more common ones. Under the current PCGS rules, this should never be an issue, given that the rarest coin in a series is given the weight of 10x a common date.

Jim

braddick · February 6, 2002 7:49AM

Jim, So that Collector who has that one killer pop 01 coin must now be required to buy a certain amount of filler coins (in that series) before being 'allowed' to enter the top five?
Why not just simply award the COIN? Why all the false props to bolster a set?
Remember too, using that example of a 1901-S in MS68 against a full set in MS64- I don't think then that one MS68 would be #1. The weighing rewards greatly that MS68 coin, but there comes a point toward completion when that set of MS64 Barbers will dominate.
Let's just not petition to make that point falsely lower than it is now just to ease the tension or frustration of the #2 set holder.

Spooly · February 6, 2002 7:55AM

Right now the PCGS ranking system is right on! It rewards the low pop coins, but not SO MUCH so that one coin can out rank a complete set.

Mitch are saying that the PCGS system is a "joke"?

KoinKollector · February 6, 2002 7:59AM

PCGS "SET" REGISTRY
It isnt PCGS "COIN" REGISTRY. Its not about COLLECTORS but COLLECTIONS
Sorry for you there isnt much money with thoes "MS63 roosies". Id bet my bottom dollar tho, if you could turn a few $$$ all the sudden they'd matter that much more.

khayse · February 6, 2002 9:48AM

Q. Why won't PCGS let you pedigree a one coin "set".

A. Because it's not a set.

-Keith H

braddick · February 6, 2002 11:18AM

Keith- be fair. PCGS also won't let you Pedigree two coins, or three coins, or four--- in a set. The set must be almost finished before a Pedigree is considered. It isn't PCGS's statement against a 'one coin set'.

What is the majority opinion now? Maybe this should be revisited: Should a set that has only one coin (or two, or three---) be allowed to be registered? Should it be 30% complete (my original suggestion), or 40%? Maybe 10%? -Then we're back on the one or two coin track with some of the smaller sets.
Opinions?

My own one coin wonder set.

Comments