Home PCGS Set Registry Forum

Why we need Weighted sets

My set now ties for # 1 in the 1950-1964 10c Proof set yet my set is not comparable with southwest collection or the two # 5 sets loaded with DCAM coins.link

Comments

  • SpoolySpooly Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭
    Hoytogle LOL! image Great point! The new system will fix it! Do you have a parachute? image
    Si vis pacem, para bellum

    In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
  • TomBTomB Posts: 21,346 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Better put it up on ebay now as "Tied Finest All-Time"! Who knows, you may make out like a bandit!image
    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • SpoolySpooly Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭
    Time to pack them up and send them to PCGS to get them Pedigreed FAST!! image It's good to see you have a sense of humor! Going from tied with 1st to last place.... well I am not sure if I could keep my sense of humor! image Just remember to "roll" on impact, no need to brake a leg! image
    Si vis pacem, para bellum

    In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
  • I should get them Pedigreed This example really shows the fault in the old system. The Southwest collection probably cost thousands as did the #5 sets. The highest single coin price I paid was $300.00

  • Good points. Any second now PCGS may catch up to the NGC registry and correct that.
    Numisnewb
  • Numisnewb,

    NGC has its faults as well. My Kennedy set gained almost 20 points today on the #1 Kennedy set at NGC. Why, I didn't upgrade, I only have 20% of the required coins to a 100% complete set, and mine are only a point or so better than that complete set. No one can explain to me why my set is so darn good, but gosh if the guy in number one won't sell me his for slightly more than mine costs.

    PCGS is working faster at getting the weighting going now that they have staved off the first major round of arguments on how to do it, and for some sets, have shown more than a token effort at making weighting fair.

    Keith
    Keith ™

  • Hoytogle: did you change your set or your position recently ?

    I haven't followed proof dimes but proof Jeffs from '38 to '64 have a deduction for non cameo coins. This was part of the old system. Perhaps this is a temporary error where they forgot to deduct for non cameo coins? Has it always been like this? I think the intention there was to do deductions for non cameo coins -- the other proof series from the '50s had a section describing deduction for non cameo coins.

    Anyway you would be far from last as there are many sets not even complete yet.
  • I added the 58 in 69CAM Yesterday before that I was at 68.40 for a few weeks. The score does seem high Hoyt
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,162 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes the sets need weighting, but the current system has a huge fault. As I've stated before, my MS68 1875-S (pop1 - one of only 2 MS68's for the series) adds 0.78 to my set rating and an AU58 1873CC (pop 100? Worth about $1500) would add 6.67. This is not right and cannot be fixed by simply adjusting the weights of the dates in general.

    I know PCGS wants to keep it simple, but this really should be fixed. Perhaps a "weight bonus" should be added for the highest grades in a series? For example, in trade dollars a weight bonus of 8 for the two MS68's, of 4 for the 6 MS67's and of 2 for the multiple MS66's. This would at least partially correct the above circumstance and would be as simple as the adders for cameo and deep cameo.

    For Bust dollars the weight adder might be as low as MS64, for modern proof coinage it might be all the way up at PF70. It would vary by series. Comments?
Sign In or Register to comment.