I am shocked and appalled! (Not a new topic)
iras4
Posts: 300
Just wanted to attract the attention of HRH, BJ Searles, and any others who made the decision to unfairly devalue all the 1909-1958 Lincoln sets with major varietes! What's next on the hatchet list? 1936 DDOs, 1917 DDOs, 1909 VDB DDO? Why not eliminate the 1943 D/D, 1944 D/S?
By eliminating the 1941 DDO and adding the 1958 DDO the decision makers just eliminated all but one or two folks from EVER completing this Registry set! With only two and MAYBE three of the 1958 DDO, how many can EVER complete the set unless they already have one? I've seen Stewart's coin, and it has strong obverse doubling. But since there are only two (possibly 3) of that coin, why weren't any of the 1943 bronze cents added. After all, there are SIX of them already certified by PCGS, making them two or three times as common as the '58 DDO. Moreover, the 58 DDO is only a two point coin! It would add only about .004 point to the ranking of any set in the major varieties category, whereas the 1941 DDO is a 6 point coin. By the change that was just made, you all have demoralized EVERY collector of the major variety set. Every Registry participant save one or two was not only devalued point-wise and $$ value-wise in their set, but you may have just removed any incentive for these collectors to try to improve their sets.
It really wasn't fair, and moreover, it was patently UNFAIR. I hope the decision to make these changes is rescinded. It just wasn't the right thing to do.
Ira Stein
Lincoln Cent dealer (among other things)
By eliminating the 1941 DDO and adding the 1958 DDO the decision makers just eliminated all but one or two folks from EVER completing this Registry set! With only two and MAYBE three of the 1958 DDO, how many can EVER complete the set unless they already have one? I've seen Stewart's coin, and it has strong obverse doubling. But since there are only two (possibly 3) of that coin, why weren't any of the 1943 bronze cents added. After all, there are SIX of them already certified by PCGS, making them two or three times as common as the '58 DDO. Moreover, the 58 DDO is only a two point coin! It would add only about .004 point to the ranking of any set in the major varieties category, whereas the 1941 DDO is a 6 point coin. By the change that was just made, you all have demoralized EVERY collector of the major variety set. Every Registry participant save one or two was not only devalued point-wise and $$ value-wise in their set, but you may have just removed any incentive for these collectors to try to improve their sets.
It really wasn't fair, and moreover, it was patently UNFAIR. I hope the decision to make these changes is rescinded. It just wasn't the right thing to do.
Ira Stein
Lincoln Cent dealer (among other things)
Dealer/old-time collector
0
Comments
I did notice the 1958 DDO only carries a weight of 2, the same as a 1954 Lincoln. Shouldn't the DDO carry a much higher weight, like a 10?
RegistryNut
I can't believe that they intentionally "decided to devalue the sets".
I mean, what, they were sitting around one day and said, "hey, let's devalue the sets" and then decided that removing the 41DDO's was the way to do it?
"Hatchet list"? Take a deep breath there big guy.
..."you all have demoralized EVERY collector of the major variety set. Every Registry participant save one or two was not only devalued point-wise and $$ value-wise in their set, but you may have just removed any incentive for these collectors to try to improve their sets...It really wasn't fair, and moreover, it was patently UNFAIR"
Oh Lordy, the chit is flyin' again! Ira, I think you recklessly over generalize in the statement above (but perhaps if only stated that way out of poetic justice to make a point I certainly understand it).
You get shocked and appalled quite often & no, THAT is CERTAINLY NOT a new topic.
Seriously though, I agree (although slightly less fervently since I don't have enough in inventory to care much about any possible devaluation) in principle to what you say. It was a BAD move & one I am completely opposed to!
I'm still hoping that this has to be some clerical error - and NOT a case of some monumentally uninformed poor judgement.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
On the one hand, PCGS is handling this situation in a consistent manner across all series - that is obviously a fair way of handling things.
On the other hand, I always thought the "rule of 5" was a very fair rule (which I believe was in existence for at least the first 5 or 6 years of the registry).
I would personally like to see PCGS go back to the rule of 5 as I believe it is a very fair rule, which allows collectors to wait for a 3rd or 4th or 5th example of a coin to be graded before having to consider paying "ransom money" for the first or second one graded (and my comment pertains mainly to modern coins with newly discovered "major" varieties). On the other hand, I can understand PCGS' viewpoint that a coin like the 1958 DDO deserve a place in the registry as it is one of the truly major varieties of the series.
Wondercoin
their opinion is that none have been found in circulation - just a couple brought home with a mint emploee
reminds me if the 1913 Liberty nickel with 5 known
Is there notice ANYWHERE now that you can have your pictures "TRUVIEWED" for a fee? and what that fee is? And there are so many other things that PCGS sets in place but does not communicate about. I think it is part of the way they do business. I'm not complaining, but most of the so called "rules" I hear about are communicated here on THESE forums by members or occassionally by the President rather than in some official place within the PCGS website. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Thank you Ira! Now where the heck is Stewart!!!!
WS
<< <i>THIS is what I have been complaining about for years! I was even going to VOLUNTEER to be their Public Relations person because they do not put ENOUGH effort into this side of the business and they surely can not expect BJ to do it while trying to do everything else. David, Willis, in case no one ever told you -- most coin collectors are whack jobs and need special attention, and I am not talking about the just the rich ones. Can we get some transparency, some written decisions on who, how and why coins were added or deleted or some committees to at least do the work for you! There is one standing rule, you can cal BJ if you have a suggestion or issue with the registry. She will make the effort to get back to you. But after she hangs up, its just one big mysterious event as to what happens next.
Thank you Ira! Now where the heck is Stewart!!!!
WS >>
WS
The Presidential dollar registry collectors pushed all of the weak edge and partial edge coins to the complete set.
The Major Dollar Varieties are "Missing Edge" Doubled Edge" and that is it.
This was all based on an email vote sent out by PCGS.
So, maybe some voting from the Lincoln cent registry collectors is in order here.
On what is a MAJOR variety and what variety should be a MINOR variety and only be in the complete variety set.
IMHO
Gardnerville, NV
=========================
Our Website -->Innovation, Native & Presidential Dollar Errors, Lincoln Cents and more
Check it out --> Our eBay Auctions
Some would assert that the TRUE issue at hand borders on fraudulent misrepresentation for representing for years that a particular coin is required in a particular registry set, knowing (or should have known) that collectors relied on the representation and the absence of any representation to the contrary that a previously required coin would be summarily pulled from inclusion in a particular set without ANY notice OR input from the very collectors that not only relied on the afformentioned representation (now to their apparent financial detriment) but moreso enriched the representer in the process!
On the other hand, ch*t happens so buy the coin and not the registry slot it fills.
Unfortunately, it appears that CAVEAT EMPTOR (not only is alive & well but) prevails in Newport Beach.
Since the sets have been going for some time now and then a coin is just pulled for no reason that anyone knows of.....
That stinks !!
I think complaints can continue but, the true way to fix this is come up with a Basic criteria for what is MAJOR and what will be MINOR as far as the sets will go.
The top Lincoln registry participants could have some pull as well......
Then get the registry participants to vote on it....
Goodluck.
Sorry to those with 1941 DDO's
Gardnerville, NV
=========================
Our Website -->Innovation, Native & Presidential Dollar Errors, Lincoln Cents and more
Check it out --> Our eBay Auctions
IMO, the handling of the registry sets is getting a little (fill in the blank) in that, as mentioned above, a lot of individual coins are being added as "required" and some coins are being dropped without notice. My feeling is that once a coin is in a registry set, it should be a permanent member with no discussion! I also feel that, since the registry is open to literally anybody as an incentive to collect and get coins graded, that the goals for each set should be realistic.
As for the Presidential Dollar Registry's (which I fully believe is the precedent setting set) nearly EVERY variety coin in those "Complete Variety Sets" is not truely a variety but in fact (as stated on the PCGS Label) a Mint Error! Partial Edge Lettering, Weak Edge Lettering? Whats up with that?? No other registry set allows folks to add Mint Error's. Mint Error's should either have their own registry status or simply not be allowed in a registry set! There are just too many variances to contend with.
Perhaps new registry sets should be compiled to include these ultra rare coins like they did with the Liberty Nickel Sets?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>For the true Obsessive Compulsive collector, being denied the opportunity to fully complete a registry set can be very unsettling and downright painful. I don't think there is anything worse than to stare at a particular set, knowing full well that you will never, ever complete it! In realizing this, some collectors simply abandon the concept and move on to something they can complete. We are definitely a weird bunch but the needs are simple.
IMO, the handling of the registry sets is getting a little (fill in the blank) in that, as mentioned above, a lot of individual coins are being added as "required" and some coins are being dropped without notice. My feeling is that once a coin is in a registry set, it should be a permanent member with no discussion! I also feel that, since the registry is open to literally anybody as an incentive to collect and get coins graded, that the goals for each set should be realistic.
As for the Presidential Dollar Registry's (which I fully believe is the precedent setting set) nearly EVERY variety coin in those "Complete Variety Sets" is not truely a variety but in fact (as stated on the PCGS Label) a Mint Error! Partial Edge Lettering, Weak Edge Lettering? Whats up with that?? No other registry set allows folks to add Mint Error's. Mint Error's should either have their own registry status or simply not be allowed in a registry set! There are just too many variances to contend with.
Perhaps new registry sets should be compiled to include these ultra rare coins like they did with the Liberty Nickel Sets? >>
Lee,
I have to take issue with the fact that a DDO or DDR ect are mint errors by definition as well. It is PCGS that has decided for I believe a monetary reason to keep placing "Mint Error" on the top of the labels. It costs more to grade an Error versus a variety.
I do realize this is a topic that is near and dear to your heart. J/K
Talk about lots of coins. Look at the complete Lincoln cent registry set. It has a lot of varieties in it as well. I did notice the State Quarter complete variety set has LOTS of the same variety but, with the different die states required.
Let's face it. The Complete sets are virtually impossible to complete, but the Major sets are tough but for the most parts are attainable.
Gardnerville, NV
=========================
Our Website -->Innovation, Native & Presidential Dollar Errors, Lincoln Cents and more
Check it out --> Our eBay Auctions
<< <i>
Let's face it. The Complete sets are virtually impossible to complete, but the Major sets are tough but for the most parts are attainable.
.............., but the Major sets are tough but SHOULD BE ATTAINABLE. That to me is the key. In the Lincoln series, Major Varieties like the 1922 no D Strong Reverse, 1955 Doubled Die and even rather inexpensive Major Varieties like the 1960 small dates and 1970 small date are ALL fairly available based on the PCGS pop reports. Rarities like the 1958 DD and even the 1969 DD should NOT be in the Major Varieties grouping. To my mind, it is NOT about the price of the coin. It is about the availability of the coin. I know it is important to me to have a COMPLETE set of coins I choose to collect. If I KNOW it is not possible to get a complete set solely because there are very few available in the market place, and the coin is considered a Major Variety, not part of a BASIC set by date & mintmark, then I would be very upset as I am now.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
WS
Not sure I get it though. Even if there are only 2 or 3 coins out there, why not have them be part of the COMPLETE set, surely the owners of those coins deserve to put them in the set. I guess if it's just having them be a major variety that makes sense. I can't imagine any coin being a MAJOR variety if only 2-3 are known. Surely it would be an important variety, but not major!!! Not sure what the added benefits are by reaching 100% anyways (I'm new to the Registry so don't beat me up!!).
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
WS
Please explain the "two or three are known"?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I don't know why I didn't check the pops before but I'm seeing that PCGS has graded 61 1958 DDO coins.
Please explain the "two or three are known"? >>
That's an error in the population report. There are two MS-64 Rds (assuming the two 64 Rds don't reflect a crackout and resubmission) and one Ms-65 Rd (the Blay coin).
Ira
<< <i>
Please explain the "two or three are known"? >>
That's an error in the population report. There are two MS-64 Rds (assuming the two 64 Rds don't reflect a crackout and resubmission) and one Ms-65 Rd (the Blay coin).
Ira >>
Ira & others,
It seems to me that we AGAIN need to be patient and let PCGS correct their information which may be in error. It sure would be nice if they issued a statement ON THEIR MAIN HOME PAGE to let us all know what they are doing and WHY.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't know why I didn't check the pops before but I'm seeing that PCGS has graded 61 1958 DDO coins.
Please explain the "two or three are known"? >>
That's an error in the population report. There are two MS-64 Rds (assuming the two 64 Rds don't reflect a crackout and resubmission) and one Ms-65 Rd (the Blay coin).
Ira >>
After checking the registry What If status, I can clearly see this. Something is screwed up and perhaps this error is what prompted the addition of this ultra rare coin to the Major Varieties Set?
The name is LEE!
I'm thinking the same. Suppose BJ tells some IT guy to list all the variety pops by quantity graded for the purpose of determining what coins should be Major and what coins should be Minor. Suppose also that the IT guys somehow screw up the pop reports in the process. They don't know the difference between the 1941 DDO Lincoln and the 1958 DDO Lincoln. Suppose those two dates got mixed and someone says, "hey" we need to drop the 1941 DDO from the Major varieties because there are only 3 graded and it wouldn't be fair to include it. IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED! Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
This issue was posted on the main forum thanks to Ira, and if nothing is done in a another week, the whole post will be printed and mailed by me.
WS
<< <i>Lee,
I'm thinking the same. Suppose BJ tells some IT guy to list all the variety pops by quantity graded for the purpose of determining what coins should be Major and what coins should be Minor. Suppose also that the IT guys somehow screw up the pop reports in the process. They don't know the difference between the 1941 DDO Lincoln and the 1958 DDO Lincoln. Suppose those two dates got mixed and someone says, "hey" we need to drop the 1941 DDO from the Major varieties because there are only 3 graded and it wouldn't be fair to include it. IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED! Steve
Actually Steve, that's a very plausible scenario.That makes sense. Otherwise, to drop a coin that's clearly a doubled die with about 60 or 70 examples graded by PCGS (IIRC) and substitute a coin with only three examples graded by PCGS makes absolutely no sense at all.
I'm out of the country now, but I intend to call Don Willis when I'm back next week. I'll bet no one in authority has read any of the posts on this topic.
Ira
<< <i>Lee,
I'm thinking the same. Suppose BJ tells some IT guy to list all the variety pops by quantity graded for the purpose of determining what coins should be Major and what coins should be Minor. Suppose also that the IT guys somehow screw up the pop reports in the process. They don't know the difference between the 1941 DDO Lincoln and the 1958 DDO Lincoln. Suppose those two dates got mixed and someone says, "hey" we need to drop the 1941 DDO from the Major varieties because there are only 3 graded and it wouldn't be fair to include it. IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED! Steve
Hmmmm, If folks are referring to the 1941 DDO (FS-018)(Coin #37779), then the current pops for that coin exactly match what was reported for the actual 1958 DDO? (Trying not to get into trouble here!)
If they are referring to the generic 1941 DDO (Coin #92694) then the pops show a total of 51 graded.
The name is LEE!
The experts at PCGS have determined that the 1941 DDO is not a major variety and that is why this item no longer required. Please refer to the PCGS Set Registry News page posts beginning 6/3/09, informing members that changes would be happening, and follow-up postings as sets are updated. http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/news.html
Here is the news post on PCGS's website
The PCGS Set Registry is a work-in-progress. Each year new issues are added, important varieties are discovered, and collectors/experts/dealers lobby for the inclusion of coins of varying merit. In the past couple of weeks, all of the sets in the PCGS Registry have undergone a review to make sure that the appropriate coins are included or not. Part of the impetus for the review was an overhaul of the PCGS Numbering System with an eye to facilitating roll-ups and pull-downs within the PCGS Population Report, the PCGS Price Guide and PCGS CoinFacts. Establishing proper parent-child relationships ensures that all date and mintmark combinations include the correct underlying populations of major varieties, minor varieties, and die varieties.
For example, the 1878 Morgan Dollar contains both Weak and Strong versions of the 7/8 Tail Feathers reverse. For Population Report purposes, adding the Weak version to the Strong version overstates the population of the 7/8TF population. Thus, it is more appropriate to place the population of the Weak 7/8TF under the 1878 Reverse of 1879 Morgan Dollar. For PCGS Set Registry purposes, this will result in the removal of the Weak 7/8TF from the Morgan Dollars "With Varieties" set. Another example is the 1911-D Indian head Quarter Eagle, where the Weak D is no longer considered a "major" variety and, thus, will be removed from the appropriate Registry Sets.
In other instances, new discoveries of major varieties mean that some sets have been expanded (examples include the Close and Wide AM varieties of modern Lincoln Cents). Fortunately, the PCGS Set Registry is both powerful enough and flexible enough to accommodate these changes. The PCGS Set Registry has always been a reflection of the most popular ways in which coins are collected; in many cases, the Registry has lead the way. Most importantly, the goal of the PCGS Set Registry has been to make collecting coins more understandable, enjoyable, and fun.
WS