A letter to Ira re: changes in 1909-1958 Registry w/major varieties

iras4

In the past several days, I received several e-mails and phone calls from customers regarding the changes to the aforementioned Registry set with varieties. None were happy and all felt betrayed. I got permission from one of these customers to publish his letter here on the Forum as long as I maintained his anonymity. Here is a copy of the correspondence. I hope the powers that be actually read this. Please excuse the formatting.



I must say that I'm very unhappy with Hall/PCGS and this most recent idiotic
move. First he/they revalue the PCGS price guide with no real basis and now
he/they alter the major variety set to include the 58DDO. Since when is the
58DDO a "major" variety any more so than the 1913 Liberty Nickel is a
regular strike and belongs in that set. Blay and Irwin have to be happy but
as far as I can tell, they are the only ones (aside from the potential for
Lukes.) This move has to hurt them and demonstrates that these few people
have too much power in determining the value of my coins. It also pretty
much lays waste to the value of the registry - why would anyone choose to
play a game that there is realistically no chance of completing and/or
winning.

In all honesty, I need to re-evaluate whether I want to keep playing this
game with PCGS controlling it as they have. They are not the quality people
that I believed and they purport themselves to be. My first thought is to
get out of Dodge if I could so for my investment before Hall and PCGS
totally blow the market away. Looks like they have a good start on that and
there surely will be many repercussions by other current and potential
registry members.

I did have a chance to see your very appropriate post and the responses to it on the message boards this evening. It seems that just a few got your message. If one of their motives in establishing the PCGS registry was to increase revenue, how will discouraging existing and future participants help them? What is PCGS's responsibility to the vast majority of existing variety set holders who joined with the expectation that they could (or in fact did) complete this set? The current set composition only allows three to do that now - the rest must certainly feel betrayed. How is that at all reasonable and fair to those of us who started under a different set composition, that composition now changed and dictated without input from or apparent regard to the consequences (financial and otherwise) to it's participants? What a blunder to make such a low pop coin (probably only known as a consequence of theft by mint employees and likely not a coin released through legitimate channels) part of variety registry especially when there are so many more reasonable candidates!

Ira, like it or not, the only way I can justify spending what I have on Lincoln's is the "reasonable" expectation that they will retain or exceed their value to my heirs. While money (and potential profit) isn't the motivation for collecting my coins, it sure does justify it. I can't believe that this recent PCGS action will not hurt them and will ultimately degrade the value of my set……..


I thought this letter really got to the heart of the issue, and I hope HRH and BJ re-evaluate the changes that have been made.

Ira Stein

WaterSport

I think this post needs to end up on the general forum as Hall and company do not lurk here much while I have seen quick responses to issues and questions on the general forum.

WS

RBinTex

I don't see the value add of including the part about Gerry or Stewart here.

RegistryNut

I must agree that Gerry and Stewart are not the issue here. The issue here is simple. PCGS determines what coins are major varieties, without any imput from the collectors who will acquire these coins. The 58 DDO is not a major variety, but the 41 DDO is. A knowledeable Lincoln collector should agree. The decision to add the 58 DDO and to eliminate the 41DDO is a very poor choice. I've always been very supportive of PCGS in the past 6 years. But, now I feel hostage to their amendments, and feel a dictatorship evolving. Set registry democracy is currently suspended, and that makes my Registry Sets less appealing to me. Listen to the masses and restore order quickly!

RegistryNut

WaterSport

Well said RegistryNut!

WS

ambro51

My feelings are that PCGS should handle the 58/58 exactly the way NGC handles the 1849-C open wreath gold dollar. With only four or five specimens known, it is a non competitive display coin in the registry.

illini420

<< <i> The 58 DDO is not a major variety, but the 41 DDO is. A knowledeable Lincoln collector should agree. RegistryNut >>



The Redbook seems to disagree. The 58 DDO is in the book but the 41 DDO isn't??

ambro51

And why isnt the 1909 VDB DDO 1 in the redbook (or is it, my last copy is from 1985)