A letter to Ira: Changes in the Lincoln Cent Registry w/varieties
iras4
Posts: 300
I posted this yesterday in the Registry Set Forum but it was suggested it be posted here where HRH and BJ are more apt to see it.
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
-------------------------
Dealer/old-time collector
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
-------------------------
Dealer/old-time collector
Dealer/old-time collector
0
Comments
I'm sure it's got to be frustrating, but one of the downsides of letting other people decide for you what your collection should contain is that on occasion, they are going to decide on things you're not in agreement with.
Why does the Registry have to be viewed solely as a competition as opposed to a forum where one may display one's
prized coins? Just some random thoughts...
<< <i>I'm not an expert here, but do you think that beginning a letter by calling someone an idiot (or describing their latest move as "idiotic") is a good way to influence them or bring them along to your way of thinking? >>
I merely posted the letter as I received it. I wasn't about to alter it to avoid ruffling any feathers. The other e-mail I received on this subject were far more confrontational. The fella who wrote the email I posted is a quiet, educated, and soft spoken guy not prone to tirades. You can clearly see how upset he is.
Ira
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not an expert here, but do you think that beginning a letter by calling someone an idiot (or describing their latest move as "idiotic") is a good way to influence them or bring them along to your way of thinking? >>
I merely posted the letter as I received it. I wasn't about to alter it to avoid ruffling any feathers. The other e-mail I received on this subject were far more confrontational. The fella who wrote the email I posted is a quiet, educated, and soft spoken guy not prone to tirades. You can clearly see how upset he is.
Ira >>
I understand you merely posted it.
If the goal was for your customer to vent, then I would say that was accomplished.
If the goal was to have PCGS understand your customer's position and see if the change could either be reversed or modified, then I am less optimistic.
Ira
<< <i>I don't think it's a good idea to let other people decide what you should collect. >>
Well, that puts me at ease.
<< <i>The adding of the 1958 DDO, of which only two or three are known, is inexplicibly added so that now almost no one can now complete the set! Was this a good idea?
Ira >>
I don't know why I didn't check the pops before but I'm seeing that PCGS has graded 61 of the 1958 DDO coins.
Please explain the "two or three are known"?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>The adding of the 1958 DDO, of which only two or three are known, is inexplicibly added so that now almost no one can now complete the set! Was this a good idea?
Ira >>
I don't know why I didn't check the pops before but I'm seeing that PCGS has graded 61 of the 1958 DDO coins.
Please explain the "two or three are known"? >>
61 you say...I imagine he meant he'd take 2 or 3. Just explain where?
I don't know why I didn't check the pops before but I'm seeing that PCGS has graded 61 of the 1958 DDO coins.
Please explain the "two or three are known"? >>
Good question, I saw 61 RB DDOs in pop report also, which is an error somewhere along the line. Doing a "What If" in the Lincoln set, it shows two 64RD & one 65RD in ALL colors, No RB & BN.
My Ebay
1934-1958 RB Lincoln Short Set
I see both sides of the coin in this case:
I remember when I was young and had a mercury dime Whitman folder, and the 1916-D slot had a hole "cover" with the saying on it, "rare". I knew when I was little, I would never get it. But the chase to find the others, and upgrade as time went on, was still exciting and worthwhile.
Most will not be able to complete a PCGS Registry Set no matter what coin group. Is not the chase half the fun??? As time went on, I later was able to get a 1916-D dime...
...but, I have to agree, there is a difference between "rarity with 264,000 minted" vs. RARITY 8. It's like the barber dime variety set to include the 1894-S.
Participating in the PCGS Registry Set is an option. I have never attempted it nor been a part of it. I think it is an incredible marketing concept for PCGS to gain exposure, generate more revenue. And with collectors voicing concern of "not enough are included" or "these should not have been included", only helps them...more.
<< <i>Is it ok to chuckle?
Give it time, it will.
<< <i>Why does adding coin that few can own to the set hurt anyone? Collect what you like, it is a disease to think you have to have everything just because some list says so. I think the disease is OCD. >>
If so, then what is the point of the Registry? I, again, thought it was fun at first, but what's the point now? Screw it says I. PCGS made my decision for me.
<< <i>If so, then what is the point of the Registry? >>
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
At its best, an online museum of some of the finest sets ever assembled, professionally photographed and available
free of charge. Works for me!
<< <i>I don't know why I didn't check the pops before but I'm seeing that PCGS has graded 61 of the 1958 DDO coins.
Please explain the "two or three are known"? >>
Good question, I saw 61 RB DDOs in pop report also, which is an error somewhere along the line. Doing a "What If" in the Lincoln set, it shows two 64RD & one 65RD in ALL colors, No RB & BN. >>
A-r-r-g-g-h!
Something is screwy somewhere. I opened a set and could find NO 1958 DDO's (FS-101) under the What If scenario yet the regular old 1958 RB had 61 across all grades.
The name is LEE!
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>Lot to read here, but has anyone actually contacted PCGS about either this change to the Registry or the presumably incorrect pop reports??? Seems a lot of this could be just an honest mistake... maybe the registry folks saw the pop report w/ 60+ and figured to make it a major variety??? >>
I was just thinking the same thing but........you first.
The name is LEE!
When the registry began, there was the "rule of 5". There needed to be 5 coins in the PCGS pop report before a coin could be considered "required" for a set. In the Presidential Dollar series there are varieties with just -1- coin known in PCGS. Others have just 2 coins known - these are all required as PCGS abandoned the "rule of 5" a couple of years ago. In essense, just 1 or 2 people can have a complete Presidential Dollar set in a few of these series - just like what has happened now with the Lincoln variety set.
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
THIS ADDED:
Again, the main thing is consistency throughout the registry. If the Pres Dollar varieties with only -1- coin known in any grade are required coins in some sets, then the 1958 DDO cent certainly deserves to be there as well. Likewise, if the 1913 nickel is required anywhere in the registry, so must the 1894-S Dime I would think. Consistency throughout the registry is the key. I always liked the rule of 5 - even if the rule was not reduced to writing anywhere, but was tacitly followed by those at PCGS in charge of requiring registry coins. The "rule" seemed equitable to me.
WS
Just fyi: a defense such as that doesn't work in defamation lawsuits. YOU are still held responsible for publishing false, misleading, or defaming material even if you were not the originator of the work.
I simply don't understand why you keep choosing to include the part of the letter less than kind to Stewart & Gerry and fail to see the value add to your cause.
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.