Options
pcgs is biased
docday2003
Posts: 1,100
I was interested to note that again this year, pcgs showed it's bias when it awarded the set registry awards for the Canadian registry. Since it's inception, pcgs has never recognized a 5¢, 10¢, 25¢, or 50¢ set with it's "Best Canadian Set" award. In contrast, they have awarded:
5 times for a "Canadian coins complete set"
3 times for a "Complete Gold set"
3 times for a Specimen dollar set
3 times for a cent set (all three awards went to Stewart Blay in 2003)
2 times for a circulation strike dollar set
2 times for a "Canadian coin complete type set"
2 times for a "complete type set-special strikes"
1 time for a PL dollar set
1 time for a NF type set
In my opinion, this overemphasizes the importance of type sets, and dollar sets by a wide margin.
Disclaimer: I do have registry sets. I have never won one of these special awards. My primary focus is on my dollar and type sets, with a strong secondary focus on Canadian Nickels (one set of which contains several rarities including the 1925, 1926F6, 1926N6 and the underrecognized 1932). Sorry for venting, but I think it's about time pcgs recognized that there are other worthy sets out there, rather than recycling the same old same old every year. Here's one example of a worthy set which went unrecognized despite containing the uber-rare "prince of canadian coins" here
5 times for a "Canadian coins complete set"
3 times for a "Complete Gold set"
3 times for a Specimen dollar set
3 times for a cent set (all three awards went to Stewart Blay in 2003)
2 times for a circulation strike dollar set
2 times for a "Canadian coin complete type set"
2 times for a "complete type set-special strikes"
1 time for a PL dollar set
1 time for a NF type set
In my opinion, this overemphasizes the importance of type sets, and dollar sets by a wide margin.
Disclaimer: I do have registry sets. I have never won one of these special awards. My primary focus is on my dollar and type sets, with a strong secondary focus on Canadian Nickels (one set of which contains several rarities including the 1925, 1926F6, 1926N6 and the underrecognized 1932). Sorry for venting, but I think it's about time pcgs recognized that there are other worthy sets out there, rather than recycling the same old same old every year. Here's one example of a worthy set which went unrecognized despite containing the uber-rare "prince of canadian coins" here
0
Comments
<< <i>wrong forum?
oh? what is the right forum for Canadian coins?
Boy, I wish they had the time to create UK Victorian type sets in copper, bronze, and silver; and also separated into those groups by the three major currency designs of HM; namely, young head, jubilee head and the veiled head.
I guess they are stuck in 2003 with only the Terner gold type set......more Unas for everyone.
<< <i>
<< <i>wrong forum?
oh? what is the right forum for Canadian coins? >>
I was thinking the "registry" forum would have been appropriate for your topic, since it involved your views on PCGS' "bias" in its registry award selections...but, whatever.... -Preussen
edited for spelling
I wouldn't know anything anything regarding this supposed PCGS bias, though, or the first thing about what process they use for making awards.
<< <i>Boy, I wish they had the time to create UK Victorian type sets in copper, bronze, and silver >>
Not a bad idea.
<< <i>IMHO, discussion of Canadian Registry sets is perfectly appropriate here, as well as the Registry forum. >>
Well, I guess that settles it.
<< <i>my overall point is that I'm disappointed that so many outstanding sets are left unrecognized, while the same sets get awarded year after year. For instance this set of cents represents an almost perfect collection, in a widely collected and difficult series, but it has never been recognized. It has the finest pcgs graded example of one of the rarities in Canadian numismatics (the 1859 brass cent). Why is it left out, while a specimen set and PL set are recognized? (I think most people would agree that the majority of specimen and PL coins are readily obtainable compared with a brass cent). >>
I agree doc. Is that set of cents that you linked owned by bosox?
<< <i>
I wouldn't know anything anything regarding this supposed PCGS bias, though, or the first thing about what process they use for making awards. >>
It is my understanding, that even though some truly outstanding sets are and have been awarded, both US and world, the process is directly linked with the huge profit that PCGS makes by certifying readily available NCLT coins that should have never left their box of issue and COA to begin with.
myEbay
DPOTD 3
<< <i>
<< <i>my overall point is that I'm disappointed that so many outstanding sets are left unrecognized, while the same sets get awarded year after year. For instance this set of cents represents an almost perfect collection, in a widely collected and difficult series, but it has never been recognized. It has the finest pcgs graded example of one of the rarities in Canadian numismatics (the 1859 brass cent). Why is it left out, while a specimen set and PL set are recognized? (I think most people would agree that the majority of specimen and PL coins are readily obtainable compared with a brass cent). >>
I agree doc. Is that set of cents that you linked owned by bosox?
<< <i>
I wouldn't know anything anything regarding this supposed PCGS bias, though, or the first thing about what process they use for making awards. >>
It is my understanding, that even though some truly outstanding sets are and have been awarded, both US and world, the process is directly linked with the huge profit that PCGS makes by certifying readily available NCLT coins that should have never left their box of issue and COA to begin with. >>
I don't think so, but the truth is that I don't really know the big players in the cents world. I do, however, know how difficult it is to get that caliber of coins.
I own the number 2 Victorian cent set. The Willamette Collection is owned by a really nice fellow from the Pacific northwest. He and I have swapped/sold coins on occasion.
I would submit that the two Perth Collection sets (Newfoundland five and ten cents) represent near perfection. A friend of mine owns them and I cannot begin to describe how difficult it would be to even come close to those two sets.
Rob
http://www.victoriancent.com
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>my overall point is that I'm disappointed that so many outstanding sets are left unrecognized, while the same sets get awarded year after year. For instance this set of cents represents an almost perfect collection, in a widely collected and difficult series, but it has never been recognized. It has the finest pcgs graded example of one of the rarities in Canadian numismatics (the 1859 brass cent). Why is it left out, while a specimen set and PL set are recognized? (I think most people would agree that the majority of specimen and PL coins are readily obtainable compared with a brass cent). >>
I agree doc. Is that set of cents that you linked owned by bosox?
<< <i>
I wouldn't know anything anything regarding this supposed PCGS bias, though, or the first thing about what process they use for making awards. >>
It is my understanding, that even though some truly outstanding sets are and have been awarded, both US and world, the process is directly linked with the huge profit that PCGS makes by certifying readily available NCLT coins that should have never left their box of issue and COA to begin with. >>
I don't think so, but the truth is that I don't really know the big players in the cents world. I do, however, know how difficult it is to get that caliber of coins. >>
I would guess there's a bias toward higher grades, meaning that sets where ultra-gems are more readily available, such as specimens, PLs and modern NCLTs, are more likely to win. It seems that a lot of the sets that win have coins available in grades past 67, which, I agree, does put at a disadvantage sets where you have truly rare coins that just don't exist in ultra-gem condition.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>my overall point is that I'm disappointed that so many outstanding sets are left unrecognized, while the same sets get awarded year after year. For instance this set of cents represents an almost perfect collection, in a widely collected and difficult series, but it has never been recognized. It has the finest pcgs graded example of one of the rarities in Canadian numismatics (the 1859 brass cent). Why is it left out, while a specimen set and PL set are recognized? (I think most people would agree that the majority of specimen and PL coins are readily obtainable compared with a brass cent). >>
I agree doc. Is that set of cents that you linked owned by bosox?
<< <i>
I wouldn't know anything anything regarding this supposed PCGS bias, though, or the first thing about what process they use for making awards. >>
It is my understanding, that even though some truly outstanding sets are and have been awarded, both US and world, the process is directly linked with the huge profit that PCGS makes by certifying readily available NCLT coins that should have never left their box of issue and COA to begin with. >>
I don't think so, but the truth is that I don't really know the big players in the cents world. I do, however, know how difficult it is to get that caliber of coins. >>
I would guess there's a bias toward higher grades, meaning that sets where ultra-gems are more readily available, such as specimens, PLs and modern NCLTs, are more likely to win. It seems that a lot of the sets that win have coins available in grades past 67, which, I agree, does put at a disadvantage sets where you have truly rare coins that just don't exist in ultra-gem condition. >>
I suppose that's possible, on the other hand, the award is supposed to be for the "Best" set, not necessarily the highest graded set. Additionally, the large cent set that I linked is virtually all top pop coins.