This is silly... they won't let me put one NGC graded coin in my set, but they allow these sets that PCGS has never seen and use estimated grades from a 70 year old catalog???? wow, neat
Don't get me wrong, it's cool to be able to compete against the classic collections to see if you're really the best set ever, but either hold to your rule of all PCGS graded coins in the registry or let us submit the rest of our coins as well. Maybe I'll have to wait 50-100 years after I die for PCGS to add in my raw and NGC coins to my Registry sets
Good point what are the certification numbers of all those coins and are they in the price guide and the Population reports? And did not allot them end up in Genuine holders?
There has to be a better way of honoring these classic collections without clogging the All-Time Finest List. The registry set in my signature line is shown on the All-Time Finest List with four retired sets (Bass, Eliasberg, Smithsonian and Brand). Bass is 76% PCGS graded - legitimately the all time finest. Eliasberg is 6% PCGS graded. The other two sets don't contain a single PCGS graded coin; all the entries are for "estimated" grades.
What's patently unfair here is that now over 100 collectors who have achieved a position in the top 5 all-time Finest have been displaced by one. Sure, they are among the current finest, but it's not quite the same! Something is amiss at PCGS, I'm afraid. After all, what was described as Choice New in the 1940's amd 50's might well be AU-58 by PCGS standards. This is what seemed on its face to be a clever idea transformed to a concept that has gone horribly awry! Is now NO CONSIDERATION given to those actively participating in these 100+ sets?
Has something gone wrong at PCGS? What will they think of next?
<< <i>It's wrong, even if they are retired. He is getting spots in the top all time that is not deserved. >>
I do agree that it is wrong This registry is for PCGS graded coins. I do not think it is right or fair to put a set in the registry that was never in PCGS holders and registered by the owner.
PCGS rules clearly state that a person must be the owner or agent and have possession of the coins to enter them in the registry.
While there is no question that these are / were great sets it is not fair to current registry set owners to be bumped down a spot and I would imagine that the guys who WERE #1 in a given set and get bumped out of that spot (even though they would not get bumped from current finest) would be VERY upset! They can lose the ALL-TIME FINEST spot to a set that never was in PCGS plastic.
We all work hard to build our sets and for someone to lose the top spot or to even be bumped down a position at any level to a set that never was in PCGS Holders would be very upsetting to me.
At least these guys never collected EISENHOWER DOLLARS
It's 100% wrong !! Just like the Bass, Eliasberg and Smithsonian sets. They should NOT be listed!!! These sets are not playing by the same rules that we are having to play by. They are great sets, but they should be seperated into a completely different area. Either the set was in PCGS Slabs after the Registry started and were entered appropriately or they weren't. Pretty simple - they DON'T belong in the same arena. I've felt this way for years since PCGS first started doing this and have always voiced my opinion as such.
Perhaps if they gave theoretical ranking--showed how the set would most likely rank if it were PCGS-graded, but not assign them an actual rank. When you look at, say, Gold Type Set 12 Piece, Circulation Strikes (1839-1933) one could see under All Time Finest the top five sets ever registered by their owners, plus above or below that a separate category, "Finest Historic Collections" listing Eliasberg and the like. Instead of "Rank 3" for Eliasberg, the column would say "Estimated rank at peak"--a bit more wordy, but more accurate, since all of Eliasberg's PCGS submissions were posthumous and after the auctioning off of his sets.
That, and having to compete against Eliasberg or the Smithsonian is a bit like drag racing against the Space Shuttle. I can floor it all I want, but STS-125 will inevitably beat me to the edge of the atmosphere.
Improperly Cleaned, Our passion for numismatics is Genuine! Now featuring correct spelling.
Someone needs to step up and ask these questions to the powers that be at the next luncheon. Aren't there question and answer sessions at these? I've never attended one, just saying.
Also, and I'm not saying it's happened to any of the coins in these sets, or even that our host has done this, but how many times have we seen coins from these great collections get graded even though we all KNOW these are problem coins....or grossly overgrading coins from these collections?
A special showcase of some sort, any sort, to feature this nice collection, would have been more appropriate than bumping down all established collectors' sets to get noticed. Somebody had fun with this one - they seemed to have created as many set combinations as was possible, year sets included. Was the "they" somebody at pcgs? That seems wierd.
I agree, as was mentioned, that, like the Bass, Smithsonian, Eliasberg sets, the playing fields are way too different to have such a direct comparison and competition. A special mention seems much more appropriate (and fair to, and supportive of pcgs registry collectors).
Just think how this concept could be expanded (in an absurd manner IMHO)...
The better part of a dozen years ago, the Benson collection was sold by the Goldbergs and I bid (along with many others) on a TON of fresh 1934-1958 rolls of Lincoln cents. I know that many finest known later date wheat cent Lincolns were graded out of these coins - perhaps an entire collection that would rival the #1 or #2 sets of later date wheats? So, why not estimate the grade on Benson's hundreds of thousands of fresh wheat cents such that a top collection could be assigned to him? Why be inconsistent and only select certain folks that get their coin hoards estimated for registry purposes? PCGS would be left with recognizing thousands of collectors if it continues to go down this "slippery slope" - no? IMHO, these collections need to go into an entirely separate registry area (away from REAL collections that registered under the rules of the registry game), if they must go anywhere at all.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Who else could have added sets with "estimated" grades?
I wonder the reason behind this? What purpose does it serve? Did someone with a great set (and some pull) ask to for one (or more) of these to be created so he could see where he stood amongst the greats?
Or do the folks at PCGS have too much time on their hands?
As is, we're competing against a best guess as to how the sets would rank. As was previously mentioned, some of those coins might have even been sent back in GENUINE holders.
I can understand why they're not including NGC-graded coins, since NGC is a direct competitor. I don't have to like it, though--especially since NGC extended the courtesy of including PCGS coins in their registries. Maybe it's some kind of Apple vs. Microsoft thing, where Apple allows Windows to be loaded on a dual-boot Mac but refuses to let OS X be installed on a PC. If you look at a Morgan dollar in an NGC holder, it does bear an uncanny resemblance to an iPod.
Improperly Cleaned, Our passion for numismatics is Genuine! Now featuring correct spelling.
Haven't looked at the list, but I do have a question - are they still assigning 'achievable grades' to non existant circulation strike coins for Eliasberg et al? In other words, old Louis had very few mint state philly coins when a proof was available. Now that we tend to collect proofs and mint states separately, his collection had a huge hole in it. PCGS went around this hole by 'assigning' his collection mint state grades when he actually had proofs.
<< <i>Haven't looked at the list, but I do have a question - are they still assigning 'achievable grades' to non existant circulation strike coins for Eliasberg et al? In other words, old Louis had very few mint state philly coins when a proof was available. Now that we tend to collect proofs and mint states separately, his collection had a huge hole in it. PCGS went around this hole by 'assigning' his collection mint state grades when he actually had proofs.
That just don't seem right. >>
TDN, the answer to your question is "yes". Here is one quick example using Liberty Head $2-1/2 Gold Date Set, Circulation Strikes (1840-1907). The set contains 68 coins. 38 of the 68 Eliasberg entries are for proof coins and not mint state coins. If only mint state coins were included, it is after all a circulation strike set, this Eliasberg set would list only 30 coins.
IMO these historical sets should be removed because they were not achieved in PCGS holders. Many would be in genuine holders. Proofs simply should not be allowed in mint state registery sets. They have proof registery sets for the proofs. By the way, one of my sets went from #1 to #5.
Is the Q&A Forum really "dead" or is it that we no longer use it? If it's dead, then it should be removed, but it looks to be working order.....should we try??
Well has anyone even asked them about it???? I know I didn't. >>
Yep....anyone contact BJ or Don and ask them? Don't need the defunct Q&A Forum as I am sure they both respond to PMs sent to them (or email) And, while I am not a big registry player so this doesn't really affect me at the moment, I fully agree with the folks that have stated it isn't right and there are other ways to do it without negatively impacting those that have played by the rules.
I think I can understand PCGS's philosophy regarding the need to record the sets but history has already recorded them and there's really no need what so ever to include them in the PCGS Registry. Also, as it's already been pointed out, the grades are only estimated, indicating that they've never actually seen the coins, so their assigned grades can only assumptive heresay.
This totally blows the PCGS Set Registry Rules right out of the water.
"Retired" sets which are no longer active can be a challenge to compete against BUT..........these sets were assembled under the registry rules and all contained PCGS Slabbed coins.
I cannot say that I am in anyway behind this contradiction of the rules.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
One of my grandparents used to buy proof sets from the straight from the mint in 1950s, i'm told they looked like perfect proofs when they came in the mail and that each would likely be a 69 or maybe even a 70 if graded today. Sure the coins are long gone and were never really graded by PCGS, but I think it would be cool if PCGS would give grandpa a top spot in each of the 1950s proof registry sets... wonder who I need to contact to make that happen??
I'll take the other side of this argument. It is ridiculous for sets created in the last few yers on the Registry to have the title of "All-Time Finest" when in fact there were many GREAT collections of the past that may blow these sets away. The Dunham collection was magnificent, as were many other great collections of the day. I could name two dozen of similar stature. Each had its own specialties. I know of these collections because I have all the auction catalogs. If you collect series such as proof seated dollars, or proof $20 Libs, you will find that there were great collections of the past that must be counted among the "All-Time Finest."
I do agree with TDN however about filling holes. The perfect example, as TDN points out, is the Eliasberg collection, which contained precious few business strikes from the Philadelphia mint. Those issues were instead represented by proofs. So for example, his Barber quarter set, while wonderful and memorable, was not a set of business strikes. It was a hybrid mixture of proofs and MS coins. It should be listed on the Registry as missing all the P-mints from 1892 to 1915. (He had the 1916 only, because no proofs were made that year). I think it's great to list his set, and perhaps to impute grades, but not to fill the holes in the set with coins that he never owned. But in fairness to Eliasberg, that was the collecting style of the day, and his set was considered complete in its time.
On the other hand, the high-ranking Registry sets of today are far more consistent in grade than sets of the past. A top Registry set with, say, all coins grading 65-67 would likely NOT be beaten by many of the great classic collections of the past. In those days, much less emphasis was placed on the distinction between choice, gem, etc., and the different in values was far less than today. In today's market, a 66 can be double the value of a 65, and a 67 double the value of a 66. That simply did not happen in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's. The premiums for quality were smaller. There were no slab grades of course, and thus many sets had uneven quality with 63's or less mixed in among the superb gems. By Registry rules, those sets, while complete and noteworthy, would likely NOT displace the "All-Time Finest" sets being built today, which have consistently high certified grades. In essence, the sets of today comprise coins that are examined and culled by a much larger set of critical eyes in the grading rooms.
<< <i>It is ridiculous for sets created in the last few yers on the Registry to have the title of "All-Time Finest" >>
I agree. Here's the solution. Change the title to "The Registry's All Time Finest" and move these sets to a different area. The bigger injustice in having to compete with sets that didn't/don't play by the same rules!!!
<< <i>I'll take the other side of this argument. It is ridiculous for sets created in the last few yers on the Registry to have the title of "All-Time Finest" when in fact there were many GREAT collections of the past that may blow these sets away. The Dunham collection was magnificent, as were many other great collections of the day. I could name two dozen of similar stature. Each had its own specialties. I know of these collections because I have all the auction catalogs. If you collect series such as proof seated dollars, or proof $20 Libs, you will find that there were great collections of the past that must be counted among the "All-Time Finest." >>
The only possible argument I would have with your statement is your misinterpretation of the title "All Time Finest" as "All Time Finest that ever Existed". The true interpetation is "PCGS All Time Finest".
Not NGC All Time Finest Not ANACS All Time Finest Not ICG All Time Finest Not SGS All Time Finest Not All Time Finest to ever Appear in an Auction Catalog Not All Time Finest that I can Remember Not All Time Finest that my Grampa ever Saw and can Remember
But PCGS All Time Finest which consists of coins which PCGS has physically examined, authenticated, graded, and slabbed. The rules specifically sate:
"Each set listed as current is comprised of PCGS coins certified in accordance with our usual standards. A PCGS coin is defined as a coin CURRENTLY encased in a PCGS holder."
I feel that if PCGS wants these sets "remembered" and "recognized" that they should start up a Historical Section where folks can write about these sets. Besides, there are many collectors out there who do not want their coins graded and slabbed. Whose to say that these dead guys wanted it? Whose to say they wouldn't have chosen NGC?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I disagree - many of the sets assembled in the past few years actually ARE the all time finest. Particularly mint state sets that include mint marked coins.
The collectors of the past didn't necessarily collect mint marked coins, nor strive for the finest quality MS coins, nor think twice about putting a proof in the collection.
If PCGS wants to show these great sets [and I commend them for that aspect of it], then create a registry subset where proofs/circ strikes are allowed interchangeably. Don't make things up that don't exist.
BJ replied to my email query by pointing me to the following Set Registry Rule:
"Pre-PCGS All-Time Finest Sets
Many of the “All-time finest” sets are comprised of PCGS coins, while others predated PCGS and were made up of uncertified coins. For these pre-PCGS sets, the coins are listed as either “Estimated grade,” “Assumed grade,” “PCGS graded,” or “PCGS grade” which are defined as follows:
Estimated grade - Estimated grades are used for great collections that were put together and/or sold before PCGS was in existence. The estimated grades are based on auction catalog notes of PCGS founders David Hall, Gordon Wrubel, and John Dannreuther, all of whom attended many of the great auctions held in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s and viewed the actual coins. The estimated grades also are derived from input from the PCGS Advisory Board.
Assumed grade - Collecting proofs and circulation strikes separately has only been common practice for the past 25 years or so. Prior to that, collectors would mix proofs and circulation strikes, often having proofs for their Philadelphia mints and circulation strikes for their other mints. For some of the great collections we list, such as the Louis Eliasberg collection, we will add an "Assumed grade." This will allow you to more easily compare your sets with the great early collections. For the "Assumed grade" we always use the grade that would have been readily available to the collector at that time.
PCGS graded - This refers to a coin that was graded by PCGS prior to the auction sale of the collection, i.e. the coin was sold at the auction in a PCGS holder.
PCGS grade - This refers to a coin that was graded by PCGS sometime after the auction sale of the collection. "
How many other "famous" collections are out there just waiting to be added to the Set Registry?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
What I found to be funny was when they first estimated the Eliasberg 1885 trade dollar's grade as PR66 .... but refused to cross it as such.
You just have to take it for what it is - an opportunity to see [within a grade or two] what Eliasberg and others owned - or might have owned if they'd wanted to own it.
<< <i>BJ replied to my email query by pointing me to the following Set Registry Rule:
"Assumed grade - Collecting proofs and circulation strikes separately has only been common practice for the past 25 years or so. Prior to that, collectors would mix proofs and circulation strikes, often having proofs for their Philadelphia mints and circulation strikes for their other mints. For some of the great collections we list, such as the Louis Eliasberg collection, we will add an "Assumed grade." This will allow you to more easily compare your sets with the great early collections. For the "Assumed grade" we always use the grade that would have been readily available to the collector at that time. >>
The portion of the response you received concerning Assumed grades is for me the most difficult part to understand. In instances where Louis Eliasberg owned a proof but not a mint state example the Set Registry gives credit for mint state coins he never owned - but which he could have chosen to own. Does this really allow a current collector to more easily compare their sets with a great early collection? It appears to me that actual sets of PCGS graded coins are being compared to hypothetical "what if" sets.
I still think it is just more of the same arrogant BS. These pre-PCGS sets need to be in a separate area. At best, one should be allowed to compete against THEM ***ONLY*** if one were to so choose - IMHO.
So for the coins that are condition rarities now because they were not saved such as an 1888-O Hot Lips Morgan with a top known PCGS graded example of MS61, wouldn't it have been possible for one of these 100 year old sets to have purchased few nice MS66 or MS67+ examples straight from the New Orleans Mint, even if they never really did? Sets built on the "what if" game could be #1 forever w/ no possiblity to catch them!!! Seems fair to me, I can't wait to make up some of my own "what if" sets!
<< <i>If PCGS wants to show these great sets [and I commend them for that aspect of it], then create a registry subset where proofs/circ strikes are allowed interchangeably. Don't make things up that don't exist. >>
Along the lines of "Don't make things up that don't exist;" there are about 20 sets in this group which are less than 100 percent complete. This is an indication to me that they didn't exist as sets in this collection and thus should never have been considered for inclusion in the Registry.
"It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
A letter concerning this thread and two others regarding recent PCGS decisions that have annoyed many of us has been sent to Don Willis. So if this thread goes Poof, you now know why.
WS
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
Steve27
Posts: 13,274 ✭✭✭
Comments
Not only was it created, then retired, but we can't even see the coins in the set!
What's up with (PCGS?) adding these sets?
Maybe they should have a separate registry called (something like) Classic Collections where pre-TPG collections are displayed?
<< <i>Some dead guy just registered over 100 new sets >>
\ It's OK, the sets are dead (retired) as well
GrandAm
Don't get me wrong, it's cool to be able to compete against the classic collections to see if you're really the best set ever, but either hold to your rule of all PCGS graded coins in the registry or let us submit the rest of our coins as well. Maybe I'll have to wait 50-100 years after I die for PCGS to add in my raw and NGC coins to my Registry sets
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
And did not allot them end up in Genuine holders?
I agree, they should not be put out there based on some grade given in the past in an auction catalog.
And who is this Duhnam guy anyway.
It's wrong, even if they are retired. He is getting spots in the top all time that is not deserved.
JMHO!!
edit for punctuation
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
Why not a "US Mint" set?
SURE to be #1 in all registries.
<< <i>Tall the entries are for "estimated" grades. >>
hey, i've got some stuff that i've estimated the grades to be very very high.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>LINK >>
What's patently unfair here is that now over 100 collectors who have achieved a position in the top 5 all-time Finest have been displaced by one. Sure, they are among the current finest, but it's not quite the same! Something is amiss at PCGS, I'm afraid. After all, what was described as Choice New in the 1940's amd 50's might well be AU-58 by PCGS standards. This is what seemed on its face to be a clever idea transformed to a concept that has gone horribly awry! Is now NO CONSIDERATION given to those actively participating in these 100+ sets?
Has something gone wrong at PCGS? What will they think of next?
Ira
<< <i>It's wrong, even if they are retired. He is getting spots in the top all time that is not deserved. >>
I do agree that it is wrong
PCGS rules clearly state that a person must be the owner or agent and have possession of the coins to enter them in the registry.
While there is no question that these are / were great sets it is not fair to current registry set owners to be bumped down a spot and I would imagine that the guys who WERE #1 in a given set and get bumped out of that spot (even though they would not get bumped from current finest) would be VERY upset! They can lose the ALL-TIME FINEST spot to a set that never was in PCGS plastic.
We all work hard to build our sets and for someone to lose the top spot or to even be bumped down a position at any level to a set that never was in PCGS Holders would be very upsetting to me.
At least these guys never collected EISENHOWER DOLLARS
JMHO, GrandAm
Just like the Bass, Eliasberg and Smithsonian sets. They should NOT be listed!!!
These sets are not playing by the same rules that we are having to play by.
They are great sets, but they should be seperated into a completely different area.
Either the set was in PCGS Slabs after the Registry started and were entered appropriately or they weren't.
Pretty simple - they DON'T belong in the same arena.
I've felt this way for years since PCGS first started doing this and have always voiced my opinion as such.
My #1 Low Ball Peace Dollar Set
That, and having to compete against Eliasberg or the Smithsonian is a bit like drag racing against the Space Shuttle. I can floor it all I want, but STS-125 will inevitably beat me to the edge of the atmosphere.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I agree, as was mentioned, that, like the Bass, Smithsonian, Eliasberg sets, the playing fields are way too different to have such a direct comparison and competition.
A special mention seems much more appropriate (and fair to, and supportive of pcgs registry collectors).
The better part of a dozen years ago, the Benson collection was sold by the Goldbergs and I bid (along with many others) on a TON of fresh 1934-1958 rolls of Lincoln cents. I know that many finest known later date wheat cent Lincolns were graded out of these coins - perhaps an entire collection that would rival the #1 or #2 sets of later date wheats? So, why not estimate the grade on Benson's hundreds of thousands of fresh wheat cents such that a top collection could be assigned to him? Why be inconsistent and only select certain folks that get their coin hoards estimated for registry purposes? PCGS would be left with recognizing thousands of collectors if it continues to go down this "slippery slope" - no? IMHO, these collections need to go into an entirely separate registry area (away from REAL collections that registered under the rules of the registry game), if they must go anywhere at all.
Wondercoin
Who else could have added sets with "estimated" grades?
I wonder the reason behind this?
What purpose does it serve?
Did someone with a great set (and some pull) ask to for one (or more) of these to be created so he could see where he stood amongst the greats?
Or do the folks at PCGS have too much time on their hands?
Just askin'.
I can understand why they're not including NGC-graded coins, since NGC is a direct competitor. I don't have to like it, though--especially since NGC extended the courtesy of including PCGS coins in their registries. Maybe it's some kind of Apple vs. Microsoft thing, where Apple allows Windows to be loaded on a dual-boot Mac but refuses to let OS X be installed on a PC. If you look at a Morgan dollar in an NGC holder, it does bear an uncanny resemblance to an iPod.
Remember this, if your needing to cut money, these faux sets keep you and I from being in the top five in order to get pedigree status...
WS
That just don't seem right.
<< <i>Haven't looked at the list, but I do have a question - are they still assigning 'achievable grades' to non existant circulation strike coins for Eliasberg et al? In other words, old Louis had very few mint state philly coins when a proof was available. Now that we tend to collect proofs and mint states separately, his collection had a huge hole in it. PCGS went around this hole by 'assigning' his collection mint state grades when he actually had proofs.
That just don't seem right. >>
TDN, the answer to your question is "yes". Here is one quick example using Liberty Head $2-1/2 Gold Date Set, Circulation Strikes (1840-1907). The set contains 68 coins. 38 of the 68 Eliasberg entries are for proof coins and not mint state coins. If only mint state coins were included, it is after all a circulation strike set, this Eliasberg set would list only 30 coins.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
Many would be in genuine holders.
Proofs simply should not be allowed in mint state registery sets.
They have proof registery sets for the proofs.
By the way, one of my sets went from #1 to #5.
#1) Taking two years to decide where Satin coins should be listed, and then requiring them in Business strike sets.
#2) Adding the 1958 DDO in the variety set, and removing the 1941 DDO.
#3) Adding famous sets (not the problem) and having all of us compete with them even though they no longer exist (that’s the problem)
WS
<< <i>And nothing but silence from PCGS >>
Well has anyone even asked them about it???? I know I didn't.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
If it's dead, then it should be removed, but it looks to be working order.....should we try??
<< <i>
<< <i>And nothing but silence from PCGS >>
Well has anyone even asked them about it???? I know I didn't. >>
Yep....anyone contact BJ or Don and ask them? Don't need the defunct Q&A Forum as I am sure they both respond to PMs sent to them (or email)
And, while I am not a big registry player so this doesn't really affect me at the moment, I fully agree with the folks that have stated it isn't right and there are other ways to do it without negatively impacting those that have played by the rules.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
This totally blows the PCGS Set Registry Rules right out of the water.
"Retired" sets which are no longer active can be a challenge to compete against BUT..........these sets were assembled under the registry rules and all contained PCGS Slabbed coins.
I cannot say that I am in anyway behind this contradiction of the rules.
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 do agree with TDN however about filling holes. The perfect example, as TDN points out, is the Eliasberg collection, which contained precious few business strikes from the Philadelphia mint. Those issues were instead represented by proofs. So for example, his Barber quarter set, while wonderful and memorable, was not a set of business strikes. It was a hybrid mixture of proofs and MS coins. It should be listed on the Registry as missing all the P-mints from 1892 to 1915. (He had the 1916 only, because no proofs were made that year). I think it's great to list his set, and perhaps to impute grades, but not to fill the holes in the set with coins that he never owned. But in fairness to Eliasberg, that was the collecting style of the day, and his set was considered complete in its time.
On the other hand, the high-ranking Registry sets of today are far more consistent in grade than sets of the past. A top Registry set with, say, all coins grading 65-67 would likely NOT be beaten by many of the great classic collections of the past. In those days, much less emphasis was placed on the distinction between choice, gem, etc., and the different in values was far less than today. In today's market, a 66 can be double the value of a 65, and a 67 double the value of a 66. That simply did not happen in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's. The premiums for quality were smaller. There were no slab grades of course, and thus many sets had uneven quality with 63's or less mixed in among the superb gems. By Registry rules, those sets, while complete and noteworthy, would likely NOT displace the "All-Time Finest" sets being built today, which have consistently high certified grades. In essence, the sets of today comprise coins that are examined and culled by a much larger set of critical eyes in the grading rooms.
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>It is ridiculous for sets created in the last few yers on the Registry to have the title of "All-Time Finest" >>
I agree. Here's the solution.
Change the title to "The Registry's All Time Finest" and move these sets to a different area.
The bigger injustice in having to compete with sets that didn't/don't play by the same rules!!!
My #1 Low Ball Peace Dollar Set
<< <i>I'll take the other side of this argument. It is ridiculous for sets created in the last few yers on the Registry to have the title of "All-Time Finest" when in fact there were many GREAT collections of the past that may blow these sets away. The Dunham collection was magnificent, as were many other great collections of the day. I could name two dozen of similar stature. Each had its own specialties. I know of these collections because I have all the auction catalogs. If you collect series such as proof seated dollars, or proof $20 Libs, you will find that there were great collections of the past that must be counted among the "All-Time Finest." >>
The only possible argument I would have with your statement is your misinterpretation of the title "All Time Finest" as "All Time Finest that ever Existed". The true interpetation is "PCGS All Time Finest".
Not NGC All Time Finest
Not ANACS All Time Finest
Not ICG All Time Finest
Not SGS All Time Finest
Not All Time Finest to ever Appear in an Auction Catalog
Not All Time Finest that I can Remember
Not All Time Finest that my Grampa ever Saw and can Remember
But PCGS All Time Finest which consists of coins which PCGS has physically examined, authenticated, graded, and slabbed. The rules specifically sate:
"Each set listed as current is comprised of PCGS coins certified in accordance with our usual standards. A PCGS coin is defined as a coin CURRENTLY encased in a PCGS holder."
I feel that if PCGS wants these sets "remembered" and "recognized" that they should start up a Historical Section where folks can write about these sets.
Besides, there are many collectors out there who do not want their coins graded and slabbed. Whose to say that these dead guys wanted it?
Whose to say they wouldn't have chosen NGC?
The name is LEE!
The collectors of the past didn't necessarily collect mint marked coins, nor strive for the finest quality MS coins, nor think twice about putting a proof in the collection.
"Pre-PCGS All-Time Finest Sets
Many of the “All-time finest” sets are comprised of PCGS coins, while others predated PCGS and were made up of uncertified coins. For these pre-PCGS sets, the coins are listed as either “Estimated grade,” “Assumed grade,” “PCGS graded,” or “PCGS grade” which are defined as follows:
Estimated grade - Estimated grades are used for great collections that were put together and/or sold before PCGS was in existence. The estimated grades are based on auction catalog notes of PCGS founders David Hall, Gordon Wrubel, and John Dannreuther, all of whom attended many of the great auctions held in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s and viewed the actual coins. The estimated grades also are derived from input from the PCGS Advisory Board.
Assumed grade - Collecting proofs and circulation strikes separately has only been common practice for the past 25 years or so. Prior to that, collectors would mix proofs and circulation strikes, often having proofs for their Philadelphia mints and circulation strikes for their other mints. For some of the great collections we list, such as the Louis Eliasberg collection, we will add an "Assumed grade." This will allow you to more easily compare your sets with the great early collections. For the "Assumed grade" we always use the grade that would have been readily available to the collector at that time.
PCGS graded - This refers to a coin that was graded by PCGS prior to the auction sale of the collection, i.e. the coin was sold at the auction in a PCGS holder.
PCGS grade - This refers to a coin that was graded by PCGS sometime after the auction sale of the collection. "
How many other "famous" collections are out there just waiting to be added to the Set Registry?
The name is LEE!
Lafayette Grading Set
You just have to take it for what it is - an opportunity to see [within a grade or two] what Eliasberg and others owned - or might have owned if they'd wanted to own it.
<< <i>BJ replied to my email query by pointing me to the following Set Registry Rule:
"Assumed grade - Collecting proofs and circulation strikes separately has only been common practice for the past 25 years or so. Prior to that, collectors would mix proofs and circulation strikes, often having proofs for their Philadelphia mints and circulation strikes for their other mints. For some of the great collections we list, such as the Louis Eliasberg collection, we will add an "Assumed grade." This will allow you to more easily compare your sets with the great early collections. For the "Assumed grade" we always use the grade that would have been readily available to the collector at that time. >>
The portion of the response you received concerning Assumed grades is for me the most difficult part to understand. In instances where Louis Eliasberg owned a proof but not a mint state example the Set Registry gives credit for mint state coins he never owned - but which he could have chosen to own. Does this really allow a current collector to more easily compare their sets with a great early collection? It appears to me that actual sets of PCGS graded coins are being compared to hypothetical "what if" sets.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>If PCGS wants to show these great sets [and I commend them for that aspect of it], then create a registry subset where proofs/circ strikes are allowed interchangeably. Don't make things up that don't exist. >>
Along the lines of "Don't make things up that don't exist;" there are about 20 sets in this group which are less than 100 percent complete. This is an indication to me that they didn't exist as sets in this collection and thus should never have been considered for inclusion in the Registry.
A letter concerning this thread and two others regarding recent PCGS decisions that have annoyed many of us has been sent to Don Willis. So if this thread goes Poof, you now know why.
WS