Home PCGS Set Registry Forum

EMail re: "All-Time Finest" Registry Sets

Received this from B.J. Searls today:

Hi Everyone,

For years, actually from the very first month the PCGS Set Registry was in existence, February, 2001, we have added All-Time Finest sets of the great collections of Bass, Eliasberg, Garrett, Norweb, and about a dozen others. The All-Time Finest category was established for no other reason than to display the finest sets ever assembled. In recent weeks there has been some activity in this area because we have been going through auction catalogues, updating sets, updating coins that have been graded and pedigreed by PCGS, and adding new sets.

It has come to my attention that there are some of you who feel the addition of these sets is unfair to both the members who are currently participating in the Registry and to those who are no longer active but have retired sets in the Registry. The classic sets of Eliasberg et al. will remain in the Registry because there are those who are interested in seeing how their sets compare to the famous collections of the past. They are an important part of numismatic history. We are proud to say that the PCGS Set Registry is home to the finest sets ever assembled, both those of the past (the classic sets of Eliasberg, et al.) and those which have been built in the last seven years. However, there are a number of ways we could display the classic ATF sets which is different from the way we are currently displaying them. I am reviewing a number of these options now.

If you have an opinion on this subject, either you like the current display method or you would like to see it changed, I would really like to hear from you. Any suggestions on how we might achieve an equitable way to display the classic ATF collections would be welcomed. Please email me directly. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.

BJ Searls
Set Registry Manager


I'm sure many of you will receive this email and will have comments to make.
Me at the Springfield coin show:
image
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!

Comments

  • ajiaajia Posts: 5,400 ✭✭✭
    BJ must spend all her time working on the registry with no time left to read the forums.
    image
  • LindeDadLindeDad Posts: 18,766 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Just got it and replied telling about the poll.
    And I do not feel those sets belong.
    image
  • 19Lyds19Lyds Posts: 26,470 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>BJ must spend all her time working on the registry with no time left to read the forums. >>



    BJ is the Manager of the Set Registry program so all of her time does go towards addressing problems, concerns, and issues.

    I for one am grateful that we registry participants are being asked for opinions and input.
    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.



    The name is LEE!
  • DennisHDennisH Posts: 13,963 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I sent BJ these comments:

    In no way whatsoever is it fair to list any set in the all-time finest rankings unless that set conformed to all current rules and restrictions that we collectors have to abide by today. Namely, any coin that isn't in a PCGS holder isn't eligible for inclusion. Period. To do anything else, or to justify making an exception for any reason, is to diminish the credibility of the Set Registry program and demean the efforts of collectors who are currently participating in the program.
    When in doubt, don't.
  • ajiaajia Posts: 5,400 ✭✭✭
    Lee,

    I know very well all the hard work BJ does for us.
    I felt I was her worst nightmare when I started testing v.2 of the registry.

    And she did reply stating that does not have time to follow the forums.

    The poll paints a pretty stark picture.
    If it was an election, it would be a landslide & then some.
    image
  • I have replied to BJ. I pretty much wrote what DennisH did. That opinion seems logical to me.

    RegistryNut image
  • I also replied to inform her I thought it wasn't appropriate for those sets to displace sets assembled SINCE PCGS was formed AND that were comprised SOLELY of PCGS graded copins.

    I suggested (& hope there will be) a separate area for these would be the best solution (IMHO).
  • illini420illini420 Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I pretty much replied the same thing, either open up the Registry to all of our raw and NGC coins, or keep it PCGS coins only for everyone, dead or alive.

    I added that if I bought an ex. Eliasberg currently in an NGC holder I would not be able to include it in my sets at the current PCGS estimated grade assigned by PCGS and I would no way be entitled to a crossover that is guaranteed to slab at the PCGS estimated grade. Keep the classic sets there to compare with, but they should be unranked and separate from the PCGS only competitive sets.

    image
  • I think its just fine the way it is..
    pcgs has been tight on the guess grades of these coins and sets in my opinion..
    and after all they really did exist..and they certainly arent listed current finest..
    Bruce Scher
  • rainbowroosierainbowroosie Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭✭
    Great idea! Put the emphasis on coins not plastic!!
    "You keep your 1804 dollar and 1822 half eagle -- give me rainbow roosies in MS68."
    rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
  • BBNBBN Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭
    I am glad they are listening to us. I responded to the email with one screw up. I thought BJ was a Mr instead of a Ms and addressed her as Mr. I hope she overlooks this.image Let's make our opinion heard in our emails, but be very respectful.

    Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin

    #1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
    #2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
    #8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
  • LindeDadLindeDad Posts: 18,766 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Edited to say all please reply to the email letting your views be known.
    image
  • Here is the reply I just emailed:

    -----

    Thank you for requesting our opinions; as you might have seen on the PCGS Collector's Club forums, this has been a heated topic. I, too, am a proponent of moving the classic historic collections such as those of Eliasberg to a separate listing for reference, rather than listed directly as being among the all-time finest sets against which to compete. I suspect that my reasoning may be redundant at this point, as you have probably already received other emails outlining these same criticisms of the current method. That said, I feel that the competition between modern sets today and the historic ones is unfair given that:

    1. Historic sets had looser grading standards that were more forgiving of improper cleaning, damaged surfaces, and other problems that would render a coin "Genuine not gradable" to PCGS today.

    2. Grades on historic sets are often estimates based on second-hand information rather than direct grading of the coins by PCGS' own experts. Grading standards were notoriously lacking in consistency prior to third-party grading, which is precisely why your company came into existence in the first place. Thus the estimates are very approximate.

    3. On a related note, sets that we compile can only include coins graded by PCGS, whereas the historic collections were not restricted to any one comparable panel of expert graders; nearly all coins were raw and graded descriptively, prior to the publishing of ANA standards on the 70 point Sheldon scale. (I suspect that it is far more practical today to exclude the old sets than to allow raw coins in today's registry sets, though some have put forth the suggestion that if historic sets are included in the ranks, then current sets should be allowed at least coins graded by NGC and possibly ANACS or ICG,)

    4. Proofs and circulation strikes were not recognized as separate types of coins. Thus, circulation strikes in current sets have to compete against specially struck proofs in historic sets.

    These "handicaps" favor the historic sets and work against current sets. When competing against the likes of Eliasberg, the last thing I need is any disadvantage in their favor.

    I welcome seeing the historic sets listed for comparison purposes, but I would like to see them listed separately from the ranked All Time Finest.
    Improperly Cleaned, Our passion for numismatics is Genuine! Now featuring correct spelling.
  • Just in case it wasn't apparent earlier, I'm EXTREMELY HAPPY & VERY GRATEFUL that PCGS & BJ decided to listen to us common folk. imageimageimage

    Even more than that, it has restored a good deal of faith and showed there is hope yet. image
  • garsmithgarsmith Posts: 5,894 ✭✭
    Sent my reply this morning
  • WaterSportWaterSport Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I just wanted to say thanks to all of you who responded. We begged, B$%^&, and I even wrote letters asking for PCGS to run these ideas, plans, etc., through us every day collectors and feel like they got the message.

    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.
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Perhaps it would be fair if they allowed the same estimated grade for our sets if we own that same coin. image
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Here's my main problem with the estimated grades [don't even get me started on giving credit for a circulation strike when they owned a proof]:

    From a PM a fellow collector sent me: The "panel of experts" figured the grade of Naftzger's best 1852 as MS67RD, and PCGS posted that in the Registry Set they created for him.

    The fellow collector purchased said coin in a PCGS MS65 RD holder at the recent Naftzger sale for the princely sum of $25k + the juice. A similarly graded coin of an equally common variety fetched just $5k plus the juice at the sale.

    So.... which is correct .... the slabbed grade, the estimated grade, the price realized .... or some combination of all of the above. image
  • I got a reply from B.J. Searls on the survey. I thought you might enjoy the email exchange conversation in its entirety...

    -----
    (original message previously posted)

    -----
    Searls' reply:

    I actually don’t read the message boards, so most of the feedback I’m getting is new to me. I am actually getting opinions of those who agree with you (add a third category) and those who like it just the way it is. You see, not everyone posts on the message boards, so opinions you see there might be a little one-sided.

    Just for a little clarification, grades of coins before 1970 are taken from the cataloguers description. The other coins were actually viewed by PCGS experts. From the RULES page:

    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. For older collections sold at auction prior to 1970, the estimated grade is a guess based on the cataloguers description.

    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.

    I appreciate your opinion. Thank you.

    -----
    My response:

    Thank you for the clarifications and for the reminder regarding Estimated and Assumed grades. I am familiar with the trend of skewed perception based on uneven sampling--i.e., those who make the most noise may appear to be the majority even when they are not. (I need only watch political news to see this tendancy demonstrated.) While I do agree with the perceived consensus on the forums, I also am quite willing to put the issue in perspective. There has been and hopefully shall continue to be great wealth out there, with the time and energy to assemble collections that will easily dwarf the majority of our endevours. But, I am also sadly and too frequently reminded of how privilaged I am to be able to enjoy this hobby at my level. I count my blessings, and while I may not have much to complain about, I shall continue to make the most of it.

    -----
    And, Searls' answer:

    Can I clone you? You have a fantastic attitude!

    -----
    So, in conclusion...

    Seeing just how emotional we have gotten about the Set Registry's issues and controversies, it dawned on me over the past few weeks that there are bigger gripes than arguing about how imperfect a free service is. I too feel that there are some things I'd like to see done differently. But, hey, it costs nothing. (Look what happened to CoinFacts; they put in so much time and energy that they improved it too much and had to start charging a subscription fee.) So, our coin collections can never reach the number one spot, because we're competing with billion dollar museum collections. Making these collections play by the rules, too, is fine and good, but, let's face it. All factors being equal, it's a safe bet that my gold type set will never come close to either the Eliasberg collection or the best collections in the world today. I think just having a gold type set is plenty of reason to be happy.
    Improperly Cleaned, Our passion for numismatics is Genuine! Now featuring correct spelling.
  • ajiaajia Posts: 5,400 ✭✭✭
    Searls' reply: ....not everyone posts on the message boards, so opinions you see there might be a little one-sided.
    I would counter that it's not a little one-sided.

    Just for a little clarification, grades of coins before 1970 are taken from the cataloguers description.
    And we expect for the catalogers to describe the coins accurately enough to assign a grade?
    At what point was cleaning considered a real 'no-no'?
    I mean, wasn't there a time when everyone thought it was OK to clean coins? Would this be included in the catalog description?

    Nobody (I think) is arguing that these are great collections, or that they would be nice to see in their own category.

    What I have a problem with is that we are not playing by the same rules.

    Hey, if they do make a new category for these classic collections, maybe they can open it up to collectors to add NGC, ANACS other reputable TPG coins?
    image
  • DrPeteDrPete Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭
    I agree with the concept of including the older historic sets. My interest is strongest for barber halves, and the registry sets includes the Eliasberg set which had proofs rather than mint state coins for the p-mints. These p-mint coins are listed conservatively with estimates of MS65. Is that perfect? No. But I think it is reasonable. I have followed this series very closely and looked up every recent auction sale of Eliasberg pedigreed coins and found 7-8 that are now in PCGS holders that weren't when the Eliasberg set was listed in the PCGS registry. I sent this informatioin to BJ and she promptly updated the listed Eliasberg set to show the current information. In every case the current PCGS grade is higher than the original estimate previously listed.
    Dr. Pete
  • FilamCoinsFilamCoins Posts: 1,899 ✭✭✭

    Looks like they removed the famous estimated sets (at least in the type set registry I follow).

    Good news.

    Thanks for listening PCGS!

  • STEWARTBLAYNUMISSTEWARTBLAYNUMIS Posts: 2,697 ✭✭✭✭
    Tradedollarnut

    Since you spoke about the 1852 Large Cent from from the Naftzger collection I would like to elaborate about that coin. I underbid the coin. I graded the coin ms 67 red. Joe O'Conner also graded the coin ms 67 red. He jumped the bid from $2,000 to $15,000 at the onset of bidding. This was the finest quality large cent in the collection.
    All the graders at PCGS had a plug put up their butts to prevent any "RED" coin from grading above ms 65 red. You know that I am upset over this plug. How dare PCGS let their graders grade brown coins ms 67 brown but they became Chicken $hit when it came to red coins.

    BTW Congratulations on your acquisition of the Red 1848 !

    Stewart
  • BBNBBN Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭
    They're still showing Naftzger and Eliasberg in the Lg cents.

    Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin

    #1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
    #2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
    #8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
  • ajiaajia Posts: 5,400 ✭✭✭
    All the graders at PCGS had a plug put up their butts to prevent any "RED" coin from grading above ms 65 red. You know that I am upset over this plug. How dare PCGS let their graders grade brown coins ms 67 brown but they became Chicken $hit when it came to red coins.

    Stewart,

    Doesn't that strengthen the position of those who hate the 'estimated' grade concept?
    PCGS does not have to back up an estimated grade with a money back guarantee.
    Easy to assign a high grade when you estimate, but not so easy when you have to back it up.

    To DrPete...
    I sent this informatioin to BJ and she promptly updated the listed Eliasberg set to show the current information. In every case the current PCGS grade is higher than the original estimate previously listed.
    Have you checked to see if BJ has down-graded coins just as fast?
    image
  • OnlyGoldIsMoneyOnlyGoldIsMoney Posts: 3,276 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Looks like they removed the famous estimated sets (at least in the type set registry I follow).

    Good news.

    Thanks for listening PCGS! >>




    I am glad to hear there has been some progress. The famous estimated sets are still all present in the $2 1/2 Lib sets I follow.
  • Reading some of the comments, especially Stewart's comments about that Naftzger 1852 cent, it really makes one wonder about what's going on with current grading policies vs. the PCGS experts' "estimated grades."

    I checked out some of the posted photos in the top registry sets (at least those that are open for viewing), and it makes for an interesting comparison. This set ranks high in the Registry with a weighted GPA over 66 and it's over 47% coins graded as "RED." These three coins from the set are all graded by PCGS as MS65RED:

    image

    image

    image

    And this is the Naftzger 1852 cent (lot #1134), that PCGS also graded as MS65RED:

    imageimage

    Granted, you can't grade coins just by the pictures, but to me, the Naftzger coin sure seems like a higher grade than those others. Sounds like Stewart is on to something with his suspicions.
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Let's just say the Naftzger cents went through just once and haven't had all the mud thrown against the ceiling to see what sticks yet. Definitely, from what I've seen, Stewart has a point in comparison to what's been graded before.
  • LRLR Posts: 53 ✭✭
    I am a FBL Franklin collector about to be #6 I have no chance of recognition for putting this set together in less than 2 years within the current system. I have little reason to keep it registered.

    Lynn Radabaugh


  • << <i>I am a FBL Franklin collector about to be #6 I have no chance of recognition for putting this set together in less than 2 years within the current system. I have little reason to keep it registered.

    Lynn Radabaugh >>



    You have a very impressive set, one that I would be proud to keep in the registry. #6 in a competitve series like that, in only 2 years, is no easy task. No telling where you might be in year 3 or 4. However, the argument presented in this thread involves retired sets with estimated grades. The sets ahead of you in the all time rankings for Franklin FBL are not estimated, they were all sets that were retired within the system. Any changes put forth in this thread, would not change that.


  • << <i>

    << <i>I am a FBL Franklin collector about to be #6 I have no chance of recognition for putting this set together in less than 2 years within the current system. I have little reason to keep it registered.

    Lynn Radabaugh >>



    You have a very impressive set, one that I would be proud to keep in the registry. #6 in a competitve series like that, in only 2 years, is no easy task. No telling where you might be in year 3 or 4. However, the argument presented in this thread involves retired sets with estimated grades. The sets ahead of you in the all time rankings for Franklin FBL are not estimated, they were all sets that were retired within the system. Any changes put forth in this thread, would not alter your ranking. >>

Sign In or Register to comment.