Should PCGS eliminate the "estimated" sets?

dbldie55

When the registry was first developed, they included estimated grades for some of the better known collections from before third party grading. These gave a sort of level to shoot for. For many of the Eliasberg buisness strike sets, he did not have a MS example of the Philadelphia coin, and they said if he did, it would be in this grade! Now that the registry seems to be fairly mature, should they eliminate these non-existant sets? Should you really be completing against a set that never existed entirely in PCGS holders?

Thoughts

kieferscoins

It should be gone!!! Registry collectors cannot "estimate" what their coins should grade, so why would old collections that have been sold and the owner dead who never put up his set on the registry be listed? This is like PCGS going to NGC's website and putting their top collections on their (PCGS) site when they never even registered them. PCGS needs to address this issue!

Cameron Kiefer

pop1

You are absolutely correct. These sets have served their purposes.
These sets, if deemed necessary to include, should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of their particular series.
If these sets have to be "on the list" then they could be noted at the bottom of the "second page".
Currently, these sets are just "taking up space" more deserved by a "pcgs only" collection.

keithdagen

There are still some sets, mostly gold proofs, that have no active collections. For these sets, the "phantom" sets should remain. For sets that do have actively registered sets, the estimates should be removed.

Keith

tradedollarnut

keithdagen

TDN,

I knew that this is a thread you would have an opinion on.

Keith

braddick

Absolutely. Clean up the Registry of this stuff. Get rid of these phantom sets and get rid of some of the set NO one is contributing to.

Flash

They should definitely be removed. IF I had an 1885-O Morgan dollar I estimate its grade would be MS65. Should this coin be included in my registry set? No. Get rid of them.

CarlWohlforth

dump them.

khayse

If the coin never was in the set in the first place (your Eliasberg
example), I don't think PCGS should have ever put a phantom coin in the
set (not even when they started the registry). It wasn't something to
shoot for because it never existed. Why don't they include a phantom
"Bill Gates" set in every category? If Bill Gates collected this type of
coin, his collection would look like this...all finest graded. Absurd.

I would vote for coins that were never in a collection to be removed.

And of course, having collections in which the coins existed but
were never graded (slabbed) is a whole other discussion

I guess for me it would depend on how they came up with the number.
The interesting thing for me (having come across the page where you
can look at what some of these sets contained) is that the page is
empty.
Now if this page was full of estimated grades, then maybe PCGS had
seen the coins and individually came up with each estimated grade and
then averaged them out to a collection estimated grade. This I might
go along with.

But since each invidual coin isn't listed with an estimated grade I
wonder if they just pulled a SWAG (sophisticated will@ss guess) on
the whole thing. Maybe they took what the coins sold for and derived
a grade from that. Who knows what they did?

If PCGS gives us some answers maybe we can better make a decision on
whether estimated sets should remain in the listings.

-Keith H

keoj

They should be dumped. They are not accurate at all. Several of the coins that I see listed in these estimated sets are way off reality and would never, ever make it into a PCGS, NGC, etc. holder (well maybe an ACG holder, but point is made). Unless the set is documented under PCGS (ie consistent rules), they should be gone.

keoj

shirohniichan

Ditto.

pop1

It comes down to "belief" in fictional sets, and is not consistant with other legitimate pcgs rules.

goose3

This might be the first time everyone has agreed on something??

I agree also! I was looking at some of the sets the other day and thought to myself how senseless it was.

cosmicdebris

Dump 'em

Sunnywood

Here's one more vote ... the great sets of the past could certainly be mentioned in the introductory comments for a series, but it is inaccurate and pointless to try to assign PCGS grades to such sets. For example, as a collector of proof seated dollars, I admire great collections of the past century such as Boyd, Atwater, Roe, Dunham, Geiss, Jerome Kern, Eliasberg, and Amon Carter. For that matter, I admire great NGC sets of today (Phil Kaufman) or mixed NGC/PCGS sets (Morris Silverman). I think it is appropriate to pay some respect to great collectors of the past. But they were assembling sets in a different time, before certified grading, before proofs were considered separate issues from business strikes, and in a very different marketplace. Some of those old-time coins would be returned today as cleaned or artificially toned, or would be devalued in today's dipped cameo-crazed market for having original patination. It is simply not apples and apples, and these sets should not be on the charts.

HOWEVER, PCGS should stop calling sets on the charts "The Number One Finest Set of All Time," or the "All Time Finest Sets." They are in many cases NOT NOT NOT!!! What they are is this: The All-Time Finest PCGS-Graded & Registered Sets.

So get the phantom estimated sets off the charts, and re-label the sets on the charts for what they really are.

Sunnywood

Keyrock

I would like to see them moved to the series discussion/description part. The great sets that physically existed (but estimated) should get a mention and not be forgotten and those with "Phantom" coins should disappear. lets eliminate virtual collections now since I cant list my virtual MS70 set

keoj

Never have I seen such a uniform response on these boards. Okay, maybe when someone bashes ACG but I think it would be great to pass this thread up to PCGS. Anyone volunteer?

Spooly

dbldie55 I agree!

keithdagen

Seems fair. Start the controversy, finish it. I second Spooly's motion.

Keith

pop1

David H is out today, but will review this thread tomorrow.

CJK

Dump them!

CarlWohlforth

Welcome to the boards Sunnywood!! Nice icon...

jcping

I admire great collections that old-timers put together; however, when we play a game, we follow a rule. The rule for registry sets is set to be "PCGS graded coins only," so that I hate phantom PCGS registry sets since they did not follow the rule and created un-fair situation.

Could I send my NGC/ANACS coins to PCGS to get "cross-over" that if the grade is matched or higher, then cross-over it, and if the grade is lower, then get new certification numbers/grades and use them for PCGS registry set(s). I simply create chao about the population reports.

I agree the statement "Unless the set is documented under PCGS (ie consistent rules), they should be gone."
Also, change the title to "The All-Time Finest PCGS-Graded & Registered Sets" is not a bad idea.

Remove the phantom sets ASAP.

BigMac

PCGS only. That's the name of the game. I also feel that we need to just combine the current and all-time finest sets. Just give a listing for the top ten. I think more would enjoy that.

tradedollarnut

I wonder if the PCGS only standard will hurt Registry participation in the long run.

I can understand PCGS wanting to increase the demand for their coins, but how about allowing NGC at a point lower? Then the incentive to be in the PCGS holder is still there, but the disincentive of not being able to find enough PCGS coins to complete a set is removed. Eventually, for some of the scarcer sets, collectors are going to migrate to the NGC registry simply because it's easier to complete a set and all the heartache about crossing or finding the right date in a PCGS holder isn't there.

billywls

I could live with one "estimated set" in each collection but look at the early large cent set: the top five collections are estimates in a set where 15% of the coins have pop 1 or zero for all grades. PCGS has never even graded an single example of some of these coins.

I agree with most comments--toss 'em.

Swan

I was never comfortable with estimated sets, although by todays grading standards, they were probably undergraded. I don't think historians will forget these great collections, in any case, they should not be listed on the set registeries. Dump 'em.