Rule interpretation

jakeblue

I was wondering other's opinion on the interpretation of the "tie" rule in the Set Registry Rules online information. Here is the wording:

"Ties

Sets are date-stamped according to the first date they are submitted for publication. In case of a tie the set which reaches the number one spot with 100% completion first will remain in the number one spot regardless of the set's first validation date. The following logic is used:

1) Highest rating NOW
2) Highest rating EVER
3) Highest rating ever DATE

As an example:

1) Set #1 with the highest rating goes to the top slot.
2) If set #2 ties set #1's rating, then set #1 remains in the top slot regardless of the first or last published date.
3) If set #2 updates with a higher rating than set #1, then it takes the top slot. However, if set #1 matches set #2's rating, set #1 retakes the top slot."

As I read this, the first set to reach the top spot AND 100% completion, (regardless of rating at that time) will forever hold the potential to be the number one finest set of all time, if they continue to upgrade to the highest rating possible. In other words, they may lose the top spot, but if they work to match the highest set in the top set, they, again, become the number one finest set of all time.

Correct? No?

ajia

That's the way I read it.

LindeDad

I only see the rule coming into total effect is when two or more sets hit the highest grade possible for the set. All top pops then it's who got there first is listed above the others and down the line.

jakeblue

Well, I called PCGS earlier today (to clarify) and spoke with no less than 3 women that work the registry side. The first two were unsure, and so the last one I spoke to told me that the "100"% was not correct and that the online rule was confusing and wrong" She said that the only criteria that mattered was the highest rating first in the top spot would always be the finest of all time, regardless of earlier completed sets. In other words, the first set to obtain the highest rating possible could never be removed from being the all-time finest set.

I really hate to call back because they were getting frustrated, but I really want a confirmed interpetation (one way or the other) before committing $$ to a new set.

WaterSport

This is the same rule that applies for ANY top spot situation, not just those 100% completed.

WS

jakeblue

Maybe a exacting example might help. I do think that some of the Everyman collections will have ties at the top. So...

Everyman collection set has 10 coins required composition.

Set #1 starts with 8 coins, but is the top ranked current set and is ranked as the Finest set of all time.

Set # 2 starts with all 10 coins, and takes the current top spot and is ranked as the Finest set of all time, but not the with the highest possible rating.

Set # 1 picks up 2 more coins, and now has achieved full composition and the highest rating possible and is ranked as the Finest set of all time.

Set #2 upgrades his coins and now has achieved the highest rating possible and is essentially tied with Set #1 at the top.

Which set is ranked the Finest set of all time? And Why?

ajia

<<Set #1 starts with 8 coins, but is the top ranked current set and is ranked as the Finest set of all time.

Set # 2 starts with all 10 coins, and takes the current top spot and is ranked as the Finest set of all time, but not the with the highest possible rating.

Set # 1 picks up 2 more coins, and now has achieved full composition and the highest rating possible and is ranked as the Finest set of all time.

Set #2 upgrades his coins and now has achieved the highest rating possible and is essentially tied with Set #1 at the top.>>

As I understood the rules, Set #2 would become the TOP set (they're both #1).
But from your discussion with CS, set #1 would stay the TOP set.

If the rule is whoever get to top rating first is at the top , then the top set will change every year for many modern sets, especially proof sets as PR70DCAM has become almost common.

And although it gives the 'common' collector a chance at 'catching up' with those that have spent big $$ to assemble their sets earlier...then the opportunity to surpass them by being the first to get a Top Pop for the year, I'm torn which interpretation I like.

Steve

I understand that if a set is ranked #1 it is considered #1 NO MATTER WHERE IN THE PHYSICAL LISTING the set's name appears. A set that is tied for ANY position is entitled to claim that position and receive any awards offered for achieving that position. Because there may be two, three, or several other sets with that exact same score has absolutely NO affect on the ranking. The only affect is with the PERCEPTION of some viewers of the listing that being placed in a higher physical position on the list is "better". IN FACT it is not better. Steve

llafoe

It's really rather simple logic...

15 Dec 09

Set(a) #1 - 58.06
Set(b) #2 - 57.94
Set(c) #3 - 56.00

16 Dec 09

Set(a) #1 - 58.06
Set(b) #2 - 57.94
Set(d) #3 - 57.50
Set(c) #4 - 56.00

17 Dec 09

Set(a) #1 - 58.06
Set(d) #1 - 58.06
Set(b) #3 - 57.94
Set(c) #4 - 56.00

18 Dec 09

Set(d) #1 - 58.27
Set(a) #2 - 58.06
Set(b) #3 - 57.94
Set(c) #4 - 56.00

19 Dec 09

Set(d) #1 - 58.27
Set(a) #1 - 58.27
Set(b) #3 - 57.94
Set(c) #4 - 56.00

You can see from my example that Set(d) tied Set(a) on 17 Dec 09... Set(a) remains on top since they were rated 58.06 first. On 18 Dec 09, Set(d) passed Set(a) and took over the #1 spot. However, Set(a) being competitive matched Set(d) on 19 Dec 09... BUT, since Set(d) attained 58.27 first, they now own the #1 position.

Easy?