I'm not happy with the new "weighting" system
CRAIG
Posts: 33 ✭
I went from 24th to 28th and my overall rating dropped about 14 points. In fact, over the weekend
I added a new coin and upgraded two others and my set dropped another spot to 29th. What the
heck is going on?? Also, I don't like the idea that the DMPL's and PL's have no extra weight.
Example, does it make any sense that an 1881-S MS66 (population thousands)
should have a greater weight than an 1881-S MS64 DMPL (pop 400 or so)?? I don't think there
should be an additional series for these. What about the FB or Red Red/Brown designations in
some other series'?? They don't have to submit new Registry Sets?? Is it just me?? I'm not thrilled
that the game has started and the rules have been changed. Not trying to sound like a whiner but
lets face it, it's a real disappointment.
Any thoughts?? Craig....
The Frick Collection
I added a new coin and upgraded two others and my set dropped another spot to 29th. What the
heck is going on?? Also, I don't like the idea that the DMPL's and PL's have no extra weight.
Example, does it make any sense that an 1881-S MS66 (population thousands)
should have a greater weight than an 1881-S MS64 DMPL (pop 400 or so)?? I don't think there
should be an additional series for these. What about the FB or Red Red/Brown designations in
some other series'?? They don't have to submit new Registry Sets?? Is it just me?? I'm not thrilled
that the game has started and the rules have been changed. Not trying to sound like a whiner but
lets face it, it's a real disappointment.
Any thoughts?? Craig....
The Frick Collection
0
Comments
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
medical emergency and returned to see that my set had fallen and started
to research this weighting system and was shocked to see what they had
done. I would like to get some feedback from other Morgan Registry Set
owners to see if I am the only one who thinks that this system is severely
flawed, before I assert my position to Mr. Hall. Isn't there some sort
of polling software on this site??
Craig....
Personally, I've never been very interested in a DMPL Philly coin - if you wanted prooflike, get a proof!
because of their rarity (low pop) then why not base the weighting on the pop report
with the same standards for DMPL's and PL's??
I don't have my email on this machine from Mr. Hall,but he pretty much said" If you don't like the way it is,you need to ask as many of the Dollar registry people their opinion and let him know what they think".
If the majority of the guys want it changed,it will be.
He said the registry is for us !
You will have to do a bit of research to find all these people,but it can be done.
Good luck,
Larry
POB 854
Temecula CA 92593
310-541-7222 office
310-710-2869 cell
www.LSRarecoins.com
Larry@LSRarecoins.com
PCGS Las Vegas June 24-26
Baltimore July 14-17
Chicago August 11-15
be modified so as to more accurately reflect the "rarity" of a set relative to the
pop report? I don't think there is a perfect system out there. For example,
the pop on a 1883-O 62 DMPL may be lower than a 63 DMPL but that
doesn't make it a coin that is more rare. Any suggestions/ideas ??
Craig....
tradedollarnut, I strongly disagree, many heavily cameoed DMPL -S- mint and -CC- mint Morgans are actually superior in appearance to many proof coins as far as depth of mirror and cameo contrast, and I feel that both PL and DMPL coins should receive significant credit in the basic MS set over their regular MS counterparts as they are in most cases far rarer and far more expensive, and a few dates are all but unknown in PL or DMPL making a seperate PL/DMPL set a virtually unachievable task to complete for 95% of collectors.
Dragon
idea on how to modify the weighting system? Thanks in advance, Craig....
Camelot
If you want bonus points for your PL and DMPL coins, why not enter them in the Morgan Dollars Prooflike, Circulation Strikes (1878-1921) set? That's the set where bonus points are awarded for PL and DMPL sets. Caveat: sets must be at least 50% PL/DMPL to qualify. If you've got only a handful of PL/DMPL coins in a set, the bonus probably would only help incrementally anyways...
All,
I still don't understand why PCGS didn't like my idea of weighting based on "pop higher". This would take into account the rarity of PL/DMPL, specific dates, etc. It seems like if you just do a sum on the "pop higher" column of each set and then rank the sets in reverse order of the "pop higher" sum it would be much closer to reality than the current weighting scheme. Perhaps PCGS doesn't trust their own population data??
- Corey.
I don't collect Morgans but are there really people who prefer to collect brilliant Morgan? Those who avoid PL coins on purpose?
There are some folks that specialize in PL/DMPL and attempt to complete an entire set. There are others (myself included) that will occasionally pickup an example if it looks spectacular. It's very, VERY difficult to put together a complete set, especially when one considers eye appeal: a PL/DMPL in a lower grade can often look "worse" than a standard business strike because the reflective fields show every little abrasion.
On the other hand, there's nothing more beautiful than a nicely contrasted DMPL Morgan dollar. Okay, okay, so perhaps I am a little biased! ;-)
- Corey.
Greg S.
Camelot
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Join the NRA and protect YOUR right to keep and bear arms
To protest against all hunting of game is a sign of softness of head, not soundness of heart. Theodore Roosevelt
[L]http://www.ourfallensoldier.com/ThompsonMichaelE_MemorialPage.html[L]
But hey, the weighting sure gave my set of 4 coins (three MS and one VG 93S) a boost compared to other 4 coin sets of common coins.
Greg S.
I agree with you, if you have CAM and DCAM as well as PROOF in some sets, FH in the SLQ's and Full Band or Full steps or Full Bell Lines that reflect the quality of the strikes in those issues then does it make sense to exclude the PL's and DMPL's from the regular Morgan set. They are, after all, a reflection of the quality of the strike and the dies of the Morgan Dollars and as such should be treated the same as coins in other sets that have unique differences in the strike and die quality. To require a seperate set for PLs means that Jeff nickels should have a seperate set for Full Steps. What would the Merc Collectors do if full bands were placed in a seperate set? The quality of strike and dies in the Morgan sets are most demonstrated by the PL designation.
It is impossible to collect a full set of Morgans in PL or DMPL. The best set in the current registry, DWG, the highest rated set (set#4) with the most DMPLs in it has 30 non PL or DMPL coins in it. If It had the extra points for dmpls it would be the #1 set.
So why create a seperate set that cannot be built entirely of the designated characteristic of the set?
They should be included with the regular set and extra points given just as they have designated for the prooflike set.
Macqui
GC's DMPL SET
Camelot
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Join the NRA and protect YOUR right to keep and bear arms
To protest against all hunting of game is a sign of softness of head, not soundness of heart. Theodore Roosevelt
[L]http://www.ourfallensoldier.com/ThompsonMichaelE_MemorialPage.html[L]
or is it possible that they will go back to the old weighting system??
BTW, someone told me about some polling software on this site. Perhaps
we could poll the Morgan Set Registry owners and get their input. Craig....
The best bet is to send David Hall an email at DH@collectors.com. If you want to be successful here's what I would recommend.
1. Don't ask for a complete revamp of the system. They won't do it.
2. Ask for a simple bonus system of one extra point for a PL and two extra points for a DMPL.
3. Get a group of 3 or 4 collectors to send the same email and ask for exactly the same thing. You draft the email, and send it to the others and have them retype it close to verbatim.
4. Try to get at least one well known Morgan collector to sign on.
5. Keep you request positive. Don't be critical. Label it as an enhancing improvement.
Realize that they want to comply with collector requests, but that they are very busy. A simple bonus system can be implemented with only a little work relatively. The only problem is that it is possible some key Morgan collectors recommended against bonuses for PL and DMPL. In that case they might not want to make the change for the basic set. I'm guessing that might have happened. That's maybe why they did the separate set for PLs (try to do something for everyone).
Anyway that's what I would do.
See the related post on a short set for 34 to 58 Lincolns as a good example of how things can work.
Good Luck
Greg
If you want, I'll forward you a copy of the "market weighting" e-mail I sent to him.
* Yes, I know he lost.
As I see it, every other series that has superlative grading over and above the MS grade, the superlative is the primary and sought after attribute (Red for copper, DCAM for Proofs, FB for Mercs, FBL for Franklins). I don't think there is anyone who would say, I actively collect brown coins or non Full Band Mercs. They may not be able to afford red or Full Band, but that's a different story.
In the case of Morgans, there is a clear delineation of people who collect one or the other. Many people do not like the PL or DMPL's because they magnify the bagmarks. A super MS67DMPL with contrast is a magnificent coin, but the average DMPL in MS63/64 or 65 unless nicely contrasted, looks worse to the eye than a brilliant. Try showing both to someone who has no clue about coins and ask them.
From an outsiders perspective, PCGS has it right in this series.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
Dallis
Sirs,
Being a PCGS collector Club member and having current and past registry sets from Moderns (SBA, Ike,) to more traditional series (Morgans and Classic Commems) I would just like you to know that for the most part I pretty much agree with the weight systems. I do however want to make my displeasure known that the PL and DMPL Morgans are not given additional points as part of the CS set. It would be impossible for more than a few people out there to ever build a set of PL or DMPL coins, and really, these are business strike coins and should IMHO be included in the standard CS set, and points added depending on population or rarity or some equal factor. I hope you will reconsider this aspect of the Morgan sets.
I do enjoy all aspects of the registry program, and applaud all the hard work I know you have put into it. There is no possible way of coming up with a system that is going to please "all the people, all the time" and I thank you for allowing us fairly small time collectors input in "our" program.
Thanks much for your consideration.......Regards...Kory Thompson (BRdude) (kokimoki)
Here was is reply maybe 5 minutes later:
Hi Kory...
The PL/DMPL issue is pretty complicated. I'll be asking other serious collectors about their views and we'll try to figure out something down the road that could possibly work better. Thanks for the input.
I was impressed with the quick reply, and willingness to look at it again anyway
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Join the NRA and protect YOUR right to keep and bear arms
To protest against all hunting of game is a sign of softness of head, not soundness of heart. Theodore Roosevelt
[L]http://www.ourfallensoldier.com/ThompsonMichaelE_MemorialPage.html[L]
Had PCGS written back to you with the actual TRUTH, it would have sounded something like this:
Although we here at PCGS are supposedly the world renowned experts in the field of rare coins and grading, and although our braintrust has been working on the weighting of the Morgan dollar series for a a FULL YEAR now, we fully admit our weighting system SUCKS and took all of 3 minutes to come up with. We admit our system doesn't even come remotely close to ranking the sets correctly (especially the partial sets) and it was just too much trouble for us to take the time and do it correctly, so we came up with a basic 1-10 vague, arbitrary scale and just made a whole new registry set for PL and DMPL coins. And as for the PL/DMPL coins, we really don't care if it's a date that has 2 known or 2000 known, we just add a point or 2, simple isn't it?? Sorry for the inconvenience but we really just don't care. Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely, The PCGS Braintrust
To those who think that PCGS "got it right" in this series, you'd have to be more than just an "outsider", you'd have to have virtually zero knowledge of this series regarding date and grade rarity, as well as PL/DMPL rarity for any given date or grade, and be from the planet Uranus IMO.
Dragon
But quoting Mr. Hall directly, "Deal with it."
Not........
Why do "special" coins in certian sets get bonus points and not others? Why do FSB Mercs get special attention and not a PL or DMPL Morgan?
This whole system is totally Messed Up!!!!!!!!!! Or as a RTO friend of mine used to say, Foxtrot Uniform!!!
Personally, I am not much of a Morgan collector, but I think the non PLs, non DMPLs are more attractive. I agree with Arizona. If I want the mirrored look, I personally would go with proofs. Most PLs I have seen, even gem and higher, are really, in my opinion, rather ugly.
Greg S.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Join the NRA and protect YOUR right to keep and bear arms
To protest against all hunting of game is a sign of softness of head, not soundness of heart. Theodore Roosevelt
[L]http://www.ourfallensoldier.com/ThompsonMichaelE_MemorialPage.html[L]
Collector Society Morgan Dollars
The NGC weighting system is FAR superior to the PCGS one. I have pretty much figured out how NGC did it just by examining the various sets in the NGC registry and seeing how they rate vs. other sets. It is obvious that NGC also uses the value of a coin as well as grade and date to determine their weighting system, something that PCGS should take a few lessons from, as value should be a heavy consideration in weighting any set.
Dragon
But, perhaps more importantly, the weights have done NOTIHNG to alter the price of the "pop top" coins that get punished in the weighting scale. For example, when I was offered (and bought) the (3) MS68 silver Wash quarters last week, did it influence the price that the "weights" of the coins were rediculously low? Of course not. If I would have told the seller that his coin only has a weight of "2" and therefore should be worth thousands of dollars less, I would have been laughed out of the room. Likewise, do you think the purchaser of an MS68FB low pop Mercury dime is asking for a price reduction on the coin because it doesn't get many registry points with their purchase?
PCGS has stated the rankings are "not perfect". That speaks volumes to me. But, the bottom line is at this point does it make any difference in the world? Are finest known and neat variety (like DMPL) coins not selling for the right price because they are weighted too low? Of course not, indeed, they have been rising in price best I can tell in this market despite the flawed rankings!
Maybe I am "burnt out" on the issue now, but I could really care less at this point that an MS68 silver quarter worth "five figures" still gets less points than a 1932(d) in VF-35 worth perhaps $100 or so. Indeed, that is what MANY collectors on this board actually appeared to support when these issues were discussed a while back. One day PCGS may get around to fixing the flaws. In the meantime, please PM me with all the grossly underweighted coins you might have for sale - I am happily buying as many as I can afford right now.
1. I always liked the original simple average system.
2. I like the current system. It rewards completeness, and doesn't place a great emphasis on pop one common dates (disagree with Wondercoin there).
3. I don't think giving a small amount of weight to pop one commons will harm their price (agree with Wondercoin there).
4. Will not buy a low pop common unless I can clearly tell the difference between it and the next lowest grade.
5. Dispite my disparaging comments in the past about MS68 silver Washingtons, I now recognize looking at Mitch's scans that they are far superior to any extent 67 that I am aware of. If I were still collecting Washingtons, I would try to buy one. I do own a couple of IKEs of that calibre, and they are clearly worth the huge premium to me. Still don't think they should be given greater weight in the registry though.
6. Sold my FBL Franklin collection 2 years back because I thought the FBL premiums were a bunch of bunk. Saw too many overall better struck pieces w/o FBL selling at a small fraction of worse overall struck pieces with FBL. Something seemed wrong, and I sold.
7. Finally, I'm tired of members qualifying their posts. So, these points are not just my opinion, they are the way it is.
Greg