WHY NOT SET A MINIMUM COMPLETION %-BEFORE A SET IS LISTED ON THE REGISTRY

DANNY · June 7, 2002 4:07AM

As a regular viewer of various catagories on the Registry, I am baffled at times to see sets LISTED with 1% or 2% completion.
If my memory is correct, one of these listed sets was titled
"The Dog Collection".(I agree).
It would seem to be in the best interests of the entire REGISTRY,
that a minimum completion % be required, before any set is actually LISTED.
I don't have a problem at all with anyone registering his/her set with PCGS,regardless of the sets completion %.
I do have a problem with EVERY SET being LISTED on the board.
My recommendation is that only sets that are a minimum of 25%
complete be listed.
What do you think, my fellow registry participants?
Danny Biddle
Paris,KY.

keithdagen · June 7, 2002 4:14AM

Danny,

As a new member, welcome. Please check your poll, as you only have one option right now.

cosmicdebris · June 7, 2002 4:15AM

I vote no. Sometimes it is a slow climb to the top and I like watching this.

RegistryCoin · June 7, 2002 4:20AM

Can't do it. Some sets are too small, ie Cal. gold mini type set, and Pan-pac commem set, 6 and 5 coins therein, respectively.

Gerry · June 7, 2002 4:27AM

Could do it - based on a percentage - say, set a minimum of 10% to be included - so that even 1 of 5 or 6 would be eligible, but 1 of 25 or so would not be. However, having said that, I'm not sure I see any real advantages to eliminating starter sets - they usually fall to the bottom of the list and can be easily ignored.

RegistryCoin · June 7, 2002 4:34AM

Never mind.

dpoole · June 7, 2002 4:35AM

Lots of people like to get on there from the start, and watch themselves slowly rise. Others like to use the Registry in part for inventory purposes. I think it's fine to let anyone who wants to register their set on there, no matter what's in it. What's the harm?

I second everybody's welcome, by the way. Which set(s) are yours?

jtryka · June 7, 2002 4:39AM

I think there should be minimum set for each set individually. 25% might be OK for a set with only 15 coins, but think about the type set from 1792-1964, should you be required to have 25% there? My set only has about 15% or so, and I am quite proud of that accomplishment. Same with my St. Gaudens Set (about 15%). I doubt I would be as proud of 15% completion on Franklin Halves, or a short set of Walkers (I probably am close to 100% on that but never bothered to register).

Mrpawn · June 7, 2002 4:42AM

The recent apparent abuse is not a reason to over react. I personally enjoy watching my set grow as I send my raw coins in for certification. If I, or anyone else just starting, had to wait till a certain percentage before entering their Morgans alot of the FUN of growing a set would be gone.

psxchelly · June 7, 2002 5:23AM

Young people, and people on a budget participate in the Reg sets too... setting a limit on how many coins you have before you enter your set may deter those people from joining...

Some people are happy that they have that first coin and want to enter there set right away, and enjoy watching the set work its way up the ladder.....

Lets say you just started collecting coins and you buy your first ms69 or pr69 of a particular variety and your excited about coin collecting.. now you want to start your reg set right away by registering it... but you cant, because you cant start a set with one coin... That would bother me. maybe i am too sensitive.

DANNY · June 7, 2002 5:26AM

I agree that 25% cannot,(and should not) be a requirement
for EVERY catagory. However, there should be a minimum, in my humble opinion, for every catagory.
My point here is very simple, some people like to abuse the system.
Case in point, MR. 3000.
I wonder what % of the 3000+ sets currently listed are actually SETS?
Does one coin of a 48 coin Roosey Dime catagory constitute a SET?
Danny Biddle
Paris, KY.

coincollector1989 · June 7, 2002 5:28AM

Danny
I will have to vote no also. I agree with cosmicdebris I like to watch my sets slowly rise, as I obtain new coins to add to the regisrty.

DIMEMAN · June 7, 2002 5:34AM

Sorry Danny, I say leave it alone for all the reasons listed above. Who cares about that stupid 3000 thing. 3 free submissions - big deal. Let everybody play for fun or serious that's what it is for.

Jon

keets · June 7, 2002 5:38AM

the registry sets seem to be about inclusion---getting more people, especially youngsters, involved in the hobby. placing requirements like that for participation would be rather exclusive, don't you think? and at the same time, there is an advantage to registering a set that's just been started, since ties are avoided by the time/date a set is registered.

RegistryCoin · June 7, 2002 5:47AM

Ok, here's a good example: The registry hasn't a place yet for Year Sets. Should a collector of his birth year, for example, not be able to put his coins in each of their appropriate series? There was a gentleman who had a 1950 year set, available recently on this forum, that contained one of the, if not, the finest coin (date & mm) in each series of that year. It would have been great to include his coins with ours.

MS67PLUS · June 7, 2002 5:55AM

Steve

A year set would be a great option I know several people that have a certain year in high grade coins DOG97 has a fantastic 1997 set. Again a great idea.

Spooly · June 7, 2002 6:24AM

Welcome Danny!

25% is hard core! I have a set with 25 coins that is only 17% complete. (All 1800's coins)

The 1 and 2 coin sets don't bother me, this is the first time (the Contest) it has ever been a issue. I don't think it will happen again.

The Dog Collection......... is Dog97 set........ he is a very long term member here and very well liked and respected.

psxchelly · June 7, 2002 7:00AM

<Case in point, MR. 3000.>
<I wonder what % of the 3000+ sets currently listed are actually SETS?>
<Does one coin of a 48 coin Roosey Dime catagory constitute a SET?>
<Danny Biddle>
<Paris, KY. >

Danny,
By the percentage listed on his set, "Mr. 3000" has 5 or 6 dimes up, and 3 other sets besides the dimes online with the Modern Type 99% complete.... So your point is moot... its obvious this person is a serious participant in the set registry, and was just LUCKY.

michelle

PTVETTER · June 7, 2002 7:19AM

All sets start with the first coin you buy! Nothing wrong with starting at the beginning and working up

Then they fall like me, I keep going backwards

But I still have hope maybe some day I can fine the coins I need with the right look at the right price.

mansco · June 7, 2002 9:07AM

LIST ANYONE'S SET THAT HAS A COIN THEY WANT TO REGISTER....AS LONG AS IT IS PCGS!!!!

I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN I HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE SETS TO DOWNLOAD EITHER...BUT WHY SHOULD THE SAME GUYS BE LEFT OUT?

IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A DELISTING CRITERIA, I THINK IT OUGHT TO FACTOR IN THE LAST TIME A SET ADDED A COIN IF THE SET HAS A LOW COMPLETION PERCENTAGE (I.E., ALL SETS ARE LISTED WHEN REGISTERED, BUT IF A SET REMAINS BELOW XX% FOR YY MONTHS, THEN IT IS DELISTED FROM THE FRONT PAGE (IF THE FRONT PAGE HAS MORE THAN 25 SETS).

Brudd · June 7, 2002 9:12AM

Danny,
I also have to vote No, I participate with you in the 46-64 MS Roosevelt
Set, I started with two coins at 4% and was happy to do so, but if the minimum % to start was say 25, then I would not be eligible until the 3 coins coming in arrived (I'm at 19% right now) and the 2 months it took me to get there would have kept me from being active in the registry and these forums. Maybe the best way to look at it would be " In the 46-64 MS Roosevelt sets, My 3 registered sets are ahead of 20+ other sets"
Remember, Leaders lead by example and if the example is "what you have isn't enough" New Members are not going to be thinking in terms of percentage points, at least I wouldn't have.

khayse · June 7, 2002 10:34AM

Danny,

Welcome. I think the poll and the posts show that most people don't wish to have
minimums. Even if people abuse it, what's the harm? Also I like to see how many
people are interested in a series, not just who has a collection over half (or some
other arbitrary number) completed. Maybe I can sell some of my upgraded pieces
to the people with only 5% done.

Michelle,
I think you mean his point is moot.

-KHayse

madmike · June 7, 2002 4:10PM

<< <i> I am baffled at times to see sets LISTED with 1% or 2% completion.
If my memory is correct, one of these listed sets was titled
"The Dog Collection".(I agree). >>

Uh-oh.... he dissed Dog's collection! How long until the fireworks start?

(Dog is a regular here in the forum)

BTW,

I say the listings are fine the way they are.

madmike

robbnsc · June 8, 2002 4:06PM

I agree with your suggestion. If a coin set has not had any additions for a period of time, it would appear that they are not serious about building this set.

howie08 · June 9, 2002 5:09AM

I don't see what it hurts to let someone list a set containing only 1 coin. Most sets start with one coin. Why not allow the person the fun and sense of accomplishment of , watching their set rise in the standings and % completion columns ? It's a good family hobby , and as a coin is added , everyone gets to see their collection improve in the registry.
Howie

daveyn · June 9, 2002 6:11AM

I think that part of the intent of the registry is to encourage young collectors to join in and enjoy this great hobby. I don't know how many could participate if min. limits were set.
My 12yr old son is trying to build a Kennedy set, but with his budget he has to work a little at a time.
I don't know how many MS65 fbl Franklins I could afford to buy all at one time to satisfy a minimum .
I think it works just fine the way it is, it is fun to see how the lower sets progress.

Just my thoughts,

Daveyn

lava · June 9, 2002 2:18PM

I am in favor of a minimum, but a small one. I remember my bank book in the olden days, where the bank phycisally entered withdrawals and deposits in the passbook. As a kid I made small deposits, but there was excitement in watching the balance grow. For us big spenders, lol, maybe a big mimimum is no problem, but this is a hobby, and the future is in the young collectors. God bless `em if they are smart enough to buy slabbed coins by PCGS. The registry is a great incentive for young and old, and let's not foreclose too many from participating. Maybe a minimum of either 10 coins or ten percent (10%)? Something aimed at cutting out the 2-3 coins guys.

Steve27 · June 10, 2002 1:51AM

No, the fact that someone only has one coin in their set causes no downside to anyone else.

lava · June 10, 2002 11:28AM

RegistryCoin · June 10, 2002 3:28PM

What is the big deal about a guy who is proud enough to want to see "his coin(s) in lights"?
Why do these sets attract so much attention that they warrent deleting?
If they're "meaningless enough", to someone, to delete, I assume that they are "meaningless enough" and easy enough to ignore. I would like to see the kids/newbies get the most opportunities to be as proud as possible.

DeepCoin · June 10, 2002 9:57PM

There is nothing to be gained by implementing a minimum number of coins to a set. It actually creates a disincentive to join. The whole 3000 set issue may cause a few extra sets to be created, but that is what you get when you have a marketing strategy.

I would hate to see young collectors disappointed by their inability to see their first coin in a registry set. The is no long term positive to a mininum IMHO.

Fairlaneman · June 10, 2002 10:07PM

No Set over 94% Complete should Be Allowed !! Any Set Under that Is Just Fine.

WHY NOT SET A MINIMUM COMPLETION %-BEFORE A SET IS LISTED ON THE REGISTRY

Comments