Do you think its fair to allow non pcgs coins to be in the registry

ScarsdaleCoin · March 22, 2005 9:58AM

how would you feel if you had the #1 set and got knocked off the top spot by another set that included a whole bunch of coins that were not pcgs certified.....

here's the link

TheRaven · March 22, 2005 10:04AM

My feeling on this is that I would not include anything that was not PCGS graded in a PCGS registry set.

Because all certification companies are not created equal.

tradedollarnut · March 22, 2005 10:07AM

Sure ... why not? The grades are based on PCGS experts notes at the auction sale and if anything are conservative. It's the only way to put up some of the all time great collections into the All Time Finest section of the Registry.

morgannut2 · March 22, 2005 10:13AM

Then the PCGS Registry would be the NGC Registry, unless ANACS coins were added too. How PCGS can recreate the best old-time collections is completely beyond me--especially since so many coins have been unfortunately dipped, upgraded, and really no longer exist anyway in their historic form IMO.

MORGANHUNTER2 · March 22, 2005 10:14AM

Personally- I think the registry sets should be governed by the ANA and PNG- not by the TPG's services. I saw the link and find it to be bogus- what in the hell is a "estimated grade"?
If you are going to go registry based solely on who has it slabbed then let ANA/PNG give the grading service a weighted average to that specific coin. ie- a 93-s Morgan graded by say Anacs as a MS details, net AU50- for cleaning and the weight scale for this coin would be a 17 (i'm gonna use my own scale of thought here) based this on facts- and the coin in particular.

set a scale to be equal to and for each TPG, it is not rocket science- but it is economics in sense. Tier the TPG's as you would the coin.
I like my idea- ok can't steal it I just filed a patent/trademark right with the FED.....

tradedollarnut · March 22, 2005 10:17AM

How PCGS can recreate the best old-time collections is completely beyond me--especially since so many coins have been unfortunately dipped, upgraded, and really no longer exist anyway in their historic form

From auction catalog notes by PCGS experts. At the time the collection was intact and in auction, that's what the coins graded. It's irrelevant what the coins grade now if they've been messed with or ruined or even improved.

Cratylus · March 22, 2005 10:19AM

I've never understood the need to be a "slab ticket collector." Oops sorry, I meant a "registry set participant." Honestly, who gives a flying rat's a$$ what the little piece of paper says? Something to think about what registry sets have done to the hobby...

Would you rather have an MS67 coin in an incorrect MS65 slab or an MS65 coin in an incorrect MS67 slab?

A registry set participant would rather have the MS65 in the MS67 slab. Why? More points on the registry set competition.

But, a collector of coins would rather have the MS67 in the MS65 slab. Why? It's a better coin and he's probably getting it at a better price.

I don't know about other board members, but I collect COINS, not printed labels. And as long as the coin is accurately or conservatively graded and I'm paying a reasonable price for it, I could care less whose brand of plastic coffin encases the coin, and that includes "wannabe TPG companies".

fcloud · March 22, 2005 10:20AM

I think the reverse is going on. I think the top Mercury Dime set in the NGC registry is all PCGS.

I do think it would be cool to have a registry that allowed ANACS, NGC and PCGS, but only on a site not tied to any of the three.

Edited to add. I should have looked at the link before responding.

I wish they put the Eliasburg in there own set somewhere instead of putting him number 1 everywhere.

100proof1957 · March 22, 2005 10:22AM

Just my .02

PCGS registry should be PCGS only

NGC registry should be NGC only !

tmot99 · March 22, 2005 10:27AM

I think it is fine to be able to list them. Kind of "looky what I have but I want to keep it in company XXXX holder". I don't think they should have any value towards set completion or point totals. I think the registry is a great place to show that you do have a complete set and can show the pictures of what you do have. Just because you can show what you do have, doesn't mean that you are playing on the same field.

100proof1957 · March 22, 2005 10:29AM

On another note.

Why should you have to be a PAID member of PCGS to participate in the Registry ?

That should be FREE ! smoebody paid the grading fees !

100proof1957 · March 22, 2005 10:32AM

RE: the Eliasberg Gold collection ?

Estimated grade ?

Not slabbed ?

BS !

ziggy29 · March 22, 2005 10:45AM

Registry sets are fun. They're also a cause, for better or worse, for the moon money some "pop tops" are selling for.

Having said that, PCGS is a business who is only looking out for PCGS. And if limiting their registry to PCGS coins increases the desirability and demand for PCGS coins (and their market prices), then I guess it's "mission accomplished." I don't like that registries are handled by a company with a vested interest in the particular piece of plastic, but no one asked me.

Fairlaneman · March 22, 2005 10:51AM

<< <i>A registry set participant would rather have the MS65 in the MS67 slab. Why? More points on the registry set competition. >>

Another fine little statement on this forum with no merit at all. Are you saying Registry Collectors are not collectors at all ? Let me know if you want to see my Number collection. This gets real old everytime the subject is brought up. If you have facts to back up the statement that Registry participants are only number collectors lets hear them.

SOS and Without Merit.

Ken

Coinhusker1 · March 22, 2005 10:57AM

After seeing this thread, my thought is that if ANACS established a registry that allowed ANACS, PCGS, and NGC coins, it would increase ANACS business, and allow collectors to participate in a registry without having to go through the crossover grading nonsense when they find a nice coin sitting in an ANACS or NGC holder. Maybe that is something thier new owners could do (if they had not thought of it already).

morgannut2 · March 22, 2005 10:59AM

The notion of an inclusive Registry is certainly a good one for overall display, educational and insurance reasons. Perhaps IGC will lead the way when Cameron becomes Chief Grader shortly.

My concern with historical retrospective collections at PCGS and "improved" (Ha) coins is the Registry is percieved as an active ongoing competition. I suppose it makes sense if PCGS includes coins they actually graded at auction (I wasn't aware they did this except Eliasberg). I just don't like to see the same coin duplicated at different grades--but it's not important actually.

And frankly, I thought it was noble that Rare Coin Wholesalers returned all their duplicate/triplicate upgrade certification labels--they would be valuable to any number of Registry paper chasers!! I hope they stocked up before the pops dropped on some rarer denominations.

FatMan · March 22, 2005 11:03AM

It's PCGS's program, so they call the shots. I'm not about to limit my purchases to PCGS holders, and I am not about to bother to cross over my NGC coins. Therefore, I register my sets across the street where they allow both.

edited to add: My Modern Commem sets are in PCGS holders so I keep those sets in the PCGS registry. They get me invited to the luncheons.

kryptonitecomics · March 22, 2005 11:07AM

I'll make this short and sweet........yes I think it's fair to allow now PCGS coins in the PCGS registry...and I commend NGC for allowing both.

bgrice · March 22, 2005 11:47AM

<< <i>On another note.

Why should you have to be a PAID member of PCGS to participate in the Registry ?

That should be FREE ! smoebody paid the grading fees ! >>

You don't have to be a PAID member of PCGS to participate in the Registry. A couple of years ago half of my walker set was NGC & half PCGS coins and I had them listed at both sites(PCGS only accepting their own of course). Kudos to NGC for accepting both as I ended up selling all of my lower grade coins and crossed over the better NGC coins to PCGS holders. Everyone has their own reasons for registering a set of coins. Some do it to get the family involved in something that they can all see on the internet as they progress. Mercurydimeguy sold me my 1946 walker and through a few e-mails he ended up telling me that he was working with his daughter to put together a MS64 set in the same registry. That's pride... not competition. And then there are others who have the money to buy the best and they end up in the Top 5. I listed mine because I enjoy collecting and through it I've raised the caliper of my thinking and what I'm willing to accept in my set. And yes I have a goal of being in the Top 20.

100proof1957 · March 22, 2005 12:01PM

I have been corrected and posted my whopping 2 coin 57 proof set !

Thnx for the help guys !

nwcs · March 22, 2005 12:03PM

Fair to PCGS? No. Fair to PCGS only people? No. Fair to collectors? Yes. But the issue isn't really one of fairness, though.

relayer · March 22, 2005 1:11PM

I think they'd be awful upset once they realized how much they paid for that PCGS insert

mozin · March 22, 2005 1:28PM

The obvious solution is to have three sets, exclusively PCGS, exclusively NGC, and the third an assortment of both. I don't believe other grading services should be included and any of these three sets.

Do you think its fair to allow non pcgs coins to be in the registry

Comments

Leave a Comment