Options
Is PCGS changing the rules to your registry set?
lava
Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭
PCGS has opted to change the rules on the Morgan prooflike sets to require in pl or dmpl dates readily available in pl or dmpl, and make exception for coins scarce or non-existent in pl or dmpl. I see the logic in the change, although I think requiring people to buy an 1889-cc in at least ms60pl is cost prohibitive for most collectors and a very collector-unfriendly decision on the part of PCGS.
Are changes unique to us Morgan pl/dmpl collectors, or are the rules to your registry sets getting fine-tuned by PCGS?
Are changes unique to us Morgan pl/dmpl collectors, or are the rules to your registry sets getting fine-tuned by PCGS?
I brake for ear bars.
0
Comments
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
<< <i>Sounds rough. Maybe a penalty point would be in order for a non PL or DMPL coin. Kind of the opposite of a bonus point for Cam or DCAM. >>
The short term fix proposed by PCGS is exactly that -- you get credit for the `89-cc, but get hit with a penalty.
Because NGC's system works on that basis, I like an alternative. The initial model used by PCGS required 50% of the set to be pl or dmpl to qualify, and you could pick which coins you bought in pl or dmpl. That is arbitrary, but seemingly fair.
The new rules now require certain coins to be pl or dmpl. That is ok too, but is still arbitrary.
PCGS could probably not go to a pure pl / dmpl system because PCGS does not recognize coins below ms60 as being pl or dmpl, another complaint I have that goes unaddressed.
As for your comment, as far as I know you are correct, no one has put together a complete set of pl / dmpl coins. I think I am the closest. If you count some au pls in NGC or anacs slabs, I have all but a handfull in pl or dmpl. By the way, my 1889-cc I crossed from ab NGC au58pl, and opted to give up the pl designation since anyone looking at its mirrors would grade it as such (aside from PCGS). As the temporary fix of a penalty gets extinguished, then PCGS will no longer recognize the 1889-cc unless it is pl or dmpl.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Imho....don't call it a "Prooflike" set if anything that isn't PL or DMPL can be entered in; period. >>
I wouldn't mind if PCGS goes in that direction. It eliminates the arbitrary rules now in use and those soon to be inuse.
<< <i>Imho....don't call it a "Prooflike" set if anything that isn't PL or DMPL can be entered in; period. >>
The problems with this are: 1) There are any number of higher cost coins in AU that were clearly prooflike but PCGS won't designate them, 2) the restriction encourages people to collect very common prooflike issues--but under-rates the rare issues by allowing non-pls; and, 3) Perhaps 15% of issues are just never seen in pl, but some collectors wish to photograph (and list) their rare semi-prooflike examples.
-------
A 50% minimum rule allowed some collectors to concentrate money on rarer interesting higher cost issues. The rules now just encourage the collection of just common "stuff" to rack up points-- For example, it's much more interesting to see a set with a nice 1886O, 1894-P, and 1896S in prooflike--than to study die states from pictures of a string of 1879CC - 1885/90-91CC's--even though the CC's get more points. -
-------
Ideally, it would be fine to have only pl's--and these would be weighted by their rarity factor shown by the population--multiplied by the grade to give your total Registry values.