<< <i>If PCGS wants to show these great sets [and I commend them for that aspect of it], then create a registry subset where proofs/circ strikes are allowed interchangeably. Don't make things up that don't exist. >>
Along the lines of "Don't make things up that don't exist;" there are about 20 sets in this group which are less than 100 percent complete. This is an indication to me that they didn't exist as sets in this collection and thus should never have been considered for inclusion in the Registry. >>
You've got my agreement. From what I can see, it appears that the inventory for the entire collection of coins was entered and then the Registry Software built the sets. Those sets with less than 90% completion were then deleted.
But this is just a guess and I still believe that these have no business in the Registry since the coins were never physically graded by PCGS.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Still wondering the 'WHY' to all this? Someone at PCGS decided that the general membership would like to compete with the great raw collections?
And we argue over grades with good images, how do you 'estimate' grades from an auction nearly 70 years ago? >>
A slight correction in your thinking but part of BJ's reply also included the following statement:
"Note that the grades listed are a consensus of the experts at PCGS who actually viewed and graded the coins prior to their auction and are not necessarily the grade that was printed in the auction catalogue."
I take this to mean that someone or some folks at PCGS has actually seen these coins in the past and either made notes which were kept before the auctions occured or has a great memory. I expect that notes were listed in an auction catalog.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
There is one additional observation about the "all time finest"--and that's that a lot of people out there with great treasures aren't interested in taking the time to register them online. They might not because of privacy or security issues--not wanting to leave a trail leading to them, showing that they've got a dozen MS68 Indian quarter eagles and that one finest known 1911-D. Others might not plan on keeping these fine sets very long--say, Heritage Auction Galleries might momentarily happen to have the finest set of something ever assembled (and not necessarily just some on consignment; I mean they could at some point happen to own them), but only for a few weeks before the next big show. Or, maybe it's a retired former executive who never got into this newfangled Inter-Web thing, because he retired in 1996 and moved to a private island, where his butler does all the grocery shopping for him. It's entirely possible that the all time finest collection of Saint Gaudens double eagles in PCGS holders could be in a bank vault somewhere, while its owner waits for the dollar to crash and gold to go for $10,000 an ounce.
Still, that shouldn't impede having the registry use the term "all time finest." I do, though, wish that, if we're competing against the greatest American coin collections in known history, we could at least do an apples-to-apples comparison, because the last thing we need is a handicap to make things easier for Eliasberg.
Improperly Cleaned, Our passion for numismatics is Genuine! Now featuring correct spelling.
"Note that the grades listed are a consensus of the experts at PCGS who actually viewed and graded the coins prior to their auction and are not necessarily the grade that was printed in the auction catalogue."
Using the 19th Century Type set as an example, and it contains 92 coins, if you look at the JJ Pittman collection I can see were that is possible. That set has some coins that have been graded by PCGS. On the 'estimated' grades the auctions were relatively recent.
The Garrett collection is not public. WTH?
But then you look at the #1 collection, William Dunham, and it seems to me that all the coins are based off of the B. Max Mehl auction of June, 1941! That was 68 years ago.
Checking the PCGS 'experts': Julian Leidman began his career as a professional numismatic dealer and consultant over 40 years ago. John (Dannreuther) went back into the coin business, becoming a full-time dealer in 1973. He (David Hall) became a full-time rare coin dealer in 1972 and was quickly one of the major players. In 1974, he (Gordon Wrubel) became a full-time coin dealer and has sold over $50,000,000 in valuable coins during his career. Denis W. Loring has been specializing in large cents for over 40 years. Ron Guth is a licensed Certified Public Accountant who has been involved professionally in numismatics for nearly forty years as a collector, dealer, researcher, and writer.
Could all 92 coins have been "viewed and graded the(se) coins prior to their auction"? Not the auction in '41. Have all 92 coins been to auction since '41? Possibly. Has the pedigree for each coin been kept? Have at least 2 'expert' looked at each coin (like our graded coins need to be looked at by at least 2 graders) and agreed on a grade?
<< <i>I'll take the other side of this argument. It is ridiculous for sets created in the last few yers on the Registry to have the title of "All-Time Finest" when in fact there were many GREAT collections of the past that may blow these sets away. The Dunham collection was magnificent, as were many other great collections of the day. I could name two dozen of similar stature. Each had its own specialties. I know of these collections because I have all the auction catalogs. If you collect series such as proof seated dollars, or proof $20 Libs, you will find that there were great collections of the past that must be counted among the "All-Time Finest."
I do agree with TDN however about filling holes. The perfect example, as TDN points out, is the Eliasberg collection, which contained precious few business strikes from the Philadelphia mint. Those issues were instead represented by proofs. So for example, his Barber quarter set, while wonderful and memorable, was not a set of business strikes. It was a hybrid mixture of proofs and MS coins. It should be listed on the Registry as missing all the P-mints from 1892 to 1915. (He had the 1916 only, because no proofs were made that year). I think it's great to list his set, and perhaps to impute grades, but not to fill the holes in the set with coins that he never owned. But in fairness to Eliasberg, that was the collecting style of the day, and his set was considered complete in its time.
On the other hand, the high-ranking Registry sets of today are far more consistent in grade than sets of the past. A top Registry set with, say, all coins grading 65-67 would likely NOT be beaten by many of the great classic collections of the past. In those days, much less emphasis was placed on the distinction between choice, gem, etc., and the different in values was far less than today. In today's market, a 66 can be double the value of a 65, and a 67 double the value of a 66. That simply did not happen in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's. The premiums for quality were smaller. There were no slab grades of course, and thus many sets had uneven quality with 63's or less mixed in among the superb gems. By Registry rules, those sets, while complete and noteworthy, would likely NOT displace the "All-Time Finest" sets being built today, which have consistently high certified grades. In essence, the sets of today comprise coins that are examined and culled by a much larger set of critical eyes in the grading rooms.
Sunnywood >>
But the PCGS Registry is not the "ALL TIME FINEST SETS", but the all time finest sets graded by PCGS and encapsulated by them; per their rules. To change the rules mid-stream and bump off legitimate placeholders by coins that have never been graded and slabbed per their own rules, is sheer arrogance.
I think reasonable collectors know that there are sets out there never graded by PCGS, but that are probably the top of the heap, (i.e. Eliasberg and Millennia, the likes of which we may never see again). That is not the point, they KNOW that their sets are top of heap concerning PCGS graded coins.
I can see it now, NGC will list them with a point or two higher, then PCGS will re-grade even higher
There should be a historical reference link similiar to the set composite link. Set owners couls see where they would rank against these hypothetical sets and not be displaced on the all time greatest.
Again... I still haven't contacted them about it... anyone else??? >>
As I reported earlier on this post and on the two other threads; I sent a letter to both Willis and Hall and attached a copy of all three threads....guess they are just toooooo busy to respond.
WS
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
Museum collections should not be listed. The Eliasberg/Bass etc collections should be listed seperately, as many of their coins are known to be cleaned and would not grade. For those who have among the finest known collections (not me!), it is not fair to be bumped from the all time finest by an ungraded set that does not have to comply with the rules of the registry.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Here are another five phantom sets that do not belong anywhere on this list. As far as I'm concerned "Cartwheel cents" and "ESM" should be considered the reigning top two all time in this set.
Here are another five phantom sets that do not belong anywhere on this list. As far as I'm concerned "Cartwheel cents" and "ESM" should be considered the reigning top two all time in this set. >>
Agreed. That is insane! 39 of 67 coins are pop 0/0 coins.
For years, actually from the very first month the PCGS Set Registry was in existence, February, 2001, we have added All-Time Finest sets of the great collections of Bass, Eliasberg, Garrett, Norweb, and about a dozen others. The All-Time Finest category was established for no other reason than to display the finest sets ever assembled. In recent weeks there has been some activity in this area because we have been going through auction catalogues, updating sets, updating coins that have been graded and pedigreed by PCGS, and adding new sets. It has come to my attention that there are some of you who feel the addition of these sets is unfair to both the members who are currently participating in the Registry and to those who are no longer active but have retired sets in the Registry. The classic sets of Eliasberg et al. will remain in the Registry because there are those who are interested in seeing how their sets compare to the famous collections of the past. They are an important part of numismatic history. We are proud to say that the PCGS Set Registry is home to the finest sets ever assembled, both those of the past (the classic sets of Eliasberg, et al.) and those which have been built in the last seven years. However, there are a number of ways we could display the classic ATF sets which is different from the way we are currently displaying them. I am reviewing a number of these options now. If you have an opinion on this subject, either you like the current display method or you would like to see it changed, I would really like to hear from you. Any suggestions on how we might achieve an equitable way to display the classic ATF collections would be welcomed. Please email me directly. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.
Enter The Vault and take a look at some of the great historic collections of the past, and compare them to the sets of the present day. Similar to the "what if" feature, any set or groupings of sets could be virtually stacked as desired for comparison.
Absolutely moronic. Who is going to want to compete in the registry sets when there are a dozen old time collections hogging / clogging the all time finest list? Especially for coins that are not in PCGS holders (if they are, someone else may actually be using them for their set) and that were estimated / imagined / hallucinated grades?
Maybe PCGS could enter a set for Superman, and if Superman really existed they could then create a fantasy set of super perfect coins that only Superman would bother ever owning, and that only Superman would be permitted to buy because all the dealers would only prefer to sell to Superman....and....enter a registry set for him.
Good thing William Dunham didn't finish a complete Barber half set.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>If PCGS wants to show these great sets [and I commend them for that aspect of it], then create a registry subset where proofs/circ strikes are allowed interchangeably. Don't make things up that don't exist. >>
Along the lines of "Don't make things up that don't exist;" there are about 20 sets in this group which are less than 100 percent complete. This is an indication to me that they didn't exist as sets in this collection and thus should never have been considered for inclusion in the Registry. >>
You've got my agreement. From what I can see, it appears that the inventory for the entire collection of coins was entered and then the Registry Software built the sets. Those sets with less than 90% completion were then deleted.
But this is just a guess and I still believe that these have no business in the Registry since the coins were never physically graded by PCGS.
The name is LEE!
Someone at PCGS decided that the general membership would like to compete with the great raw collections?
And we argue over grades with good images, how do you 'estimate' grades from an auction nearly 70 years ago?
<< <i>Still wondering the 'WHY' to all this?
Someone at PCGS decided that the general membership would like to compete with the great raw collections?
And we argue over grades with good images, how do you 'estimate' grades from an auction nearly 70 years ago? >>
A slight correction in your thinking but part of BJ's reply also included the following statement:
"Note that the grades listed are a consensus of the experts at PCGS who actually viewed and graded the coins prior to their auction and are not necessarily the grade that was printed in the auction catalogue."
I take this to mean that someone or some folks at PCGS has actually seen these coins in the past and either made notes which were kept before the auctions occured or has a great memory. I expect that notes were listed in an auction catalog.
The name is LEE!
Still, that shouldn't impede having the registry use the term "all time finest." I do, though, wish that, if we're competing against the greatest American coin collections in known history, we could at least do an apples-to-apples comparison, because the last thing we need is a handicap to make things easier for Eliasberg.
Using the 19th Century Type set as an example, and it contains 92 coins, if you look at the JJ Pittman collection I can see were that is possible.
That set has some coins that have been graded by PCGS. On the 'estimated' grades the auctions were relatively recent.
The Garrett collection is not public. WTH?
But then you look at the #1 collection, William Dunham, and it seems to me that all the coins are based off of the B. Max Mehl auction of June, 1941!
That was 68 years ago.
Checking the PCGS 'experts':
Julian Leidman began his career as a professional numismatic dealer and consultant over 40 years ago.
John (Dannreuther) went back into the coin business, becoming a full-time dealer in 1973.
He (David Hall) became a full-time rare coin dealer in 1972 and was quickly one of the major players.
In 1974, he (Gordon Wrubel) became a full-time coin dealer and has sold over $50,000,000 in valuable coins during his career.
Denis W. Loring has been specializing in large cents for over 40 years.
Ron Guth is a licensed Certified Public Accountant who has been involved professionally in numismatics for nearly forty years as a collector, dealer, researcher, and writer.
Could all 92 coins have been "viewed and graded the(se) coins prior to their auction"?
Not the auction in '41.
Have all 92 coins been to auction since '41? Possibly.
Has the pedigree for each coin been kept?
Have at least 2 'expert' looked at each coin (like our graded coins need to be looked at by at least 2 graders) and agreed on a grade?
Too many questions.
No answers.
Bottom line (IMO).....
Uneven playing field.
<< <i>It's a blast to look at the prices paid for these coins.
>>
I agree. A Coiled Stella for $465...wow!
stupid, to say the least. When will they allow CU members to enter their raw coins, and put in 'estimated grades'.
nice going!
credibility is waning for the PCGS Registry based on this nonsense.
<< <i>I'll take the other side of this argument. It is ridiculous for sets created in the last few yers on the Registry to have the title of "All-Time Finest" when in fact there were many GREAT collections of the past that may blow these sets away. The Dunham collection was magnificent, as were many other great collections of the day. I could name two dozen of similar stature. Each had its own specialties. I know of these collections because I have all the auction catalogs. If you collect series such as proof seated dollars, or proof $20 Libs, you will find that there were great collections of the past that must be counted among the "All-Time Finest."
I do agree with TDN however about filling holes. The perfect example, as TDN points out, is the Eliasberg collection, which contained precious few business strikes from the Philadelphia mint. Those issues were instead represented by proofs. So for example, his Barber quarter set, while wonderful and memorable, was not a set of business strikes. It was a hybrid mixture of proofs and MS coins. It should be listed on the Registry as missing all the P-mints from 1892 to 1915. (He had the 1916 only, because no proofs were made that year). I think it's great to list his set, and perhaps to impute grades, but not to fill the holes in the set with coins that he never owned. But in fairness to Eliasberg, that was the collecting style of the day, and his set was considered complete in its time.
On the other hand, the high-ranking Registry sets of today are far more consistent in grade than sets of the past. A top Registry set with, say, all coins grading 65-67 would likely NOT be beaten by many of the great classic collections of the past. In those days, much less emphasis was placed on the distinction between choice, gem, etc., and the different in values was far less than today. In today's market, a 66 can be double the value of a 65, and a 67 double the value of a 66. That simply did not happen in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's. The premiums for quality were smaller. There were no slab grades of course, and thus many sets had uneven quality with 63's or less mixed in among the superb gems. By Registry rules, those sets, while complete and noteworthy, would likely NOT displace the "All-Time Finest" sets being built today, which have consistently high certified grades. In essence, the sets of today comprise coins that are examined and culled by a much larger set of critical eyes in the grading rooms.
Sunnywood >>
But the PCGS Registry is not the "ALL TIME FINEST SETS", but the all time finest sets graded by PCGS and encapsulated by them; per their rules. To change the rules mid-stream and bump off legitimate placeholders by coins that have never been graded and slabbed per their own rules, is sheer arrogance.
I think reasonable collectors know that there are sets out there never graded by PCGS, but that are probably the top of the heap, (i.e. Eliasberg and Millennia, the likes of which we may never see again). That is not the point, they KNOW that their sets are top of heap concerning PCGS graded coins.
There should be a historical reference link similiar to the set composite link. Set owners couls see where they would rank against these hypothetical sets and not be displaced on the all time greatest.
Interesting to see when these sets have coins where there is a pop of zero & none graded higher.
Virtual (literally) TOP POP!
<< <i>
<< <i>And nothing but silence from PCGS >>
Well has anyone even asked them about it???? I know I didn't. >>
Again... I still haven't contacted them about it... anyone else??? Maybe we should all send the powers that be a link to the poll????
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 700
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>And nothing but silence from PCGS >>
Well has anyone even asked them about it???? I know I didn't. >>
Again... I still haven't contacted them about it... anyone else??? >>
Count back 11 posts and 21 posts above.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
Count back 11 posts and 21 posts above. >>
Thanks
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 700
As I reported earlier on this post and on the two other threads; I sent a letter to both Willis and Hall and attached a copy of all three threads....guess they are just toooooo busy to respond.
WS
Here are another five phantom sets that do not belong anywhere on this list. As far as I'm concerned "Cartwheel cents" and "ESM" should be considered the reigning top two all time in this set.
Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin
#1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
<< <i>awesome customer service!!!
Here are another five phantom sets that do not belong anywhere on this list. As far as I'm concerned "Cartwheel cents" and "ESM" should be considered the reigning top two all time in this set. >>
Agreed. That is insane! 39 of 67 coins are pop 0/0 coins.
Who is John Galt?
Hi Everyone,
For years, actually from the very first month the PCGS Set Registry was in existence, February, 2001, we have added All-Time Finest sets of the great collections of Bass, Eliasberg, Garrett, Norweb, and about a dozen others. The All-Time Finest category was established for no other reason than to display the finest sets ever assembled. In recent weeks there has been some activity in this area because we have been going through auction catalogues, updating sets, updating coins that have been graded and pedigreed by PCGS, and adding new sets.
It has come to my attention that there are some of you who feel the addition of these sets is unfair to both the members who are currently participating in the Registry and to those who are no longer active but have retired sets in the Registry. The classic sets of Eliasberg et al. will remain in the Registry because there are those who are interested in seeing how their sets compare to the famous collections of the past. They are an important part of numismatic history. We are proud to say that the PCGS Set Registry is home to the finest sets ever assembled, both those of the past (the classic sets of Eliasberg, et al.) and those which have been built in the last seven years. However, there are a number of ways we could display the classic ATF sets which is different from the way we are currently displaying them. I am reviewing a number of these options now.
If you have an opinion on this subject, either you like the current display method or you would like to see it changed, I would really like to hear from you. Any suggestions on how we might achieve an equitable way to display the classic ATF collections would be welcomed. Please email me directly. I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you.
Enter The Vault and take a look at some of the great historic collections of the past, and compare them to the sets of the present day. Similar to the "what if" feature, any set or groupings of sets could be virtually stacked as desired for comparison.
Maybe PCGS could enter a set for Superman, and if Superman really existed they could then create a fantasy set of super perfect coins that only Superman would bother ever owning, and that only Superman would be permitted to buy because all the dealers would only prefer to sell to Superman....and....enter a registry set for him.
Good thing William Dunham didn't finish a complete Barber half set.