Is it time for NGC to rethink its competitive set scoring system?

Unfortunately this journal entry is a rant. I don?t like rants since I feel when I write something it should be positive, humorous or simply provide some insight into me and how I think of coins.

I don?t have any ?competitive sets? so I have no chance of seeing my signature sets amass a ton of points and beating out others. Yes signature sets do get awards, but these awards are given based on a totally subjective basis or bluntly they are awarded based on the whimsy of those reviewing these sets.

The competitive sets however, are ranked based on scores earned based on the cumulative value of the points given to each individual coin contained within the set. Having no interest in competitive sets I never looked at any until today. Then just for the heck of it and at random, I picked a category and checked out the top set.

The category was Proof Sets 1968-1998 and I picked a year. The top set had been the #1 set for the last three years. I thought wow, this must be some set. Now this year the proof set contained seven coins. This set had TWO ? yes that is correct, just two lousy coins out of seven!!!!!!!!! These were as follows:

Quarter - graded - PF 69 UC; and

Silver Dollar - graded - PF 70 UC

So I decided to check out the number two set, which was about 300 points behind. It was a complete proof set and contained the following coins:

Cent - graded - PF 69 RDU;

Five Cents - graded - PF 69 UC;

Dime - graded - PF 69 UC;

Quarter - graded - PF 69 UC;

Half Dollar - graded - PF 70 UC;

Clad Dollar - graded - PF 69 UC; and

Silver Dollar - graded - PF 69 UC

Now this is competitive SETS and we have one completed set (in fact an almost perfectly matched set) and one set that is only 28% complete. It appears that NGC has forgotten that the competition is between sets by addressing only the coins within the set and ignoring the set aspect of the competition.

Personally I think NGC has to redo this whole registry set scoring concept. I realize NGC intent with this registry set concept is to drive business to NCG, but they must be fair to those who pay for their service buy providing a level playing field for those who want such a competition or recognition for what they have skillfully collected.

In the case above where sets are being compared I would multiply the set score by the percentage of how complete the set is. That would provide a more meaning comparison of the ?sets.?

Now both the individuals owning the above referenced sets above had multiple competitive sets. To address this situation, I think that each registry member should also have the entire numismatic contents of all their numismatic registry sets ranked. This ranking would be based on the simple aggregate score of all the individual coins in all the sets listed by each registry member. This aggregate score should include bank note scores with those of coins. Such an aggregate scoring method would allow all collectors/registry members to compare their total numismatic holdings (as an overall collection and not as specific sets) to that of their fellow registry members.

This second ranking should also be extended to signature set registry members. They would not be eligible for individual set awards since by definition each signature set does not fit a defined content format. But a coin is a coin and every coin should be able to have an assigned score and thus would allow signature sets to be ranked against competitive sets and/or other signature sets. Signature sets that do not involve only coins or bank notes would not be eligible for this ranking.

OK those are my thoughts