USAuPzlBxBob

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Posts

    1,212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Personal Information

  • Hobbies
    All-American perspective: flat-picked acoustic guitar renditions of songs I liked growing up, classic movies, puzzles, rare US gold coins, précis writing, pro sports, fly fishing, NASA space program.
  • Location
    New Jersey

Recent Profile Visitors

2,238 profile views
  1. Check and see if the other Competitive Sets have Images and/or Comments. It may be that the two that are tied for #1 got their Images and Comments added at the same time, and so they are tied. There is some mention, maybe Registry FAQs, about Rank order and how ties are handled.
  2. I hadn't looked at J.D. Foster's Set. Yeah, he's got some Top Pops on the restrikes, MS 67 on a couple, and even an MS 67+. If he felt challenged, he could submit them for CACs just to bump his scores on something. But he's missing a few on the lower eight. Still, if I were you, I'd cross the lower-eight coins, see how you fare, and stay actively in the hunt. Their cool looking coins, and I like the brevity of their span… 16 coins. My puzzle box holds two stacks of 7, and there is room to nest two other coins vertically, but laying on their side-edges, along the double-seven-stacks top edges. But until this thread a few weeks ago, I never even knew about French Roosters. Puzzle Box World has one puzzle box left that can hold 16 coins, and it's a dramatic box… very beautiful. I think it's called a 54 + 1. Paperwork goes in the lid, 16 NGC's go below, and a Bausch & Lomb 10x, Hastings Triplet Loupe magnifier with nickel plated swing away case can "nest" in the unoccupied corner. You learn something new here all the time if you stay involved.
  3. Go for it. You already have all 16 coins, half of them are already in NGC MS 66 (higher grades than anyone else here, it seems, but you'll have to verify that by diligent browsing of who currently owns "what"), and none of your NGC competition have all 16 coins. You're 70 years old, probably retired and can afford all of this, it can't cost too much to cross the others, life is short, so take the gamble. Knowing that you lost a grade on five of your prior crosses, you could size up your final 8 to cross by comparing their appearances and current PCGS grades to the other crossed coins, their crossed outcomes, to guesstimate how you think things will fare on the remaining 8. Goldfinger is missing the rarest date, 1900, he's got three MS 62, two MS 63, and one MS 64 in the lower eight, and you've got him beat from 1907 — 1914. HiHo's best set has a 1902 MS 61, 1899 & 1901 at MS 62, 1904 & 1905 at MS 63, 1903 & 1906 at MS 64, but his 1900 has you definitely beat at MS 65. You win on everything 1907 — 1914. As HiHo states, NGC's EdgeView holders definitely are an advantage due to the inscriptions on the edges of all of these Roosters… another reason. Then, retake your photos to standardize their lighting and sharpness — so they all look similar — and tell a story about each coin for each Owner's Comment. You're done. So, you'll get to Rank #1, here. Lastly, keep looking for coins going forward that will improve your collection. (Get HiHo to sell you his 1900 MS 65?)
  4. Actually, make that "an ice cold beer" is more like it. (a slight rearrangement of one space says it better)
  5. Enjoy "a nice cold coin?" These summers days, after doing home maintenance outside, "a nice cold beer" is more like it.
  6. Finally figured out the Default Sort, which I don't like, as detailed 5 posts up. It appears that the hierarchy of the Default Sort is Date Sets first, and then Type Sets second. Within these two "categories" the Default Sort alphabetizes the order of the Sets by the name descriptions NGC uses for the Sets. So, NGC Registry participants are "hung out to dry" by this imposed imposition, by having no say in how their Sets are "defaultly" presented. Not a fan of the Default Sort in its current manner. It's not mannerly, at all.
  7. I just checked my records. I've only attempted two cross overs, one of which got a + upgrade, and then they both went on to successfully CAC. So not much mileage to speak of.
  8. Every PCGS coin I've ever bought I crossed over to NGC, every one of them crossed successfully, and a couple upgraded to a +. I wanted them all to fit together tightly and having the same holders made that possible. There's no slop to them, the way they stack in two columns of seven each… side by side. Then, too, I like the presentation appearance of NGC's holders. They look classy to me; scratch resistant gloss, bold black print descriptions, and a white background around gold, especially if you have a few CAC beans, really dresses them up. PCGS just doesn't do it for me.
  9. I'm done, already. Do both? I'd have to see what the differences are, other than no Points. The reason why I added the extra Mint Sets Complete, 7 of them, was to be able to add 7 more photos, and they've made my Total Collector points now reflect more accurately what my Type Set Points should have been. I'm not too much of a coin collector, I'm more of a mystery box creator, and rare coins were an ideal way of getting the most value into as small a place as possible. Couldn't go with gold bullion, like small bars, because their weight would damage a puzzle box with repeated openings. And I like the History associated with rare US gold coins. You feel like you have a piece of history. If I can't get NGC to change the Default Sort, I can fool around trying to get the Default Sort to Display the way I want it to. But, there seems to be zero logic to it. It is always the same, but I can find no pattern to why it presents the sets the way it does.
  10. Here is an easy suggestion… For 'My Competitive Sets', when someone looks at mine there is a "story" to be told when the combined photos, one for each Competitive Set, are seen. I've worked the "story" to tell its "tale" best when the Competitive Sets are presented using the Points (high to low) sort. (the "clicker" on the upper right of the page) However, every time I visit My Competitive Sets page, the order of My Competitive Sets has reverted to the Default Sort again. Can NGC make the My Competitive Sets page "sort feature" default to a sets-display-order that the owner of the sets chooses, with the ability for the owner to "Save" that set-display-order so that everyone sees the sets (when visiting) in the Saved order? And of course, a visitor could then "click" the sort box to choose some other sort option, i.e. Recently Updated.
  11. Ok, I made a spreadsheet of My Competitive Sets, and followed the rules of Points given at the top of the Top Coin Collectors page. For Top Coin Collectors, each coin is counted once, and only once. I've proved to myself that my coins are counted only once, and not twice, and this spreadsheet really tells the story.
  12. Coinbuf, in the interest of being nice, here is your post that I asked you to edit to make it coherent. You state: In the CC Rider set the coin is given a score of 11,078 points however in the Puzzle Box set it receives a score of 37,726 points. There is no truth whatsoever to this statement. Do you think a simple $5 1891 CC in AU 58 CAC garners 37,726 Points? Please edit your post to make it coherent.
  13. Coinbuf, my reply to your last post is: Please edit your reply to make it grammatically and factually coherent. (You posted without proofreading?) Moving on… NGC is taking notice of this thread. They've changed the Top Coin Collectors "click" to just Top Collectors. I have a feeling NGC will further edit the information of how Competitve Set coins contribute to Top Collectors, but they will leave the Points and Rank methodology "As Is." (Type Sets + "Date" Sets will be allowed to contribute in a "combined" manner, but duplicitous Type Sets, duplicitous "Date" Sets can only use a coin once.) Moving on, even further… Have you looked at the "top" Top Collectors? I have no proof — this is just my opinion since I will not do business with any of them — but I have a feeling that many of their coins are coins that are held in their custody for IRAs of clients. Since the coins are in IRAs, the clients cannot physically possess them, and since they remain in the possession of these "businesses," the businesses join the NGC Registry under the name of someone in the business — like the owner, or chief, whatever — and the businesses then have thousands of coins to auto populate into the NGC Registry, thereby giving them Top Collector Ranks of #1, #2, #3, etc., etc. Just look at some of the titles of the collections within these "top" Top Collectors and I think you'll quickly agree with my opinion. This may be part of the reason why you don't see Images or Comments in these Competitive Sets. What do you guys think?
  14. This thread dovetails nicely with the 'How are NGC registry points assigned?' thread. Coinbuf, I'll get back to you on your post, eventually. (just finished mowing the lawn, and I need to relax… big time)
  15. Coinbuf, I still stand by the results of my "experiment" analysis. Your analysis of your Top Coin Collector Points and Rank is very difficult to understand, and therefore lends itself to a "meaningless" interpretation, due to the complexity involved. I have 14 US Gold NGC Registry coins, they reside in 8 different Competitive Sets, and every single one of my coins contributes to my Top Coin Collector Points and Rank… twice. And to think that just a week ago, I had only one Competitive Set, contributing 37,726 points to my Top Collector Points and Rank, and now — with those same coins — I've increased my Top Coin Collector Points by 30,094, simply by creating 7 more Competitive Sets. Life is good! P.S. It's not a meaningless stat — you just don't understand how it's generated, neither do I… positively. However, given that Ali E. barely replied to my initial post, I have a feeling that a thorough explanation will not be forthcoming from NGC. Moreover, it is almost an absolute certainty that many coin collectors on the NGC Registry are benefiting from their coins counting toward Total Coin Collector Points and Rank more than "once."