BlakeEik

Agree with @Revenant you can do this it’s just not easy until you know how

I believe this is exactly how a custom set works, right? So why not just do both?

I know I already asked for a lot, but I want to comment on one of the frustrations I find with the registry: finding sets that are worth looking at. One of the highlights of the major awards is being provided a list of sets that NGC has already reviewed and selected for being exceptional. Sure, there are some indicators, like # of coins with photos, comments, and views, but it is frustrating to look and find only stock photos, or an apostrophe for a comment, or a top ranked set with nothing to look at. Sometimes the most interesting sets are not even in the top 10 of ranked sets. So, one idea I had: style points. Let users give other sets a token of admiration for their set's comments and photos by clicking a "like" button, or whatever you want to call it, and have sets sortable by the overall results. After a while, sets that are exceptional would be recognized by the community itself, and make it easy for others to find the sets that are noteworthy.

Yeah, it would be nice... But I cannot think of any feasible way of doing this without creating bigger messes. There are thousands of sets from users all over the world and to put the onus on NGC to police its users would make the effort too costly for the return. I do like the idea of the ability to "challenge" a set when something looks suspicious, where someone can ask NGC to poke the owner and make sure they are still active and in possession of their coins. But how long to wait, what kind of response is considered "valid", what are unacceptable circumstances, and those types of things can only be handled subjectively. For the major awards, I think NGC does vet sets by monitoring the activity and reputation of the winners. If someone is caught "cheating" then they just blew it big time (one would hope)!

I guess I should state the obvious: I really appreciate the generous prizes NGC awards to set winners. It's not why I enjoy it "most" but it is very appreciated.

I'm still not understanding what slot in what set you want to add this coin. For your error coin, I think the following is true: There are no "error" slots in the competitive registry so you may want to put it into a custom registry For a year/mint set, it should fit in the slot for the MS 1904 1c For a type set the accepts non-proof coins, it should fit in the slot for an Indian 1c

Interesting coin. What steps did you take to have them "accept" the coin? What set did you try to add it to?

I don't completely agree or disagree with anyone's comments on this thread regarding type point scoring. As a avid type collector myself, I am very interested in the discussion. I never really understood some of the decisions made when setting scores for coin types. Although I believe that NGC has good intentions making their scoring "fair" I think that the more subjective and more complicated it becomes, too many situations are created making it unfair. I'd prefer a single formula or algorithm that is open to everyone to review instead of a secret proprietary methodology. I know that this is possible and could be applied to year/mint/variety and types alike. Obvious factors to use when determining points are: grades, populations, and mintages. Statistically, finding the best distribution would be a fun challenge, but using the obvious normal distribution would certainly produce reasonable values and provide a non-refutable rationale.

I, too, think it's great to allow coins from other services be allowed in constructing your virtual sets. Personally, I think any holder or raw coin should be allowed, but only NGC coins should be worth points for competition. I know that this goes against precedent and would anger many with lots of PCGS U.S. coins (I too have many) but for me, the ability to build virtual sets is more important than the competitive aspect. And although I respect the graders of both PCGS and NGC, there are certainly differences and having them compete against each other is not always "oranges to oranges." ...And to accentuate my point about the competition... It really makes me wonder when I see people with ONLY PCGS graded coins in the NGC registry Don't they know there is a registry for only PCGS graded coins?

I wanted to post a thread that compared the PCGS registry to the NGC registry, because each has aspects that I prefer over the other. Ultimately I put a hold on that idea because it may not have been welcome but some, but maybe now... since there is a "pinned" thread on a similar topic. Having a registry is great, even if not competing. There is no comparable way to see all of your coins so quickly and easily. Don't get me wrong, I like to examine my actual coins, but it is not always easy getting them out of safes, safety deposit boxes, etc. Now I carry them all on my phone!

Thanks for your response Ali. I hope I can keep up and Reject them faster than the 3 day limit imposed on them.

I have a coin, 5838998-245, that 2 different people have made multiple requests to transfer to their registry account in the past couple of weeks. I triple checked to ensure I have this coin and the cert number is correct. Is it possible there are multiple coins with the same cert #? How can one be sure the slab is genuine? I doubt anyone would counterfeit a coin with $100 or less, so I doubt there is a fake here, but could NGC have made a mistake with the cert numbers and if so what can NGC do?

Hello Geno, If it is authentic, it would be worth at LEAST $0.01. Why would it be worth more? I suppose you can melt it for the 95% Cu and get a little bit more for it but you would spend more in generating enough heat to melt it and the gas taking it to a buyer. There is a newbie forum for questions like this. This forum is for and about the Registry. The Registry is for certified coins.

There is a rumor (actually a bit stronger than just a rumor) that the ANA may have a registry "soon." They would presumably have a Registry that would allow both PCGS and NGC if you can wait that long.

Hello SilverSummoner, you actually have 2 other options if you really want to put it in the NGC Registry: (1) try using the NGC cross-over service, or (2) crack it out and submit it to NGC. Personally, I no longer cross over coins (in either direction) because there is about 50% chance of paying for nothing. If I really want the coin in a particular holder I will buy it in that holder or crack it out and resubmit. It's painful, I know, but it is an option.

Ability to put Comments in Rich Text - a good idea!

Nope. Just the low hanging fruit on edge of my brain. If I have time to think I’m sure I can think of more.

Here's a list off the top of my head: Add non-competitive coins, other than NGC/PCGS (like the old registry) Add Custom sets (like the old registry) In addition to coin "Comments", add private fields for notes, date acquired, where acquired, cost, date sold, and price sold (like the old registry) Ability to specify what fields to display in a table view for coins and competitive sets, like price guide values/totals dates acquired/sold set ratings/point values in set views, roll-up values like avg. grade, completeness %, coins required with/without photo slot filled/empty (this is already there - don't remove it) population info: total graded, in that grade, and in higher grade CAC info grades cert # hidden/not hidden and of course, coin specifications: year, mint, denom, type, variety Ability to use advanced filter/sort for coins (like the old registry) and competitive sets using the fields in #4 Ability to add photos without replacing NGC photos Ability to add more than just 2 photos Ability to substitute prices when there are none available in the NGC price guide Ability to display the set photo when looking at competitive sets Ability to see/sort sets by total NGC score instead of just the combined NGC/PCGS score Ability to see coin comments in set view without clicking on the coin itself Having the "shop" button search through dealer listing, not just go to eBay (like the PCGS registry) Under "Awards" (link on the side menu), include links to past year winners, not just the most recent When looking at competitive sets, use links to the category under the set names instead of static text Show a coins point value, AND it's type point value when looking at a coin Have a link to a "Want List": all empty slots in non-hidden competitive sets, or, a customizable list, or, BOTH! Integrate functionality between the Registry and the Chat Boards, such as being able to mark a coin "for sale" and having it show up in the Marketplace with contact info

I would like to 2nd that request, but I would prefer an "Advanced Filter/Sort" option that gives you the ability to specify values for all the primary fields: grading service, year, mint, strike, denomination, type, CAC, date added, Collection, etc. Now that would be cool!

If you are really curious you can look them up yourself on the CAC website

Hi OhioPlayr, The Mint has thousands of people that do that for them, and then they post what they find in the NGC Registry forum for some reason. I'm not sure the Mint would invest such time and effort just to air out their dirty laundry. They already have a QA team. Technically if the Mint found every error there would be no error coins because they destroy them if they find them.

I'm just stating facts here. The new Morgan and Peace dollars: Are silver dollars Are the same width and design as Morgan / Peace type dollars but not the same composition or weight Are not the "same series" as the 1878-1921-1935 series Are not commemoratives (as they are not designated so by congress) I'm just stating opinion here. The mint has really screwed up traditional series collection with the American Liberty Gold (ALG) Series, the Mayflower series, the First Lady series, etc. These are not commemoratives by congressional act, nor are they considered bullion in the same sense as the ASE, AGE, American Gold Buffalo, etc. They are different, and should not be lumped in with commemoratives or bullion. NGC has already started mixing these oddball sets. These "off-the rails" series soured modern coin collecting for me. Some others may enjoy it more, but not me. Having the new Morgan and Peace dollars compete in a registry as types against the traditional dollars would be insane. Period. My vote would be to treat the new Morgan / Peace dollars as something different, or "other," like the series mentioned above. In other words, NGC should have U.S. registry sets in one of the following categories: Traditional only (types that have circulated, including Colonials, tokens, etc. The only exception being pattern coinage, which were very limited and never meant for public consumption.) Commemorative only (Classic 1892-1954, Modern 1982-present, by congressional act only) Bullion only (limited to gold, silver, platinum, and palladium types with a consistent design traded on bullion exchanges. If the new Morgan and Peace dollars are used over multiple years, calling them bullion might make the most sense. Like Saint Gaudens, they should not be labeled as the "same types" as their design origins). "Other" only (types not in the above categories, e.g. Centennial commemoratives, First Lady, ALG, Mayflower, new Morgan and Peace dollars, Innovation dollars, etc.) And only if necessary, have some sets that combine the 2 or more of the above, but do NOT replace the other sets. Some type sets would certainly fall into this category. The Mint should really have a name for these "other" coin series they keep making out of thin air. Until they do that, the ANA, NGC, the Red Book, or some organization with some weight should name this odd-ball category. Right now, different organizations are treating them differently - i.e. forcing them into bullion, or commemorative categories. A real mess!

The icon is handy! Question about the icon: does it only represent the date/mint, or if the coin is in a Type Set, does it represent Top Pop for the type? For example, if you have a MS68 1943 cent that is Top Pop, but there exists a 1943-D cent in MS68+, the 1943 cent is not Top Pop for the Type. What it show as Top Pop or not? It would be better if it did NOT show, because that would save a lot of research time for upgrades! Thanks in advance

Here's a request to rename a category... In both of these sets: Basic US Type Set, No Gold (7070) Basic US Type Set, with Gold (7070 + Page 5) The slot for the Seated Half Dime (slot 20) is named: H10C SEATED LIBERTY, NO STARS (1837-1859) This is of course misleading because only the 1837 had "no stars," and then "with stars" until 1860 when it changed to "with legend." The original Dansco album just called that slot "Liberty Seated 1837-59." Maybe you can just remove the "NO STARS" from the title?

I'm very happy with my new Lincolns from Six Mile Rick! I'm telling you, you're missing out if you don't take a look at his collection!