BlakeEik

I found that you had to upload the photos on the old registry page to fix the old registry thumbnails.  I know... a real pain...

Perhaps you may get a better response in the "Ask NGC" forum?

This is already a set, you just need to add your coins.

Add your coins to the registry as described here: 

Add your coins to the set here: https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive/united-states/mint-sets-1999-date/6217/

You were probably looking for the new collectors forum, not the registry forum. What exactly is your question?

Yes @Coinbuf, I know what you mean - it happens when using the old registry editor.  It's an apostrophe, not a comma.  Is that what you're talking about @kanga?

11 minutes ago, Revenant said:

No. But you can send them a message to talk about it.

That is what I thought...  I wonder what @kanga is referring to?

Those are comments you make for your own coins.  Can you make comments on someone else's coins?  When I look at someone else's set, that icon is not there.

I did not realize how many different pedigree's NGC had for the same coins.  Even still, I'm not sure if they would consider the 2016-W (2019) Mint Hoard as one that belongs in this set (their decisions surprise me often). But it certainly sounds like a collectible item to me, if you are collecting all the different pedigrees.

I found this article because I had no idea what you were talking about. https://coinadvisor.com/2016-w-2019-silver-eagle-30th-anniversary-edge-lettered-pcgs-pr70-dcam-w-p-mint-hoard

Looks like a bit of a novelty? Its's the same coin but in a special holder, correct?  What set were you thinking should have a slot for this?

On 11/5/2019 at 9:21 PM, Joel Schram said:

Well,

 

I got results back on my first 15 PCGS coins I submitted for crossing. 8 of 15 coins crossed from PR70 DCAM to NGC PF70 Ultra Cameo. I guess from reading other posts that percentage might be pretty good. I'll update this post when I get the other results on the remaining 16 coins. One coin I am very hopeful for. I think NGC should just allow the PCGS coins to be added to registry sets rather than penalize us new collectors.

Joel,

What was the outcome?  Did crossovers pay off in your case?  Or would you have been better off selling and rebuying them in NGC holders?

On 12/21/2019 at 3:10 PM, kanga said:

I'm in the process of loading my Registry Type Set (1792-1964).

Apparently I already have two comments, but I can't locate them.

How do I find them?

I did not think you could do this.  What makes you think you have received comments?

On 12/23/2019 at 2:53 AM, jgrinz said:

I think there needs to be  more consistent correlation between straight graded Coins and Ones that are designated CAMEO

I find a discrepancy's in quite a few of my coins as compare to the coins of set of the 1883 #1 set / Mine being the #2 set 

Please review and inform 

1883 Proof Set #2 is mine / Case and point is the MY CAMEO trade dollar point structure against its straight grade coin

in Set #1 1883 Proof.

Please inspect and inform of your findings.

Thanks

( If this is not in the right forum please transfer to the proper one - thanks )  

 

@jgrinzmay I ask what the discrepancy is?  From what I can tell, the cameos look to be a bit higher (100-400 points) more than those in the same grade without the designation.  And Ultra Cams are the same compared to cameos.  That is typical with NGC, while PCGS will often give cameos a boost of an entire +1 point, and deep cameo +2 points!

Unless I'm missing something, I do not see a discrepancy, but if you are saying "what don't you give MORE credit to cameos" then I agree with you 100%! Some coins get a lot more credit for cameo and ultra cameo designations that do others and I would like to know why.  I would hope that this scoring is based on honest statistical analysis of mintage numbers and populations, but NGC would only give a "high-level" description of their scoring methods when I asked.  What *REALLY* irks me is that their "star" designation gets A LOT more credit than does a CAMEO in the same grade.  How is this right when in their own description, one of the factors to get a star designation is if it has some cameo contrast, but not enough to earn the cameo designation.  Whaaaaaat???

Your 1883 proof set is nice, by the way.  I have one too, but it is all PCGS/CAC so I don't think I'll post it at NGC.

Has the ability to post comments on sets been considered?  It would be nice to give and receive compliments or constructive criticism. 

This idea may not be easy to implement, but it would be nice... 

I find it difficult to find new sets worth looking at (competitive or custom). It would be great to have on a single page links to sets across categories, such as “all best set winners 2019”, “all best classic set winners”, “most popular sets”, etc.  I’m sure I there are sets out there I’d like to look at, but I do not want to have to click on 1000 categories to find them. 

@physics-fan3.14 I think we all agree that it is taking longer than expected, especially NGC.  Did you read this article?

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190808005907/en/Certified-Collectibles-Group-Files-Lawsuit-Alleging-Tens

It looks like their contractor is not keeping up with schedule or cost (shocker). They are 100% aware how things are going and there's not much they can do about it but carry on.

I think the recent actions are good signs that NGC is trying their best to make a good product, albeit is taking a long time to see.  I think they need more positive feedback, honestly.

6 hours ago, RodneytheAmerican said:

You can always "cross over" any PCGS coin to NGC so that it will fit the slot. It's not that expensive to do and when you cross over you get a new holder and often a choice of labels.

Or, you get your coin back in the same holder with the letters "DNC" on it and no explanation...

FOR AFTER THE FREEZE

I believe that the "type" points assigned to a certain coin are incorrect. Can someone please forward to the senior team to resolve?

I have long wondered why the brilliant Wheat Lincoln proof cent was worth so many points. After researching it and getting an explanation of how the scoring is supposed to work, I am 100% convinced that the scores intended for the MATTE PROOF LINCOLN CENT (1909-1916) were also accidentally applied to the BRILLIANT PROOF LINCOLN CENT (1936-1958).

Firstly, the point values for the brilliant proof and matte proof Wheat cents are EXACTLY THE SAME.  I could not find ANY other two type coins with exactly the same point values. Surely, it is not possible that they are the same by coincidence due to the diverse factors NGC considers: “We place a score value on each coin that is based on the relative rarity of its type, date and grade. This value takes many factors into account such as grade, population, market value, eye appeal and expert opinion.”  Matte proof and brilliant proof Wheat-backs are indeed very different; otherwise they should be combined into a single type.

Secondly, brilliant proof Wheat cents point values are far too high compared to other types considering their rarity, availability, and market value. Take for example the grade PF69RD worth 15,260 points!   15,260 points!   That’s worth more than a 1907 High Relief $20 in PF66+STAR! In fact, I made a list of all the proof type coins worth 15,000 points or more. There are NO proof types made since 1950 worth anything close to 15,000 points (except for the over-weighted Wheat cent).  And even though there are theoretically some proof types worth 15,000 points or more, MANY OF THOSE COINS DO NOT EXIST.  For example, a Matte proof cent in PF69RD is worth 15,260 points, however, there are ZERO coins of this type in this grade.  In fact, if you sum all of the 20^th century proof coins NGC has graded worth 15,000 points or more (not counting the brilliant Wheat cent), there are only 318.  Of those 318, only 19 of them are non-gold coins: one is the finest matte proof Buffalo; seven are scarce proof Barber coins of the highest-quality; and 11 are very-rare superior Morgan proof dollars. The “cheapest” of those coins is worth $25,000. On the high end, a PF67 high relief $20 is worth $2.85 million!  Typically, the only place to get coins of this caliber is at a major auction with major cash.

Conversely, counting only proof Wheat cents from 1950-1958, there are over 2300 NGC coins graded PF69RD or better worth 15,000 points or more. The price guide lists these coins as worth about $375. Although I can go on eBay right now and choose one of over 10 of these coins for as little as $180 buy-it-now. This situation is hardly comparable to the one above.

According to NGC’s own description of registry scoring, there is no doubt that the brilliant proof Wheat cent is grossly over-weighted.   The brilliant Wheat cent should be scored similarly to the silver dime (1946-1964), silver quarter (1936-1964) and the silver half (1964-1970). Uncorrected, these kind of discrepancies distort set scores, discourage users, and de-legitimize the registry.   Image what one would think of the registry when their proof Indian Eagle, or Type 1 Buffalo, or VDB cent loses to a common Wheat-back…

Will you please correct (lower) the value of brilliant Wheat cent proofs to be consistent with your scoring rationale?

Thank you.

Here is the list I mentioned above.

20 hours ago, kbbpll said:

"Certified Collectibles Group Files Lawsuit Alleging Tens of Millions of Dollars in Damages Caused by Failures of Software Consulting Firm Globant S.A. and its US Subsidiary"

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190808005907/en/Certified-Collectibles-Group-Files-Lawsuit-Alleging-Tens

Whoa! that does seem to explain some things. 

Thank you for posting the information about the scoring rationale. After the freeze is over on Friday, I will point out what I believe to be a mistake to one coin’s points based on the description of the rationale. 

6 hours ago, Revenant said:

You can click links / hot text on all the sets and scores to see tables with all the point values for all eligible coins for a set / slot.

As far as the algorithm that populates the tables: Good luck. They'll never share that. It wouldn't help you much even if they did. No single scoring system will ever make everyone happy and be universally fair, consistent and logical. Sets/collections and market values and rarity of coins is too complicated and diverse to ever capture with 1 number.

Yes, I agree, but it will help to identify obvious mistakes. 

There is a flaw with the forums editor. When you try to edit your own post on any forum using a smart phone, there is no save button so you cannot make an update to your post. There is a save button when you use a browser on a desktop computer. 

I was a fan of the set graphic being shown with the set title and description on the pages that displayed multiple sets.  It made it easy to find different sets by looking for the picture, since many of the titles are similar.  If it were possible, an option to show/hide the set graphic would be very nice on these pages!

I recommend that the "Private" checkbox be hidden so people do not check it by accident.  If they do check it, there should be a confirmation dialog that warns a user that if they check it, they will be disqualified from the awards competition.

This actually happened to me when I updated my set description. When I hit save I noticed something was different.  I immediately clicked the edit button again, and saw the "Private" box was checked.   I immediately unchecked it and saved it again. It was private (i.e. obscured) for a total of 7 seconds.

In my case, I was lucky because I pleaded to the admins and they were very gracious and fair to make an exception for my set. Thank you admins!  But the point is, this kind of mistake can be prevented if there was a clear warning that requires user confirmation to change the private status.