I am sure this has been brought up before - Obscured sets -

[jgrinz]

I really think obscured sets should NOT be able to hold a NUMBER ONE position.

 

The registry is all about seeing and enjoying the coins that are part of the registry and obscured sets kind of by passes the whole point - dont you think

 

I propose - SO THEY GET THIER LITTLE CERTIFICATE - that obscured sets be labelled "0's" and the next set unobscured would be #1 and numbered onward from there - BOTH #0 and #1 would get certificates of achievement from the registry as top achievers.

 

What say you

 

 

 

 

[Revenant]

I memory serves, about 4 of the top 5 sets in the lincoln cents 1909-Date set are all obscured (including the top 3). What would you suggest there?

[CHABSENTIA]

I really think obscured sets should NOT be able to hold a NUMBER ONE position.

 

The registry is all about seeing and enjoying the coins that are part of the registry and obscured sets kind of by passes the whole point - dont you think

 

I propose - SO THEY GET THIER LITTLE CERTIFICATE - that obscured sets be labelled "0's" and the next set unobscured would be #1 and numbered onward from there - BOTH #0 and #1 would get certificates of achievement from the registry as top achievers.

 

What say you

 

 

 

 

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[jgrinz]

I memory serves, about 4 of the top 5 sets in the lincoln cents 1909-Date set are all obscured (including the top 3). What would you suggest there?

 

 

Is it 4 or 3

 

Same applies - NGC makes 4/5 Certificates - 4 for the top obscured and ONE for the actual #1 VISUAL set.

[physics-fan3.14]

How about obscured sets just don't get certificates. Let them have the number one spot, but don't give them any recognition for it.

[jgrinz]

How about obscured sets just don't get certificates. Let them have the number one spot, but don't give them any recognition for it.

 

 

Here here ... I find it NOT really serving any function. HAVING serial numbers Obscured and the grades visable I would not be apposed to ??

 

 

[gpnyc]

I can only guess why someone would go through the trouble of setting up a set and then obscuring it.

 

If its for inventory management purposes, which seems the most likely explanation to me, then the owner of such sets shouldn't mind if they weren't scored at all and fell to the bottom of the list. If they really want their sets to compete, then they should be required to open up their sets for viewing. Simple as that.

 

If you are going to call something a "competitive set," which NGC has done, then you cannot expect some people to compete with one hand tied behind their backs. How do you compete against something you can't see?

[Coin]

I wouldn't mind having an 'opt out' button to remain non-competitve for most of my sets that I'm using the registry for management purposes and a tracking/building tool.

 

On the sets that are competitve , I would leave them in .

 

Seems like an easy fix if we could get Arch to set it up , but then , I'm not a programmer .

 

I currently do not have any obscured sets , but many do not have any pics .

[Revenant]

I memory serves, about 4 of the top 5 sets in the lincoln cents 1909-Date set are all obscured (including the top 3). What would you suggest there?

Is it 4 or 3

 

Same applies - NGC makes 4/5 Certificates - 4 for the top obscured and ONE for the actual #1 VISUAL set.

 

1: Henry Thomas Set #2 (Obscured)

2: Rich Notturno (full deal) (Obscured)

3: Close to Perfect (Obscured)

4: Charles Cents

5: R & K Baker Trust

 

I had thought that the #5 set was obscured as well, but I guess not. That would have made 4 of the 5 top sets obscured while the top 3 were obscured with the 4th being the first unobscured set. That's what I was trying to say.

 

[Revenant]

I don't agree with giving every high ranking obscured set a certificate. The #1 set (if obscured) should receive one, but not #2 and #3 (if also obscured). That's almost like rewarding them for obscuring their sets.