Obscured Sets

[Captain Clipon]

Should obscured sets be disqualified from competition?

 

OK, so, I am playing poker with this guy and we go through the whole thing of betting, gimme two cards, raise, etc...

But when it comes down to laying down the cards, he refuses.

How can you play with someone that won't show their hand?

How is it possible to compete with a person like that?

 

To top it off, what's the point of posting your set if you aren't going to let anyone but the judges look at it? It's all very confusing to me.

 

But then, I don't have the #1 set...

 

See more journals by Captain Clipon

[Walkerfan]

If I was gonna obscure my set; I wouldn't even enter it. Kinda silly.

[darryl f jones]

I agree obscured sets should be eliminated from competition. If not eliminated they should be able to be viewed by Collector Society members only

[Ultra Cameo Collection]

I feel that some people have a fear that if they let everyone see what they have it makes them a larger target for thieves and the like. When it comes to awards I think its ok to give that guy who obscures his sets #1 if his set is better than the #2 guy but they should also give awards to people who have a mostly NGC set. Like my Proof Washington quarter set 1950-1998 I am currently #2 and the #1 guy is nice enough to let me see what he has but I have a mostly NGC set with the exception of 5 coins so It would be nice to see an award in the same category that awards people for having an all NGC set or mostly NGC. Also an award for the best NON-OBSCURED set would be acceptable.

 

Maybe I'm just crazy when it comes to NGC, I like their cases better, I like their grading standards better, well when it comes to Washington quarters I like it better.

 

As an example, for 1976 NGC has graded 1 coin as a 70UC and it is CLAD, on the PCGS side they have graded 82 in clad and 46 in silver and I bet if you sent in everyone one of those SO CALLED PR70DCAM bicentennial quarters into NGC they would give everyone a 69UC or maybe let 1 or 2 squeak by as a 70UC. Maybe this doesn't prove anything but it makes for an interesting discussion on grading standards.

 

ALSO there are 2 Different sets from 2 Different owners in the PCGS Registry that BOTH claim to own the ONLY 1 1974 PR70DCAM. NOW how is that even possible.

CRAZY STUFF going on over there at PCGS.

 

So in summary, I will stick with NGC and be happier.

 

 

[Mokiechan]

[quote=sethwells)

 

Maybe I'm just crazy when it comes to NGC, I like their cases better, I like their grading standards better.

 

(quote sethwells)

 

Could'nt agree more, plus sets with high or 100% NGC coins should be given preferance when determining rankings or awards.

Later,

Malcolm

[coinsbygary]

I have heard that to be eligible for an award, the set must be more than 50% NGC certified coins. As for the rankings I think the highest points set wins. When I buy coins I look for NGC graded coins first, but a major selling point to the NGC registry for me has been the inclusiveness of PCGS coins. An increased supply of eligible coins makes it much easier to fill the slots in my sets.

Gary

[CBC]

"I have heard that to be eligible for an award, the set must be more than 50% NGC certified coins"

 

Incorrect. The #1 Walking Liberty Half set and 2010 award-winner is 100% PCGS - not a single NGC coin in the entire 65-piece set. THe same collector has one other set in the NGC Registry - Standing Liberty quarters - again, 100% PCGS. So why is a PCGS-only collector even listing sets in the NGC registry?

 

I would agree with the 50% minimum NGC content for awards. I have a few PCGS coins in some of my sets. The only set I have that has no NGC coins is one of my Franklin FBL sets, which I split into a PCGS set and a NGC set because of the glaring difference in FBL standards between the two (PCGS standards are much less demanding than NGC on FBL's).

[coin928]

I feel that some people have a fear that if they let everyone see what they have it makes them a larger target for thieves and the like. ...

 

If they have a number one set in a popular series, it seems like that alone makes them a pretty big target.

 

I can see why people would register their certified coins with NGC & PCGS. It provides some public record of their ownership in the unfortunate event that they are stolen. I can also see why they might like to group their obscured coins into sets since it makes your inventory available to you anytime, anywhere. Obscured sets should however be excluded from the registry. These obscured sets could count in a members overall point total, just not in the individual registry.

 

I see the registry as a way to share information between avid collectors. If I want to learn about a new set of coins, the first thing I look for is the registry set that has the most pictures and descriptions. The rest are mildly interesting, but they're really just numbers. All of my coins have pictures and descriptions.

 

If it's security that you're worried about, don't taunt the public at large about how great your set is, obscured or otherwise.