Should The Point System for Type Sets Should Be the Same as Date Sets?

[SLUGGO]

Hi: I think that the 19th and early 20th C. proof gold type set format needs to be updated. Currently, it is conditon only that sets the point standard, rarity is not a factor. In 19th C. silver or nickel proof date sets, it is not only condition, but rarity which contributes to the scores. There are many dates in proof gold that have only 25-30 pieces minted in proof, not available in higher grades, and are awarded the same point value as ones that have several hundred minted.

 

Thus, it is very probable that a proof 65 cameo in a rare date will be more valuable than a later common date graded as a Pr 67 Cameo. This demonstrates my point that proof type gold sets need to be awarded points on BOTH condition and rarity.

 

I got an answer to my theory on another thread where I posted my premise. I started a new thread as I feel it was posted in the wrong topic.

 

PoDWLange

NGC Director of Research

 

Quote: The whole concept of type collecting is to obtain the highest grade possible, and this is usually accomplished by selecting one of the more common issues. Therefore, the scoring is based on the most common date/mint of each coin type. Ene quote

 

So, the Registry Set point system awards points to the highest possible grade, regardless of rarity. This simply is not fair. All 19th C. proof date sets have tougher dates to get and are awarded higher points SIMPLY because of the date. The 1867 Rays Shield nickel is a perfect example as is the 1895 proof Morgan dollar.

 

IMO, this is an inconsistency that needs to be corrected. There is no difference between collecting a Gold Type Set or a Proof Date Set. One needs to fill the spaces, yet filling with common dates in premium grades that cost much less in Gold Type Sets is unfair to those collectors who want to collect the better date coins which simply are not available in equally high grades. :

 

MARK SLOTKIN

SLOTKIN FAMILY TRUST PROOF GOLD TYPE SET.

[Tradedollarnut]

The 67 w/ rays gets more than one point? It's a miracle!

 

I don't disagree with NGC, tho your concept is an interesting quirk.

[DWLange]

Aside from any philosophical considerations, the programming for type sets permits only one score per grade, regardless of date. It's not presently possible to do it any other way.

[SLUGGO]

TO DW: So, if it is only about programming, contact your software people and make the change to mimic the proof date set ratings. Remember those sets are awarded for both rarity and grade.

 

TO TRADEDOLLARNUT: YEP, the Rays Nickel gets around 10000 points in Pr 64 whereas many of the other dates in Pr 66 get around 2000 points. I am not sure why you agree with NGC as to its decision to take Gold Type Proof sets and award points only for condition and not grade, but it certainly goes against the grain in the real world of coin collecting.

 

MARK SLOTKIN

[Tradedollarnut]

I wonder why the 67 w/rays gets points but many other classic rarities don't? That's surprising....

[Tradedollarnut]

I am not sure why you agree with NGC as to its decision to take Gold Type Proof sets and award points only for condition and not grade, but it certainly goes against the grain in the real world of coin collecting.

 

Seems as if that's how it's traditionally been done. Type is type and there's no date premium attached. Back when I had a type set going here, I had the smallest 'bang for the buck' ever.... PF64 Liberty nickel, PF66 Trade dollar, PF64 reeded edge half and circulated seated dollar. I'm sure you can guess the dates.

[SLUGGO]

TO TRADEDOLLARNUT:

 

1. The point about the 67 Rays is not that it gets a huge premium which it does, but that the entire Shield Nickel set gets different point awards depending on the dates, as do all the proof silver date sets that I have in the Registry. Logically that should carry out to the Proof Gold Type set because the Registry is a challenge for collectors to create the best set possible and be #1 if they can afford it.

 

By using only the grades as the criterion for type sets the standards in coin collecting are not adhered too. These standards use condition AND rarity when determing the value of the coins. In fact, rarity is more important than condition.

 

Type is no different than a date set. It seems that the traditions have been violated and exactly what you said, "the most bang for the buck" is not what was in the minds of NGC Registry when they set this up. A competition for the best set must include rarity as a criterion as well as grade or else we will never know which really is the top set.

 

MARK SLOTKIN

[Tradedollarnut]

A competition for the best set must include rarity as a criterion as well as grade or else we will never know which really is the top set.

 

Oh, I think we collectors can figure it out... who really needs the Registries to tell us which is the best set? One excludes certain holders, the other requires 50% or more of those holders to win an award. Certainly they are a convenient place to show off one's set, but beyond that the games are simply too much...