Multiples of the same registry set

[asdfgh]

I know I have seen this topic in the past, however wanted to ask again.

Why does NGC allow multiple "same" registry sets to be counted in the Collector ranking.

I believe that if someone wants to have 2 of the same set that NGC should require them to

declare which one is counted toward ranking and ignore the others. The top Collectors are

dealers that have sets for other people. Some of these have 100 of the same exact set.

I can never competed with this...

 

Add a button at the top "Eliminate Dup Sets", keep highest point set.

 

To see what I am talking about

1. go to "NGC Registry"

2. at top select "Top US Collectors"

3. pick the any public name

4. expand to "View Entire Profile"

[BillJones]

I disagree with the concept of having dealers put their inventory on the registry as sets, but I know it has been done. To me a registry set should be group of coins that a collector intends to hold for a while. When it is a fluid inventory that has coins going in and out of it, it defeats the purpose of measuring which sets are truly the best.

 

This concept has long been a part of the condition census information that specialty collectors have developed over the years. If a given high grade coin is in the hands of a dealer who intends to sell it, the dealer might be listed as intermediary in the ownership history of the piece, but he or she is not listed as collector-owner.

 

Having said that I have need seen a lot of this dealer activity in the areas where I have registry sets. I suppose this might be in the modern coins, but I don't know for sure.

 

[KMAG100]

The part that confuses me about the registry is how you can use the same coin in multiple sets, thus gaining multiple points for the same coin. Why should a coin worth 3,500 points get credit for it 15 times in 15 different registry listings?? doesn't make any sense to me.

[Walkerfan]

Dealers shouldn't participate in the registry with their inventory coins. I know of at least TWO 'phantom' sets in the Walking Liberty category and one is a dealer.

[coinman_23885]

I guess I am the lone dissenter. I am okay with dealers listing coins that may be part of their inventories in registry sets. The point of the registry set is to establish the best sets, even if they are only temporary and fleeting in nature. As long as sold items are removed, I don't see the problem. May the best set of coins win...

[Walkerfan]

I guess I am the lone dissenter. I am okay with dealers listing coins that may be part of their inventories in registry sets. The point of the registry set is to establish the best sets, even if they are only temporary and fleeting in nature. As long as sold items are removed, I don't see the problem. May the best set of coins win...

 

True but this is not happening.

[BillJones]

The part that confuses me about the registry is how you can use the same coin in multiple sets, thus gaining multiple points for the same coin. Why should a coin worth 3,500 points get credit for it 15 times in 15 different registry listings?? doesn't make any sense to me.

 

In the overall totals (Total Coin Registry Points) the coin only counts once at its highest amount. For example I have an 1838-D Classic Head $5 gold in PCGS MS-63. That coin is tied for the highest graded 1838-D $5 by either service. In the complete Dahlonega Mint coin set that coin gets 10,226 registry points. Since that happens to be the highest graded Classic Head $5 gold I have, it's in my gold type set (1795 to 1933) when it gets 3,783 points for that type.

 

Why? That type set spot could be filled by a much more common coin, like an 1834 Classic Head $5 gold instead.

 

In the overall Total Coin Registry Points, that coin is counted once at 10,226 points. The 3,783 points in my type set does not count. I hope this clears up the confusion for you.

 

[coinman_23885]

I guess I am the lone dissenter. I am okay with dealers listing coins that may be part of their inventories in registry sets. The point of the registry set is to establish the best sets, even if they are only temporary and fleeting in nature. As long as sold items are removed, I don't see the problem. May the best set of coins win...

 

True but this is not happening.

 

I can see this happening every now and then, but if it is an intentional ploy to manipulate the registry, then NGC is always free to suspend or expel individual members from participating in the registry.

[Kenneth F]

The part that confuses me about the registry is how you can use the same coin in multiple sets, thus gaining multiple points for the same coin. Why should a coin worth 3,500 points get credit for it 15 times in 15 different registry listings?? doesn't make any sense to me.

 

A coin listed multiple times increases the specific set registry points, not the collector/dealers overall point count.

[KMAG100]

The part that confuses me about the registry is how you can use the same coin in multiple sets, thus gaining multiple points for the same coin. Why should a coin worth 3,500 points get credit for it 15 times in 15 different registry listings?? doesn't make any sense to me.

 

 

In the overall Total Coin Registry Points, that coin is counted once at 10,226 points. The 3,783 points in my type set does not count. I hope this clears up the confusion for you.

 

Thanks, that clears it up.

[asdfgh]

I have no problem with anyone having a registry set or even multiple registry sets. The point

I was trying to make in starting this thread was the "Top US Collectors" list. The top of the list

is dominated by persons with the exact same registry set (different coins). Even the set names

are of other individuals. For instance the top person has around 100 "Indian Head Quarter Eagles 1908-1929" sets.

I believe one should be limited to only one of any given registry set for competition.

 

 

[World Colonial]

I guess I am the lone dissenter. I am okay with dealers listing coins that may be part of their inventories in registry sets. The point of the registry set is to establish the best sets, even if they are only temporary and fleeting in nature. As long as sold items are removed, I don't see the problem. May the best set of coins win...

 

 

I agree with you.

 

I also believe that if someone actually has multiples of the same coin or series, it is their prerogative to have multiple entries and I don't see why NGC or PCGS would limit each participant to one set in a particular category as long as the coins are actually owned and only included once.

 

In the example provided by the OP, going by the names of the sets, it appears to me that maybe the participant is a dealer and the set names represent the actual collectors.

 

Seems to me just another reason to collect coins and not plastic or labels. I don't participate in the registry but if I did, I would prefer to have my set ranked where it actually belongs. I would obtain zero satisfaction by having my set artificially ranked higher which as far as I am concerned, happens all the time anyway because for most categories, I don't believe that the best sets are included anyway plus there are two competing registries, NGC and PCGS.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

For instance the top person has around 100 "Indian Head Quarter Eagles 1908-1929" sets. I believe one should be limited to only one of any given registry set for competition.

 

 

I think that is entirely arbitrary too. To play devil's advocate, I really don't care that much about the registry, but if I did, I could absolutely justify having two sets in the Liberty Walking Half Dollar proof category. This is because I like high end toned coins, but I also have an appreciation for cameo pieces. The latter are incredibly rare; however, the registry only awards a mere pittance for a bonus above the non cameo point level for the grade. If I chose to build a cameo set (or as close as is possible), then my sets would be penalized even if the set was the finest possible based on my criteria. This seems to defeat the stated criteria that the entire point system is based on rarity and value. Well, many of the cameo coins are rarer than the generic counterpart three points higher and sell for just as much if not more yet they are priced almost like more common generic pieces. So why should someone like me be forced to pick; why shouldn't I be allowed to create a non-cameo and cameo set if I wanted to do so?

[#]

Done

[World Colonial]

Summary: the NGC regisrty is a total joke.

 

What makes competition in the registry meaningless is that it isn't an actual competition with all the best sets, even if the entries to which you object were excluded. Disproportionately, I don't believe actual collectors with the best sets are even competing and even when they are, the best sets are divided between NGC and PCGS. So what is so significant about these rankings?

 

This is aside from the point coinman made, the arbitrary nature of the scoring system. After reading the above posts, I looked at the Indian Head Quarter Eagle entries. The 1911-D MS-65 is worth 16747 points. This coin has a count of 76 just with NGC and though I presume it includes many duplicates, anyone with the money can buy it either right now or on short notice. The only challenge in buying this coin or 95%+ of all others is in having the money. Alternatively, one of the coins in my series, the Rudman 1732 Mexico NGC AU-58 4R is awarded about 5500 points and its a much rarer and more significant coin and probably the best one available.

 

I have read various posts in the past about the registry formula for awarding points, but in any event, I don't see that it is representative of the "best" collection or set at all.

 

 

[Walkerfan]

Summary: the NGC regisrty is a total joke.

 

What makes competition in the registry meaningless is that it isn't an actual competition with all the best sets, even if the entries to which you object were excluded. Disproportionately, I don't believe actual collectors with the best sets are even competing and even when they are, the best sets are divided between NGC and PCGS. So what is so significant about these rankings?

 

I strongly disagree. Having a top ranking set at NGC is a very significant achievement----regardless of whether there are 'better' sets out there or not.

[World Colonial]

Summary: the NGC regisrty is a total joke.

 

What makes competition in the registry meaningless is that it isn't an actual competition with all the best sets, even if the entries to which you object were excluded. Disproportionately, I don't believe actual collectors with the best sets are even competing and even when they are, the best sets are divided between NGC and PCGS. So what is so significant about these rankings?

 

I strongly disagree. Having a top ranking set at NGC is a very significant achievement----regardless of whether there are 'better' sets out there or not.

 

You and I have a completely different standard of achievement.

 

 

[#]

Done

[Tyler N.]

Overall, I enjoy the registry. Like all, I realize who the ones are who register coins they don't own. I just choose not to view them. Before Mr. Gardner sold his collection, I would view (drool over) his sets and read his descriptions. There are plenty of these people still on the registry (I.e. BillJones, Jackson, G.M. Chow, Mr. Smith Guesser, etc.) that display their coins the correct way. Everyone knows who has the best sets, imaginary points on a website can't begin to describe the amount of work I've put into my sets or the amount of pride I have in them.

 

That said... I always thought it'd be pretty cool if NGC would allow users to rank sets. This could be done several ways, but I think the most effective would be to allow the users to "up vote" the sets they like best. The sets with the most votes would be the number one. I bet you wouldn't find the dealer sets/ghost sets/obscured sets on the first page. You'd find the sets with good photos/descriptions - and, most importantly, great coins. The sets wouldn't always be ranked this way, the user would be able to filter the rankings by points, views, "up votes" or any other way ranking can be done.

 

NGC is usually very good taking constructive criticism/advice from the boards. Hopefully they read and are able to make positive changes to the registry from this thread.

[#]

Done

[david3142]

I like this idea. It may serve to give collections of toned coins a boost. As it is, assembling beautifully colored coins is extremely inefficient. It can be frustrating to pay way up for a coin that I love and enjoy, but is a common date 65 and worth like, 100 registry points.

[World Colonial]

Everyone has their own standard of achievement. I think most US collectors overrate the merits of most of the coins most collect. I also think that a large number are over rated primarily because they are expensive or because of some narrow criteria such as the grade.

 

Having said this, I agree that for a collector who is almost always working with a very limited budget, it is an achievement for them and by the standards of many others to put together the sets they have. I see this as the opposite of what it takes to put together a top registry set or one near it because most of the coins in most of the categories aren't remotely scarce and anyone can buy them at practically any time if they have the money.

 

Personally, I find a challenge in coins that are actually hard to buy.. Some of the coins I collect such as South Africa Union are easier to find now versus when I started because the prices are (a lot) higher and I obtain a lot less satisfaction for both reasons. My budget buys less and there isn't anywhere near the same "hunt". Though I have made good returns on some of my coins and obviously would like to at least get my money back later, I am still a collector first and prefer lower prices.

 

I don't see the primary purpose of the registry to recognize the "best" sets but as a marketing tool to drive submissions and in that sense, I presume it has been successful.

[coinman_23885]

That said... I always thought it'd be pretty cool if NGC would allow users to rank sets. This could be done several ways, but I think the most effective would be to allow the users to "up vote" the sets they like best. The sets with the most votes would be the number one.

 

With all due respect, I think this is a horrible idea because the registry would become a popularity contest more than a ranking of the best sets necessarily. That is even more subjective and even more limited in value or prestige IMHO. I also predict that the dealers complained of would provide incentives for customers to leave positive ratings for their sets, and it would become more of a marketing tool.

 

On another note, I am not convinced that the registry model will continue to thrive 10 years from now as it emphasizes labels over the coins and overgraded coins and those with horrible eye appeal are rewarded. Even when the grades are comparable, a "+" coin that has only mediocre eye appeal can beat out a coin without the "+" that might be a better coin in reality. Similarly, it makes little sense that an eye appealing, original coin can be weighted the same as a lifeless dipped out coin in many cases. This is a particular problem in much of the Seated Liberty and Barber coinage IMHO.

 

I think the market is catching on, however. The registry had a major effect on prices in the early 2000s, but I think it is less popular than then and has cooled down at least some (although there is no doubt that it remains a driver of some of the top pop coins). The market seems to be shifting to eye appeal and originality regardless of grade. And I think that is a good thing. In many cases, it appears that collectors are downgrading overgraded coins to get them in the proper holders and for CAC stickers, but that is another subject all together. This is a drastic change from the early 2000s.

[World Colonial]

On another note, I am not convinced that the registry model will continue to thrive 10 years from now as it emphasizes labels over the coins and overgraded coins and those with horrible eye appeal are rewarded. Even when the grades are comparable, a "+" coin that has only mediocre eye appeal can beat out a coin without the "+" that might be a better coin in reality. Similarly, it makes little sense that an eye appealing, original coin can be weighted the same as a lifeless dipped out coin in many cases. This is a particular problem in much of the Seated Liberty and Barber coinage IMHO.

 

I think the market is catching on, however. The registry had a major effect on prices in the early 2000s, but I think it is less popular than then and has cooled down at least some (although there is no doubt that it remains a driver of some of the top pop coins). The market seems to be shifting to eye appeal and originality regardless of grade. And I think that is a good thing. In many cases, it appears that collectors are downgrading overgraded coins to get them in the proper holders and for CAC stickers, but that is another subject all together. This is a drastic change from the early 2000s.

 

You may turn out to be correct but I don't believe that the registry has or ever had much to do with real collecting at all. It is a marketing tool for the TPG if the statement I read on the PCGS forum is correct that 50% or 15MM of the coins they have graded are moderns. For the collector, it is primarily about the "investment" aspect because nothing else explains the price differences.

 

I agree with your comments about eye appeal but the differences in these coins are not nearly as significant as many who buy them claim. The best evidence for this is that US collectors didn't have this mentality in the past when the price level was much lower and price spreads narrower, the emphasis now is directly related to the prices and they don't outside the US either because the coins are disproportionately much scarcer and buying decent quality coins is enough of a challenge on its own without this practice.

 

A large number of sets in the registry are composed of coins which are either common or incredibly common where it is possible to create at least hundreds of essentially identical sets where the cumulative difference isn't that significant either. The registry set competition is just another way for collectors to create a challenge where one would otherwise not exist.

 

I don't think the registry and its point values should drive collecting. Though I don't consider the preferences discussed for most of these coins significant, I think the (supposed) difference represented by the TPG grade to be either the least important or among them. The toning you and others here prefer is a lot more noticeable and should definitely be rewarded more by the market. Same goes to a lesser extent for strike even though I also consider designations such as FS nowhere near as significant as those who buy these coins.

[RWB]

Ahhh...the glare of reality!