Registry "partners", or sharing a registry set

[bigd5]

I posted this across the street and thought it received some interesting comments.

 

How does everyone feel about collectors/dealers/investors possibly sharing coins in one set?

 

This ran through my head as I recall seeing a TOP REGISTRY SET coming to market, announcement, from one of the auction houses. The registry sets seem like a great way for collectors/dealers/investors to display their sets to a large group of interested, dare I say "fans".

 

Human nature being what it is, is it out of the realm for two or more registry participants to join their sets together for purposes only to obtain a higher standing in a particular set, and then turn around and offer that set up at auction with the billing, or "hype" building higher because the set has a higher standing in the registry?

 

With that said, I am surprised that we don't see the ABC Coin Club type set registry, which would consist of different members coins' of that specific coin club. Sounds innocent enough, but probably would have drastic implications on how a registry set is managed by either pcgs or ngc.

 

How about if my brother and I decided to "merge" our sets and form one larger set? Good idea? Bad idea? Implications?

[Hoot]

This is an excellent question and one that I've given a bit of thought in the past. It seems to me that this has already been done. I can't necessesarily put my finger on what set represents merged collections, but some of the dealer sets have struck me that way, right or wrong.

 

On a philosophical basis, I contest the use of the registries by dealers and investors to promote a set that is up for show and subsequent sale. There are other forums intended for that, and those should be adhered to. And for extensive collections that are about to be sold, this tactic is tacky and, really, unnecessary.

 

The registries should represent the efforts of collectors. Naturally, those efforts change over time, sets or pieces from sets are sold, mention is made of their efforts, etc. However, the initial intention is in the spirit of collecting. Intention matters, as it has its roots in integrity. And the integrity of collectors matters, as it is integral to the well being of the hobby.

 

As for collective efforts of collectors, e.g., the members of a club, I think that the issue is less clear. This might be done in good spirit and for the promotion of the endeavors of collecting itself. As long as such a set were well documented and displayed, then I think that such a set still promotes the well being of the hobby. Such a set would have to show due humility, however, in its presentation, stating up-front that it is the collective effort of the individuals involved in the sponsoring organization. It would also have to be managed with care so that coins were not in it that did not belong to the members of the sponsoring organization.

 

Some people who are hell bent on the competative aspects of the hobby might be quite insensed over the inclusion of a club effort. Unfortunately, I think that rabid competition clouds the meaningful spirit of the hobby and of the registries themselves.

 

As for brothers, sisters, families, etc., I really don't have any objection. Some of the great collections were made by family effort. Granted, there may have been one person who was the true advocate of the collection, but such greatness is often not attained by singular initiative. And like I said for clubs, I think that there should somehow be a greater effort to display the set for the better intent of promoting the hobby, educating fellow collectors, and offering up an investment of quality in the spirit of display, not promotional investment.

 

The funny thing is, if a set addresses the heart of quality and integrity for the sake of the hobby, promotes education and the significance of history, then any financial gain just naturally follows. It matters, I believe, what order these foundational reasons are placed in when a set is presented. And this aspect in turn, speaks to integrity in depth.

 

Hoot

[Wihlborg]

Excellent subject Darin, and one that I have thought about from time to time while viewing registry sets.

 

To me the obvious answer is that two or more collectors or investors combining their coins to form one set that would rank higher than if the coins were listed separately under each individual’s own set is not fair to all the other registry participants who are building sets using only their own resources.

 

Unfortunately, this is happening right now in the registries, along with a couple of other practices that I happen to find distasteful, namely hidden sets and sets with no pictures and descriptions of the coins listed in the set.

 

Maybe it’s just me, but I couldn’t care less about a hidden set or one where the owner does not care enough about it to take the time to at least add descriptions. Actually, to tell the truth I can’t help but wonder if the owner is trying to hide something whenever I see such a set listed. I mean numbers alone cannot tell the true quality of a set.

 

I think it’s safe to say that we all have seen coins in holders with high grades that were over graded, low end for the grade, or just plain ugly. These examples often sell for less because their quality does not compare to other examples in the same grade or in some cases, even examples graded a point lower. If a set is hidden, or has no photos how do we know that it is not made up of low end ugly coins? If it is, is it really better than a set ranked below it made up of quality coins? Personally, I don’t think so.

 

I consider all of this part of the registry game and don’t let it interfere with how I choose to participate in the registry. I list my sets as a means to share them with others who can appreciate them for what they are. I add photos and descriptions for each coin, and make note of a coin’s weak points as well as the strong.

 

I know I will never have a top ranking set in the categories I am competing in, and that’s fine by me, because when all is said and done the only one who has to be pleased with my sets is me.

 

John

[TomB]

It's funny, it seems that we have all put some thought into this somewhat arcane, though completely relevant, topic.

 

I don't believe that a club or society should list a set in the registries, however, I do believe that such entities would do well to list such collaborative efforts on their own web sites in the spirit of the free exchange of information. Similarly, a family set should not have a place in the registry since the completion of the task would not have occurred, to the extent that it has already occurred, without the participation and at least grudging acceptance of multiple parties and their combined resources of time, effort, opportunity and income.

 

However, I do believe that a dealer's inventory should be allowed to be registered as an independent set, as long as that inventory is not on consignment. This brings me to the practice of some auction companies who, I believe, take collections and individual coins on consignment and then list the amalgam. This is not in the spirit of the registry, nor is it in the letter of the registry guidelines, as far as I know. In my opinion, such actions are crass, undermine the the reputation of the seller and compromise the integrity of the registry itself.

[Architecht]

[Oldtrader3]

Some percentage of people are going to do what it takes to support their agenda and ego in any endevour. This includes dealers who wish to promote a set as a marketing ploy. As we speak, Scarsdale Coin has a Jeff. nickel Registry set (#14) that they are marketing and promoting on their site. Is this fair practise? I don't know the answer.

 

It certainly does not give the average collector a level playing field on set ratings. However, I have never felt that the average collector has a level playing field in this hobby anyhow. This hobby is fueled by money and by connections, both of which are not accessible to the most collectors. I just pick my ground and participate in areas where I can assemble a collection that makes me happy. That is all a modest collector can expect.

[BillJones]

Yes, I agree Tom.

 

A few months ago a dealer listed the coins that he was going to auction as a registry set. I have great respect for that dealer, but I pointedly disagree with the practice of posted consigned coins as a collection, and claiming a top spot on the registry. This undermines the whole concept of forming a collection and representing it as an honest effort by an individual or even a family.

[Coinbuf]

I personaly think that the registry should not be used for any type of collective gathering of coins other than within a family. I also think it is unfair for a dealer to list inventory as a set, yes the coins belong to him but his goal is to sell those coins not to "collect" them.

[SilverDollarMan]

Ditto, one owner, one set