Registry Points - Highest Point Value in your series??? 0

[Zebo]

What is the highest registry point value for an issue in your series? Say in MS63?

Thought it would be interesting to some of the differences.

[World Colonial]

Based upon my limited observations, the whole point system if "out of whack".  Common as dirt uninteresting coins in ultra grades receive more points than much scarcer more interesting coins with consensus better credentials.  There is a post I wrote here many years ago where I provided examples that I can dig up.

[Coinbuf]

I have no idea.

[Walkerfan]

For my series, it would be the 1921-S......In 63, it is worth 8472.

A 62 would suit me fine at 7487.  

My highest point coin, so far, is my 1921 P in 65, which is worth 7340.  

Edited August 30, 2020 by Walkerfan

[RWB]

Do they give Green Stamps?

[Zebo]

27 minutes ago, RWB said:

Do they give Green Stamps?

Only if you are good.

trying to make heads or tails out of the methodology behind registry points. A more invasive questioning is needed, but my original question is a start for comparison. 

[Walkerfan]

I use the registry more as a management and tracking tool and, also, as a way to gauge my own success.

I know that I'll never be number one, but it is FUN to see how well you can do, and how you 'stack up' to the big boys.

I compete with myself more than anything....Setting goals, etc.

It is, also, nice to be able to display a FULL SET, with images, regardless of how you rank, numerically.  

Edited August 30, 2020 by Walkerfan

[Moxie15]

I have never been able to make sense of the concept of registry sets. I mean competitively collecting? Who cares?

 

I guess tons of people care.  

[World Colonial]

3 minutes ago, Moxie15 said:

I guess tons of people care.  

No, not really. 

Look at the number of sets listed on both NGC and PCGS by series.  I haven't done it lately but have in the past.  It's an immaterial to practically nonexistent proportion of the probable or potential collector base.

[Coinbuf]

11 minutes ago, Zebo said:

Only if you are good.

trying to make heads or tails out of the methodology behind registry points. A more invasive questioning is needed, but my original question is a start for comparison. 

While not a full or complete answer it is biased on rarity/grade and price.  The more rare/high grade and more expensive the more points, and in my case the color designation is also a factor.  I'm sure there is more that goes into it and I dont know which factors are weighted more in the calculation but those factors seem to get you close.  This is where conditional rarity comes into play, for me I think the most points I have from one coin is my 1932-D graded MS67RD at 5316 points, the same coin in MS63RD is 230 points and in MS63BN only 123

[Coinbuf]

4 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

No, not really. 

Look at the number of sets listed on both NGC and PCGS by series.  I haven't done it lately but have in the past.  It's an immaterial to practically nonexistent proportion of the probable or potential collector base.

Yes and no, yes registry sets are a small part of the total coin collecting community and a small percentage compared to the number of ungraded sets sitting in coin albums.  However registry sets do make up a large percentage of the upper end of the market, talking the uber high graded material and super rare material.  The sets in albums will tend to be more lower grade circulated material which may or may not include the "key" dates. 

[Walkerfan]

1 minute ago, Coinbuf said:

Yes and no, yes registry sets are a small part of the total coin collecting community and a small percentage compared to the number of ungraded sets sitting in coin albums.  However registry sets do make up a large percentage of the upper end of the market, talking the uber high graded material and super rare material.  The sets in albums will tend to be more lower grade circulated material which may or may not include the "key" dates. 

Agree.  The higher end guys will always seem to gravitate towards it.  

[World Colonial]

22 minutes ago, Zebo said:

trying to make heads or tails out of the methodology behind registry points. A more invasive questioning is needed, but my original question is a start for comparison. 

There isn't one or if there is, it is backwards to what it should be.

Below are some examples I provided in a thread where the OP complained of losing 6500 points when NGC reassessed the point value of his Presidential dollar set.  By comparison:  Here are the point values for a haphazard handful of other coins which are highly valued, highly preferred, rare (the 1732 Mexico) or all three:

1802 half PCGS MS-62 16919

1796 quarter PCGS MS-61 11384

1800 dollar NGC AU-58 4724

1732 Mexico pillar 4R without assayer/denomination NGC AU-58 5734

[World Colonial]

2 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Yes and no, yes registry sets are a small part of the total coin collecting community and a small percentage compared to the number of ungraded sets sitting in coin albums.  However registry sets do make up a large percentage of the upper end of the market, talking the uber high graded material and super rare material.  The sets in albums will tend to be more lower grade circulated material which may or may not include the "key" dates. 

Uber graded actually common coins, yes.  I haven't seen it nearly as much for the more or most expensive US classics or actually rare coins.  It's mostly for 20th century US and mostly from the series with the largest collector bases.  This coinage isn't rare.

[World Colonial]

12 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

This is where conditional rarity comes into play, for me I think the most points I have from one coin is my 1932-D graded MS67RD at 5316 points, the same coin in MS63RD is 230 points and in MS63BN only 123

Your example here is part of my point.  Look at the point value for this 32-D cent and compare it to the four examples I gave, especially the Mexico 4R.  No one who knows anything about both coins or even coin collecting generally would ever think the two are remotely comparable.

The whole point of registry sets and the point system is to encourage submissions.  It's all marketing and nothing else.

Rudman had a signature set with this 4R which is how I found the point value but I doubt that he or anyone else who has or ever will own this coin cares about the number of points.  The same is also true to a lower extent for the more prominent US coinage.

The registry doesn't motivate anyone who owns coins like the 4R to have it graded and there aren't a meaningful number to grade anyway because this coin and every other one in the (broader) series is at least scarce and when not, actually rare.  There is no revenue to be gained by it.

On the other hand, assigning inflated point values to actually very common but high(er) grade coins (every 20th century and later US series plus NCLT) apparently does motivate submission volume. Or else the TPG wouldn't do it.

[Zebo]

I think that registries (both NGC/ANA and PCGS) have a place. Some amazing sets. They are also a great way to track your coins and the progress that you are making towards your goals. 

registry points on the other hand are a bit harder to equate. It's hard enough assign a point value to a single series of coins - just imaging trying to do it across the wide spectrum that is out there. Too many variables. Grading is subjective. Then you start adding in rarity. To make it even harder - the population or census records are a mess with all of the resubmits and cross overs. Give me a headache just thinking about it.

[Coinbuf]

9 minutes ago, Zebo said:

I think that registries (both NGC/ANA and PCGS) have a place. Some amazing sets. They are also a great way to track your coins and the progress that you are making towards your goals. 

registry points on the other hand are a bit harder to equate. It's hard enough assign a point value to a single series of coins - just imaging trying to do it across the wide spectrum that is out there. Too many variables. Grading is subjective. Then you start adding in rarity. To make it even harder - the population or census records are a mess with all of the resubmits and cross overs. Give me a headache just thinking about it.

And then it can depend on the set, some coins may have a big value for a core set but the value that its given for say a type set can and often is very different.  As I recall the rational for this is that in a type set a Lincoln cent is given a low point score as its not biased on that one coins' conditional rarity but rather a more generic value given to the type.  Lol better stop thinking about it sooner than later.

[Zebo]

I think a main point is you cannot judge registry points across different series of coins because of the difficulties involved in ranking/comparing them. I think the same series yes. You may generally compare the point value to another series if you look at each series individually. A modern common, but ultra high graded coin compared to its lower graded counterparts is equally as valuable (not financially, but emotionally) to a person as a rare coin compared to its more common peers in a different series. Each series is judge as independent of each other. 

so my contention is that each series is graded (registry points) according to their own merit within at series. 

The reason a coin could drop 6500 points - could be if it is an issue that was thought to be scarce, but ended up being much more common than first thought. What was it the 1903 or 1903 O Morgan was thought to be rare at one time.

[Zebo]

Most of all - I'm just trying to stir up some conversation and hopefully get a few others involved that normally wouldn't be. The forum has been a bit more active than usual. Skip had the right idea - increased participation. 

[World Colonial]

2 hours ago, Zebo said:

I think a main point is you cannot judge registry points across different series of coins because of the difficulties involved in ranking/comparing them. I think the same series yes. You may generally compare the point value to another series if you look at each series individually. A modern common, but ultra high graded coin compared to its lower graded counterparts is equally as valuable (not financially, but emotionally) to a person as a rare coin compared to its more common peers in a different series. Each series is judge as independent of each other. 

so my contention is that each series is graded (registry points) according to their own merit within at series. 

The reason a coin could drop 6500 points - could be if it is an issue that was thought to be scarce, but ended up being much more common than first thought. What was it the 1903 or 1903 O Morgan was thought to be rare at one time.

In the example I gave, it was the collector's entire set which dropped 6500 points, not one coin.

I agree with you that the entire purpose is to make those who collect what are actually common coins feel better about their collection and as a result, encourage submission volume.  It's the marketing aspect which contributes to the pretense of "rarity" which doesn't actually exist.

If it were just about relative point values in a series, the TPG could reduce it for the highest grade but common coins by a factor of 10 or even one hundred and adjust the other coins in the set downward less or somewhat less to maintain "reasonable proportionality", both within and between series.  Fractional points could be assigned as well. 

The existing point structure almost certainly isn't an accident but intentional.  One other reason I believe it is because NGC at least does (or did) also rank participants by their total number of points for all sets.  (I don't know about PCGS.)  Rudman who had (or still has) an extensive collection of both world and US was ranked at or near #5 with 3MM, 4MM or some number like it.  I don't know if there is an overall award but it was (and presumably still is) there for anyone to see it.

Given the points assigned to the highest grade common coins, those who have multiple sets in these common series can see that they have more points and are ranked higher than participants with far more expensive, scarcer and more difficult to acquire collections.  The latter mostly doesn't care about this overall (if any ranking) while these others do or might, a lot. 

Why else would this illogical point structure exist?  Assigning points is subjective but what I describe is trivial with modern computing.

[Coinbuf]

Here you go, Rudman is currently #3.  I am at #350  I don't think I'll ever have to worry about cracking the top ten.

Coin collectors rank

[World Colonial]

2 hours ago, Zebo said:

registry points on the other hand are a bit harder to equate. It's hard enough assign a point value to a single series of coins - just imaging trying to do it across the wide spectrum that is out there. Too many variables. Grading is subjective. Then you start adding in rarity. To make it even harder - the population or census records are a mess with all of the resubmits and cross overs. Give me a headache just thinking about it.

It's subjective but it could by relative market value.  Since prices change all the time, I'd just pick a point in time and it doesn't have to be 100% correlated.  If the TPG want to give more points to very common coins this would be a more sensible way to do it.

Personally, I would assign it by a coin's relative collectible merits but this would be a lot more subjective.

[World Colonial]

Bakewell's 1926 South Africa proof set of five coins awarded 10,672.  Mintage is 16 with purportedly five sets known and two reportedly available for private collectors.  1926 3P received 1 (!) point.  This might be an error but giving the penny about 1,000 is not.

 

[RWB]

4 hours ago, Moxie15 said:

I have never been able to make sense of the concept of registry sets. I mean competitively collecting? Who cares?

 

I guess tons of people care.  

Agree.

[Cat Bath]

It would be the 1927-D Saint Gaudens at 91,000 points for a MS70

I think the top-pop coin is a single MS67 so if somebody here is holding out on us, please post a picture 

 

So far as registry set competition goes, my only real interest is making a contribution by way of sharing pictures.

There is a link to my set in the sig line.

[Zebo]

91,000 registry points would equate to how much in real $$$ - well maybe not real, but accepted!

Edited August 31, 2020 by Zebo

[RWB]

23 minutes ago, Zebo said:

91,000 registry points would equate to how much in real $$$ - well maybe not real, but accepted!

That will get you one (1) plastic coffee stirrer. (But you might have to accept a paper one....)

[Zebo]

48 minutes ago, RWB said:

That will get you one (1) plastic coffee stirrer. (But you might have to accept a paper one....)

Paper not plastic - forget about it!  No deal.

 

[Coinbuf]

12 hours ago, Cat Bath said:

It would be the 1927-D Saint Gaudens at 91,000 points for a MS70

I think the top-pop coin is a single MS67 so if somebody here is holding out on us, please post a picture 

 

So far as registry set competition goes, my only real interest is making a contribution by way of sharing pictures.

There is a link to my set in the sig line.

Only problem is this software does not allow sig lines, thus there is no link as there is no sig line.

[Just Bob]

31 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Only problem is this software does not allow sig lines, thus there is no link as there is no sig line.

I can see two of your registry sets in your sigline.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Just Bob