How are NGC registry points assigned? 1 1

[alexbq2]

I added a coin to a set - 2860419-002, and it received 1 single point. It's a pretty valuable coin in XF-45. Per NGC 5 are graded and this one is in the middle of the pack. Why 1 point?

[Maribeth]

2 hours ago, alexbq2 said:

I added a coin to a set - 2860419-002, and it received 1 single point. It's a pretty valuable coin in XF-45. Per NGC 5 are graded and this one is in the middle of the pack. Why 1 point?

Hello, 

You coin has been listed as Non-competitive; for display only.  

There are many factors involved when making the decision to mark a coin as non-competitive in an NGC Competitive Registry Set. These factors may include low mintage, difficulty in obtaining/purchasing the coin, and an unusually high price in relation to the other coins required to fill the set. These factors are considered when our senior numismatic team makes the decision, which is done on a coin-by-coin basis.

We aim to make 100% completion of any registry set attainable for our average collector. If a coin you own is marked as non-competitive, we do offer Custom NGC Registry sets as an option to display all your coins in the manner you desire. If you are interested in an NGC Custom Registry Set, please let us know, and we are happy to assist you.  Thank you.

[alexbq2]

Thanks for the quick reply, but the coin is not listed in the set as Non Competitive Display Only - https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/337011/

I can see another person has that tag on a coin in their set and it's 0 points - https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/244597/

[alexbq2]

And this person got 1174 points for the same exact coin - https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/260031/

[Revenant]

4 hours ago, alexbq2 said:

And this person got 1174 points for the same exact coin - https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/260031/

Well, they aren't exactly the same. That is an inverted L type and yours isn't from what I can see.

I think there are a lot of coins that just have generic / place holder point values from when NGC was building things out that just never got updated. Sometimes these never get updated until someone adds a coin of that type to a set and starts asking questions because something seems off. 

It could also be that She's right, but because some sub types are more attainable than others that some subtypes are non-competitive (yours) and some aren't (his) and so the 1 point score is a way of knee-capping your coin while not making the whole slot non-competitive.

Just me guessing. 

[Fenntucky Mike]

I wish I had a Non-Competitive coin in my collection. Just saying. 

I get what you're saying @alexbq2 but I also understand the NGC position on this, I would take comfort in that the coin even has a slot in the regular Registry and that it IS an awesome coin to own. Congrats on acquiring it.

[Maribeth]

Hello @alexbq2,

The set which your coin is listed is a Type Set where multiple coins may be eligible in a slot. Some coins listed in a slot may be competitive, whereas others may not and we would not list the entire slot as Non-Competitive.  This is true across all competitive registry type sets.  Your coin is Non-competitive in the slot and receives 1 point due to rarity and price to obtain the coin.

@Revenant Thank you for your assistance in explaining the reasoning.  We appreciate your support!

[alexbq2]

Thank you for trying to explain this to me. I am new to the Registry, and have just started using it for the purpose of keeping track of my collection. I can't say I understand the logic here. To me it would make sense if coins of the same type received comparable number of points. But thank you for your responses.

[Revenant]

1 hour ago, alexbq2 said:

Thank you for trying to explain this to me. I am new to the Registry, and have just started using it for the purpose of keeping track of my collection. I can't say I understand the logic here. To me it would make sense if coins of the same type received comparable number of points. But thank you for your responses.

I think you make a solid point there, honestly.

If I assume I'm right in my prior conjecture, based on Maribeth's response, I do think it would be reasonable and fair if your rarer variety received the same points in that set and slot as the non-non-competitive (?) coin in that slot. Since there is a competitive option for that slot it seems like, for that slot, your coin should get to compete. Other people without deep pockets are still allowed a chance to compete and complete the set in that case. But that's just my 2 cents.

[USAuPzlBxBob]

The answers NGC is providing here are not making much sense to me.  Maribeth really didn't answer the question.  She touched on it, but little more.

I have a Type Set collection.  I looked at the points for one of my coins, chosen at random, just to see if I could make sense of the points it delivers to me for determining my Rank against other Type Set collections I'm competing against.  My coin is much rarer than other available coins that could fill the slot, and I could only manage it in Grade AU58.  Meanwhile, some other collector, going for a most common coin to fill the slot, and able to get it for a similar price to my coin, pulls it off in grade MS63, and practically doubles the points that my coin received.

What this tells me is NGC is rewarding coins that are simply "shiny" and little else.  It tells me that someone could have an extremely valuable coin, virtually impossible to acquire because of its expense and rarity, and it would get the same registry points that a common — garden variety — coin for the slot would avail.  And "we collectors" are supposed to be happy with this?

Why?

Definitely, something is far from "perfect" in the metrics of the NGC Registry.

 

[Ali E.]

35 minutes ago, USAuPzlBxBob said:

The answers NGC is providing here are not making much sense to me.  Maribeth really didn't answer the question.  She touched on it, but little more.

I have a Type Set collection.  I looked at the points for one of my coins, chosen at random, just to see if I could make sense of the points it delivers to me for determining my Rank against other Type Set collections I'm competing against.  My coin is much rarer than other available coins that could fill the slot, and I could only manage it in Grade AU58.  Meanwhile, some other collector, going for a most common coin to fill the slot, and able to get it for a similar price to my coin, pulls it off in grade MS63, and practically doubles the points that my coin received.

What this tells me is NGC is rewarding coins that are simply "shiny" and little else.  It tells me that someone could have an extremely valuable coin, virtually impossible to acquire because of its expense and rarity, and it would get the same registry points that a common — garden variety — coin for the slot would avail.  And "we collectors" are supposed to be happy with this?

Why?

Definitely, something is far from "perfect" in the metrics of the NGC Registry.

 

Hello, Bob.

If you are looking for scores that are specific to your coin year, mint, variety, etc., then you will need to utilize date sets. Type set scores are calculated differently. Please see the description here. Thank you.

[USAuPzlBxBob]

Ali E.,

The clickable attachment in your reply reads: 

US Coins in TYPE sets have different scores than they do in DATE sets. US coins receive different scores depending on the set: a "Date Score" and a "Type Score". The Date Score is for date sets such as "Lincoln Cents 1936-1958, Proof" and reflects the value and rarity of the coin. The Type Score is used only in type sets, where the goal is typically to acquire any example of a single type. Therefore, all coins of the same type will receive the same score, which often results in a lower score for rarer or more valuable dates.

Ok, fine.  But "we collectors" who collect Type Sets (or parts of Type Sets) only… not Date Sets (No intent of ever collecting Date Sets!), we still strive for qualities in our collections that, if we thought them to be "typical," we would be put off by the very notion of such an expression.

It is interesting… when I've clicked on some of the highest Rank collection point scores of the Type Set I collect, what I've found — typically — are boring collections wrt presentation.  Few comments from the owners, few photos from the owners — many of which are lackluster in interest because the photos… don't "pop" — and it is almost as though the sole purpose of their being in the Registry is for point value and Rank ascension.  It's sort of like they're trying to get the most "Likes" or "Friends" as can be found to be commonplace elsewhere on the Internet.

This is the sort of collector NGC wants to herald?

So, my real question to NGC is why dismiss collectors from points they would find shown in the NGC Coin Explorer/NGC Registry Scores for individual coins?  Therein, things seem to be as fair as they can be, and let the dust settle on its own merit in terms of total point scores for given Type Set collections.  In other words, a person could go to any Type Set and assess what each coin they wanted to collect would yield — from PRAG to 70, Base to +★, yes/no CAC — and be able to determine what their score might be before wading in with real money?

Type Sets are the most interesting of all coin collections.  I would think NGC would want to reward those individuals who strive to collect very rare and valuable Type Sets — against all odds of success — and who compete against the many who also share in their enthusiasm of what a coin, each coin, individually owned by them, is really worth — point wise, when taken upon its own merit — in their Type Set collection.

[Revenant]

5 hours ago, USAuPzlBxBob said:

Type Sets are the most interesting of all coin collections.  I would think NGC would want to reward those individuals who strive to collect very rare and valuable Type Sets — against all odds of success — and who compete against the many who also share in their enthusiasm of what a coin, each coin, individually owned by them, is really worth — point wise, when taken upon its own merit — in their Type Set collection.

Honestly, and I've said this before, I think it's hard to get a good, consistent scoring of coins across a single set. I've long said it's almost impossible to have consistent, "fair" scoring across everything - which is why I've tended to always considered the overall rankings to be mostly meaningless. A type set requires that kind of consistent-across-everything scoring, that I don't think you can realistically get.

 

Are YOU competing for rank or are you building a set that you like and enjoy and giving it a presentation you like and that you're proud of? 

If you're trying to win certificates, do what they're doing - look at the scoring and play the game with them. Buy the MS65 that is cheaper than your rare AU58.

If you're just building the set you want, do that, take fantastic pictures and give them fantastic descriptions. Maybe you'll win a "Best Presented" and a $500 grading credit, and then who cares who got the certificate? You're happy. You had fun. You did want you wanted and what made you happy, and maybe you come out better than them in the end anyway. 

[comicdonna]

On the CGC side, there is a pinned thread titled "These scores need fixin requests thread".  Maybe NGC could consider this for the registry here.  

[Ali E.]

17 hours ago, USAuPzlBxBob said:

Ali E.,

The clickable attachment in your reply reads: 

US Coins in TYPE sets have different scores than they do in DATE sets. US coins receive different scores depending on the set: a "Date Score" and a "Type Score". The Date Score is for date sets such as "Lincoln Cents 1936-1958, Proof" and reflects the value and rarity of the coin. The Type Score is used only in type sets, where the goal is typically to acquire any example of a single type. Therefore, all coins of the same type will receive the same score, which often results in a lower score for rarer or more valuable dates.

Ok, fine.  But "we collectors" who collect Type Sets (or parts of Type Sets) only… not Date Sets (No intent of ever collecting Date Sets!), we still strive for qualities in our collections that, if we thought them to be "typical," we would be put off by the very notion of such an expression.

It is interesting… when I've clicked on some of the highest Rank collection point scores of the Type Set I collect, what I've found — typically — are boring collections wrt presentation.  Few comments from the owners, few photos from the owners — many of which are lackluster in interest because the photos… don't "pop" — and it is almost as though the sole purpose of their being in the Registry is for point value and Rank ascension.  It's sort of like they're trying to get the most "Likes" or "Friends" as can be found to be commonplace elsewhere on the Internet.

This is the sort of collector NGC wants to herald?

So, my real question to NGC is why dismiss collectors from points they would find shown in the NGC Coin Explorer/NGC Registry Scores for individual coins?  Therein, things seem to be as fair as they can be, and let the dust settle on its own merit in terms of total point scores for given Type Set collections.  In other words, a person could go to any Type Set and assess what each coin they wanted to collect would yield — from PRAG to 70, Base to +★, yes/no CAC — and be able to determine what their score might be before wading in with real money?

Type Sets are the most interesting of all coin collections.  I would think NGC would want to reward those individuals who strive to collect very rare and valuable Type Sets — against all odds of success — and who compete against the many who also share in their enthusiasm of what a coin, each coin, individually owned by them, is really worth — point wise, when taken upon its own merit — in their Type Set collection.

Thank you for the feedback, Bob.

They type-set scoring method was created by our senior numismatists and has been utilized since the creation of the ever-popular NGC Registry US Type Sets. The original premise was that the particular scoring method would allow all participants in a type set a chance to rise in the ranks despite the fact that s/he didn't have a large enough wallet to compete against the big collectors for that rare date or grade, for example. This is in stark contrast to the date sets, where each coin is scored according to expert opinion, its distinct grade, year, MM, rarity, population, eye appeal, availability in the marketplace, etc.

Actually, the senior NGC Registry team is considering abolishing the Type Score system; it has been under discussion for some time now. If this does come to fruition, we will certainly make an announcement prior to the event. Thank you for your support of the NGC Registry.

[USAuPzlBxBob]

On 7/8/2021 at 8:51 AM, Ali E. said:

Thank you for the feedback, Bob.

They type-set scoring method was created by our senior numismatists and has been utilized since the creation of the ever-popular NGC Registry US Type Sets. The original premise was that the particular scoring method would allow all participants in a type set a chance to rise in the ranks despite the fact that s/he didn't have a large enough wallet to compete against the big collectors for that rare date or grade, for example. This is in stark contrast to the date sets, where each coin is scored according to expert opinion, its distinct grade, year, MM, rarity, population, eye appeal, availability in the marketplace, etc.

Actually, the senior NGC Registry team is considering abolishing the Type Score system; it has been under discussion for some time now. If this does come to fruition, we will certainly make an announcement prior to the event. Thank you for your support of the NGC Registry.

Care to elaborate?

Roughly speaking, how many people are on the "NGC Registry team," and "some time now," would that be months, years, decades?

What sort of issues are involved?  Fear of "upsetting the cart" with current Type Set leaders feeling "betrayed" (especially with new management — Blackstone — on the horizon), or the possibility that imprecise NGC Coin Explorer/NGC Registry Scores for individual coins may currently be in place?

To help "them" reach a decision toward "abolishment," I'll make the point that the way the Type Set slots are currently "filled," far and away the vast majority of the coins are Philadelphia Mint, leaving all of the other US Mints "hung out to dry."  By abolishing the current Type Score system, obscure, interesting coins would start to show up in Ranked Type Sets, and there would be a lot of new activity within the NGC Registry, with collectors perusing others' collections to see how they maybe added different Mints, the challenges they face of how to maneuver with "buy and sell" considerations, increased comments from "owners" as to why they sought a particular coin — instead of perfunctory comments that restate a coin's grade and little more.  Renewed interest in this regard would benefit collectors, coin dealers, coin shows, auction houses, NGC, PCGS.  There would be a new "buzz" of excitement within the NGC Coin Registry.

Very interested in whatever else you can comment?

Bob

[Coinbuf]

I think this discussion could benefit from hearing from both sides of the fence @USAuPzlBxBob has made some good points, however not every collector does/will feel the same way as he does.   An actual example from my experience using the registry; I have a date set that was fairly highly ranked until just very recently.  Several big pocket collectors recently started new sets that have one or two gold coins (the kind that cost over $50k) that have point values in excess of 11,000 points each.   As a result my set with several of the coins needed to complete that set now sits closer to 10th place while the top sets have one or two coins in each set.   This does not encourage me to want to go and complete that set from a competition standpoint as I will never be able to even come close because I don't have the $50k to go and buy one of the very few of those coins that are available to get those points.  In fact now I will never complete that set and have decided to sell those coins and close the set as the set is now dead to an average collector like me.

The point that I'm making is that if NGC were to allow the high points for these ultra expensive coins into the type sets it would kill the interest in those sets as only a tiny fraction of the registry participants have the financial means to run out and drop $50K, $100K or more on a single coin, assuming that they could even find one to buy.  My thought is @USAuPzlBxBob's assertion that changing the point structure and allowing uber high point values into the type sets to "renew interest" will have the opposite effect and kill the interest for most type set registry collectors.

@Ali E. If the registry team is considering changing the point system then I have a few suggestions for you.  @USAuPzlBxBob is correct that the registry would be enhanced by participants including photos for each coin, and good full descriptions.   So rather than changing the points assigned to uber expensive hard to obtain coins, instead assign bonus points biased on quality photos and descriptions that really describe the coin, its characteristics and pursuit of that coin.   These bonus points should not be awarded for moon shot photos and descriptions that read "red" or "nickel", instead award points for the effort the set owner has put in to the knowledge of the coin not just the dollars.   Another thing for the team to consider is expanding the number of best presented set awards to award those that really do put in the effort and knowledge.   Now I understand that this is not an easy suggestion to implement, in fact it may well be much too difficult to manage, but that is a way to reward collectors vs spenders.

Edited to add:  I will echo @Revenant's comments above "Are YOU competing for rank or are you building a set that you like and enjoy and giving it a presentation you like and that you're proud of?"   I have 30+ bet in catagory awards from the NGC registry, yes they are nice and I'm proud of those sets and what they represent.  But I really hope someday that I will win a best presented set, that would be a very special award.  If having a #1 set is what you want then you know the path to follow, if you want a set that is special to you then follow your passion and hope that it will be rewarded down the road not for having spent the most money but for your passion.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Coinbuf

[USAuPzlBxBob]

Coinbuf, my coin collecting is done.  I don't think I'll ever buy or sell a coin again.  Anytime I'm tempted to sell (and then buy a better coin), the money involved would be… really beyond my means.

My Type Set is the 1834 — 1933 US Gold, I only can "fit" 14 coins, and so I'll never rise higher than 66% completion, as explained in my Registry listing.  (the really high value Type Sets are much closer to 100% completion, btw)  Currently, the way I fill my time with the Type Set is by improving my documentation — why I collect it, how I came to acquire the coins, etc. — but there are only a few ways to discuss the Type Set, only a few ways to add interest to it, and I've exhausted that aspect for the most part.

Perhaps I will begin a Presentation Set that does not involve grading.  But that would only mirror the current Type Set… and that is why I'm mostly interested in letting Type Sets get graded like Date Sets.  However, I really like your suggestion on Type Sets possibly getting "personality" Bonus Points.  Personality Sells!  (but that could be a nuance nightmare for NGC to deal with)

However, Coinbuf, there are people coming into coin collecting who can — and will — displace anyone who has any kind of coin collection that is graded, because they will have "moon money" to spend, while the rest of us, all we have are the coins they will want.

[Revenant]

2 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

 I have 30+ bet in catagory awards from the NGC registry, yes they are nice and I'm proud of those sets and what they represent.  But I really hope someday that I will win a best presented set, that would be a very special award. 

1. I hope you get one - maybe even this year. I think you've done some great stuff. Yours is a name I look to see / look for in January - I did in 2020 and I'll be looking again in 2021.

2. As someone who has been fortunate enough to take 2 over the years- one from NGC and one from PMG - they really are just an awesome recognition of a labor of love.

Between the Best Presenteds and the Sig Set awards and the journal awards and now the "Best New" awards I do think NGC does a lot to reward people that don't have "moon money" but who show love for what they collect and who contribute to this community.

For context, the 1932 set I built with my step-father is only 6 coins and "only" cost about $6,000-7,000. That is definitely not cheap by any stretch of the imagination but I think it's very reasonable being in the mid-4-figure range. It is not a $100,000 or even a $10,000 set.

My Zimbabwe note set at the time I won had only cost me about $2,500 - and literally hundreds of hours of research and writing and editing and searching - that I continue to this day. But, in terms of out of pocket cost, that set was a shockingly cheap, low-budget, award winner. The grading credit they gave me was more than 20% of what I'd spent building it. I am amazingly proud of that set as much as anything because it was and is 100% heart and it's "claim to fame" is not the rarity of the set or how many Benjamins I was willing to put down for it.

[Revenant]

2 hours ago, USAuPzlBxBob said:

However, Coinbuf, there are people coming into coin collecting who can — and will — displace anyone who has any kind of coin collection that is graded, because they will have "moon money" to spend, while the rest of us, all we have are the coins they will want

Just don't play that game. 

I get it. I've had some recent painful experience with this. Someone has been repeatedly thumping me in the skull / pounding me into the dirt on the PMG side. It's not fun. But you only win that fight by not playing - by building the set you want to build and enjoying it and taking.pride it what you made and just letting them enjoy collecting icons. It doesn't hurt them for you to be miserable because you can't keep up with them. 

It sounds like you aren't playing the game anyway though. 

[USAuPzlBxBob]

Revenant, you've made me think a little.

Right now, I've found that no one clicks on my Type Set… there's no interest.  The Type Sets that do get attention have banners proclaiming "something."  Best this, best that.  Even for myself, I've gone looking at other Type Set collections in my category, and there is nothing to write home about.  The second place collection has no photos and no comments, for example.  (You have to wonder what that person's collection is all about.)

So, another "neat idea" would be to have NGC experiment with rolling the dice… literally.  They could have their NGC Registry team, once a year, roll a pair of dice and if the sum total is odds, they keep the current Type Set scoring system, but if the sum total is even, then the Type Set scoring system reverts to Date Set scoring… for one year.

That would shake things up, figuratively and literally… in an entertaining way.

Add some risk to the current complacency; dust things off, remove the cobwebs, and allow for the possibility of seeing things from two perspectives being in play, just to increase the dynamic of the Registry.

[Revenant]

Nothing about that sounds fun to me, Bob.

[USAuPzlBxBob]

They roll the dice at the FUN show.  That doesn't sound like "fun?"

[Coinbuf]

On 7/10/2021 at 4:58 PM, Revenant said:

1. I hope you get one - maybe even this year. I think you've done some great stuff. Yours is a name I look to see / look for in January - I did in 2020 and I'll be looking again in 2021.

2. As someone who has been fortunate enough to take 2 over the years- one from NGC and one from PMG - they really are just an awesome recognition of a labor of love.

Between the Best Presenteds and the Sig Set awards and the journal awards and now the "Best New" awards I do think NGC does a lot to reward people that don't have "moon money" but who show love for what they collect and who contribute to this community.

For context, the 1932 set I built with my step-father is only 6 coins and "only" cost about $6,000-7,000. That is definitely not cheap by any stretch of the imagination but I think it's very reasonable being in the mid-4-figure range. It is not a $100,000 or even a $10,000 set.

My Zimbabwe note set at the time I won had only cost me about $2,500 - and literally hundreds of hours of research and writing and editing and searching - that I continue to this day. But, in terms of out of pocket cost, that set was a shockingly cheap, low-budget, award winner. The grading credit they gave me was more than 20% of what I'd spent building it. I am amazingly proud of that set as much as anything because it was and is 100% heart and it's "claim to fame" is not the rarity of the set or how many Benjamins I was willing to put down for it.

Thank you my friend, it would be very rewarding and a great honor but there are many deserving sets in the registry.   For my part I will continue to improve my photos and descriptions for my own enjoyment and satisfaction,as I feel it should be with registry sets.

I very much enjoy viewing your sets and reading your journals and am happy you continue to enjoy and enhance the registry experience. 

[Coinbuf]

12 hours ago, USAuPzlBxBob said:

They roll the dice at the FUN show.  That doesn't sound like "fun?"

An interesting concept, not sure how collectors would react or respond to that. 

[Revenant]

11 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

I very much enjoy viewing your sets and reading your journals and am happy you continue to enjoy and enhance the registry experience. 

Thanks. Keep posting yourself. It's nice to see you and Coinsandmedals posting this year and I see you both as being in the running if NGC decides to continue the Journal Award this year..

[alexbq2]

Thank you all for a lively discussion!  I decided to circle back to my original question. BTW I would like to thank NGC for hosting the Registry, I think it is great! But being new to it, I have some questions, not intended to be criticism in any way. I guess I'll address them to @Ali E.. Happy Friday, no need to reply quickly...

I was browsing some competitive date sets and the point system seems very mysterious to me. I would have thought that the point scores for each coin would be derived from the grade of the coin (higher grade = more points) and from the relative scarcity of the coin which can be determined from how many of these coins NGC graded. I expect there's also factor of value but that usually is a function grade and rarity unless it is a very popular coin.  Here's an example of two coins from consecutive years that I saw in this date set - https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/334205/

Look at the 1907 2K on line 36. It's a very nice NGC graded MS-63BN. It's assigned Point value is 1,075. On the line above (35) the 1906 2K in MGC MS-64BN is assigned the Point Value of just 406?!  Let's look at the NGC stats for each coin.
1907 2K MS-63:
In MS 63 BN: 4
In Higher Grades: 4
Total graded by NGC: 15 in BN + 11 in RB = 26
Points: 1,075

1906 2K MS-64:
In MS 64 BN: 5
In Higher Grades: 1
Total graded by NGC: 10 in BN + 8 in RB = 18
Point: 406

So it looks like a coin that is in a higher grade and is 30% scarcer got only 37% as many points...? Neither coin is remarkable in any way apart from the high grades that they hold.

Edited July 16, 2021 by alexbq2

[BlakeEik]

I don't completely agree or disagree with anyone's comments on this thread regarding type point scoring.  As a avid type collector myself, I am very interested in the discussion.  I never really understood some of the decisions made when setting scores for coin types. Although I believe that NGC has good intentions making their scoring "fair" I think that the more subjective and more complicated it becomes, too many situations are created making it unfair.  I'd prefer a single formula or algorithm that is open to everyone to review instead of a secret proprietary methodology.  I know that this is possible and could be applied to year/mint/variety and types alike. Obvious factors to use when determining points are: grades, populations, and mintages. Statistically, finding the best distribution would be a fun challenge, but using the obvious normal distribution would certainly produce reasonable values and provide a non-refutable rationale.