*NGC Registry - What are a few of your favorite things?
5 5

26 posts in this topic

  • Administrator

We already have a thread asking you about what features you would like to see added, but here we are asking what do you enjoy most about the NGC Registry and the NGC collecting community? Thanks for your feedback!  hm

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to post a thread that compared the PCGS registry to the NGC registry, because each has aspects that I prefer over the other. Ultimately I put a hold on that idea because it may not have been welcome but some, but maybe now... since there is a "pinned" thread on a similar topic.

Having a registry is great, even if not competing.  There is no comparable way to see all of your coins so quickly and easily.  Don't get me wrong, I like to examine my actual coins, but it is not always easy getting them out of safes, safety deposit boxes, etc.  Now I carry them all on my phone!  

Edited by BlakeEik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the NGC Registry because like @BlakeEik mentions, it is an excellent (and easy) way of viewing your coins. In addition to viewing, I like that you can also document anything about each coin—like the specifications and mintage data, or information on who/what the coin is commemorating or what it was minted for. As with may others, I try to include as much information as I can for each of my coins so I don’t have to search multiple websites for information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the very best things about the NGC registry is the level of inclusiveness it provides by including PCGS graded coins in the US sets.   This is a very good thing as the exclusive nature of the competing registry turns me off to using it for competitive sets.   I think there are a few ways that this option could be improved upon going forward but this is a very nice feature that I am glad has returned and will not be changed again as it was for a brief time in the past.

I also very much enjoy perusing the sets and view the photos and comments (for the few sets that have them) from the owners, numbers filling the holes is fine but the photos and descriptions really tell the tale.  I really enjoy the sets where the owners have taken extra time to describe the nature of the set, the motivation and desire behind why the set was assembled, and real descriptions of each coin so you can feel the passion that the collector had when that coin was acquired.

And lastly I do enjoy the competition at some level, it keeps me motivated to continue to add quality coins and improve my sets.  Not just the numbers on the slabs but also the photos and descriptions including adding collage shots for the set photos where the rank banner is shown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2021 at 10:22 AM, BlakeEik said:

I, too, think it's great to allow coins from other services be allowed in constructing your virtual sets. Personally, I think any holder or raw coin should be allowed, but only NGC coins should be worth points for competition.  I know that this goes against precedent and would anger many with lots of PCGS U.S. coins (I too have many) but for me, the ability to build virtual sets is more important than the competitive aspect. And although I respect the graders of both PCGS and NGC, there are certainly differences and having them compete against each other is not always "oranges to oranges."

...And to accentuate my point about the competition... It really makes me wonder when I see people with ONLY PCGS graded coins in the NGC registry (shrug)

Don't they know there is a registry for only PCGS graded coins? :preach:

Even though it would mean that I would lose my 1st place rank for at least one set I also agree (and have said this on several occasions) that the registry awards should be calculated using only NGC coins.   As to the last part, well its quite possible that some of those PCGS only sets are here because they cannot compete with the whales like Hanson that dominate the PCGS registry.  Is it really worth putting a set up when one guy has the top 5 sets in so many of the available categories, it seems to me that his dominance of the registry ats could possibly kill off the interest for many. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people, long time members, first timers, the NGC staff, etc. who participate on the Forum. A largely hands off approach in monitoring/moderating the boards, the ease of requesting new sets, slots, corrections and the prompt responses. The Water Cooler, woop woop! The overall structure and organization of the registries. :golfclap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A two-part question. Hot diggity! 

Let's see now, the Set Registry.  Okay, for me it's its sleek, clean, modern look and ease of access. It would take more than a lifetime of perusing each and every one of its delectable offerings. You can tell a great deal about a person by what he collects, and the NGC SET REGISTRY tells no lies and holds nothing back.^^

As to the NGC collecting community, no finer or more diverse (and occasionally, divisive 😉) group of people have ever been assembled anywhere at one time and in one place, as here. One thing I have come to recognize, acknowledge, and accept is the likelihood that there may very well be 150 years of numismatic experience at play amongst members, and those not similarly endowed ought to tread lightly, be appropriately tentative in their responses and deferential in their posture, as circumstances dictate. One big and, at times, captivating learning experience where one never knows whom he will stumble into nor what treasures they may bear 🐻. As I very often have been "heard" to exclaim, I [truly] love this place!  🐓

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the competition along with the sharing of ideas and collecting goals. A good group of collectors to boot. Best of all - they can take a joke or criticism. An honest opinion can go a long way at times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NGC's Registry is more aesthetically pleasing by far, thank you for that.

   --  the eye appeal is greater than other registries that might look like barely more than basic excel spreadsheet rows

   --  when looking at one's own list of Competitive Sets we see 'Set Name' in bigger, colored font with the 'Composite Name' in smaller, black lettering underneath; this was an excellent decision, along with the rank number beside it in italics and bigger point-size

   --  when looking at a set itself, it's great that a large 'profile photo' of a coin can be placed at the top of the page, along with the title of your set in bigger letters again, your name underneath, when it was last updated and number of views also easily viewed under collector's name and set title, then a few lines of the collector's comments with option to '...Read more...'

   --  it's great to see two larger photos of the coin first (i.e. 'Images' is the first column), then the slot description, grade, points, etc

We only joined ANA & NGC less than three years ago and slowly reading through and learning more about the wealth of wisdom available within the community chat boards, forums, journals, etc, not to mention all the resources NGC makes available under each tab at the top of its web pages!  Much appreciation to all of you teachers and your sharing.

<3  :golfclap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the general look of the format here. :cloud9: 

1.Username in large, bold letters,

2.Tells when we joined.

3.Large wallpaper picture AND large profile image (both of which can be different).  

4.Trophies displayed with number, years won, link to set and expert's notes on winning sets.

5. Option to enter CAC coins (or not) with bonus points given if we choose to do so.

6. STAR NGC coins can be used for added points.      

7.Link to download awards certificates.  

8. Rank, page and set name all on cover page.  

9. Beautiful area to display long comments and large images.

10. The fact that both NGC AND PCGS coins are allowed.  When you are building a CHALLENGING set, such as Walkers, SLQs or Seated Liberty Dollars, it is VERY difficult to be exclusive and crack-outs and crossovers are an expensive headache that isn't always successful. :insane:   

This is BY FAR the better of the two Registries.  I have sets ATS but haven't added to them, in AGES.  I spent A LOT of time working on my set here, because with all of the features, it is VERY worthwhile for display, record keeping and educational purposes.    

Minor Detail: The only way I would improve it is to show all coins on one page (like in the old format).  I don't like to be scrolling through and enjoying a set and then having to stop and click and load on a second page, at the bottom.  It's like that ATS, too, and I don't like it.  It interrupts the display and makes it look incomplete,  Having it all on one page would make it more fluid and uniform, IMHO. 

All IN All--GREAT JOB, NGC!!!! ^^  .  

Edited by Walkerfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, wholeheartedly.  World gold is exempt from inclusion in the NGC Set Registry, but what's done is done.  My #1 standing on the west coast stands a chance of being dethroned over less than a single point.  I hope to remedy that at NYINC shortly (though I have always thought his set is more professionally presented.)  Cross-grading entails risk as well as cost.  However, if I were to win any of the lesser PB prizes, I'd switch everything here in a heartbeat for all the reasons you've cited.  Great post -- and your set is super!  🐓 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2021 at 4:03 PM, Coinbuf said:

.... because they cannot compete with the whales like Hanson that dominate the PCGS registry....

Q.A.  Hey Rickey!  Ever hear of this guy Hanson?

🐓:  Hansen?  D. L. Hansen?  Sure, me and Dell go way back!  Why just the other day, --

Q.A.  C'mon, knock it off.  I'm being serious!

🐓:  Last I heard, he's big and wants to be the G.O.A.T.

Q.A. Is he a credible threat?

🐓:  No.

Q.A.  Another distinguished member says he's got the top five sets --

🐓: -- strictly U.S., like Eliasberg and Partrick.

Q.A.  Just checking... I got enough pressure maintaining what I have.

🐓:  If it's pressure you're worried about, you should've never become a slave to that other label. I like it here!

Q.A. So do I. (And the Moderators exercise moderation. NGC Set Registry, I love you!  ❤️  

Edited by Quintus Arrius
Word substitution
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I'm pretty new to NGC and the registry, I agree with a lot of the commenters above. I really like being able to see all of my coins grouped in one place and the ability to add comments on the coins. I also enjoy looking at other collector's sets as it does provide motivation to improve my own sets.

I do think it would be cool however to see my custom sets from the My Registry Home Page so everything would be in one spot. Otherwise I love the regisrty overall and it's really getting me back in the saddle of my collecting.

Also this is a great community overall!

GREAT JOB NGC!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I love being able to have my sets viewable online any time from anywhere, while also being able to share with other people, but still remaining anonymous. It allows you to share your collection in a way that would never be possible otherwise.  I enjoy looking at other peoples sets as well.

  Bringing back the PCGS slabs was a good move and I believe they deserve to count for points as well.   As someone else stated, nice examples of some 18th and 19th century stuff are so rare, maybe the only one you can find that you like that's actually for sale is in a PCGS slab.  So be it.     Yes, you're selling a product but for the collectors the main focus is still the coin in the slab.

    The overall look of the registry and ease of use is very well done.    I wouldn't bother using one anywhere else.   The upgraded site blows away the old one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I really like is that the Registry >> My Competitive Sets ties into My Competitive Coins.

Instead of clicking on My Competitive Sets, I like to click on My Competitive Coins instead, and then click on the "Default Sort" menu-box and change it to "Recently Added."

Changing it to Recently Added has nothing to do with the last coin you entered into the registry.  Instead, it is a sorting by "year manufactured" so that your coins sort by year, earliest-coin at the bottom and latest-coin at the top.  This is the ideal way that I like to view my coins since they were collected with "at least one coin from each decade" in mind, and it matches my "decade" approach.   N.B.  I may be wrong about this… it may be that when I created My Competitive Set (Puzzle Box Gold), I may have entered the coins as earliest to most recent when I added the coins to my set… and that there is a coincidence to US manufacturing dates.  Ali E:  Can you comment on this?

One interesting tidbit that I learned, because of this Recently Added sort, is that my earliest coin, an 1834 $5 Crosslet 4 Classic Head (at the bottom), showed its NGC Price Guide Value on the listing line, and so I clicked on it to see how the coin has been fluctuating in price.  And for the number of years "looking back" I clicked on "All."

What I found was there is no way the NGC Price Guide - Historical Price for this particular coin matches reality;  even went over to PCGS to look at this coin's value going back around twenty years, and they don't show the exorbitant Historical Prices that NGC shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2022 at 5:24 PM, Walkerfan said:

 

10. The fact that both NGC AND PCGS coins are allowed.  When you are building a CHALLENGING set, such as Walkers, SLQs or Seated Liberty Dollars, it is VERY difficult to be exclusive and crack-outs and crossovers are an expensive headache that isn't always successful. :insane:   

This is BY FAR the better of the two Registries.  

 

Be happy you collect US coins Walkerfan. I'm working on gold sovereigns of the British Empire (1817 - 2022) and the rascals at NGC will NOT allow PCGS coins to be used for competition. They are OK for Custom Sets. Normally I would file a case with the Supreme Court to get this decision overturned, however ... in all honesty I have to agree with NGC on this one. Although I've only been collecting this denomination for a very short time, I've noticed a HUGE number of examples where I feel PCGS seriously over-graded sovereigns. I've also seen WAY too many cases where they assign the completely wrong variety to coins.  Sometimes the varieties are hard to distinguish, but in some cases they are easily distinguished by eye and there's simply no excuse. So for now, any time I find a very rare coin in a PCGS holder that I want in my collection, I study it VERY closely to decide if NGC will cross it over to their holder at the same grade or not. So far my success rate is 80%, which to me means that NGC graders and I are basically on the same page.  Sadly, I've had to reject buying at last 3 dozen PGCS coins that I would love to have owned, but they would obviously be downgraded by NGC. Too bad. 

Edited by Cozdred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just joined PCGS at the beginning of this year in order to get some coins graded.  At the time, it seemed to me that they had a bit stronger cachet than NGC. After a couple of months I decided it would be fun to list my budding US Double Eagle collection online, but found that they would not accept NGC coins, which comprised about 30% of my set.  So I wandered over here to NGC and found that they would allow both NGC and PCGS coins, and decided this was the best home for my collection. What a great decision!  Unfortunately, I then switched direction completely, and started collecting British gold sovereigns, and NGC will NOT allow PCGS coins in competition. Well, can't blame them (See previous post). 

Regarding the set registry for competition, the rules established by NGC are a million times better than those of PCGS.  I don't actually have any PCGS sets registered, however I've examined quite a few and my understanding is that the scores are entirely based on the grades of the coins, with absolutely no consideration given to relative rarities. This works fine for ranking when both entries have complete sets, but for comparing partially complete sets that may contain different dates, it fails miserably. For example, if you have a coin in AU50 condition where only 10 of them are known to exist, and somebody else has a very common coin in MS63 condition where thousands are known to exist, you get a lower set score!  This is completely preposterous!  [NOTE: If I've mis-interpreted how PCGS scores, someone feel free to correct me.]  NGC, on the other hand, assigns point values (based on some arcane mysterious algorithm) to each coin and grade based on rarity. So here, in the above example, the AU50 coin might get a score of 9000 and the MS63 coin a score of 1100. This is logically how it should be!  The thought of ever listing a set with PCGS is incomprehensible to me.  Personally, I'm mostly interested in acquiring coins with the best eye appeal, and that means I tend to prefer AU55 to AU58 coins over very baggy and unpleasant looking MS60 to MS62 coins. So for competition purposes, my sets would rank near the bottom of every category with PCGS.  I'm very excited to see that the current #1 top scoring set of another collector of gold sovereigns in one particular category contains mainly older AU graded coins, so this fellow thinks the way I do and he's been rewarded handsomely by NGC.  

I do have one MAJOR complaint, however, and this is in regard to coins for which several different varieties are known. For some bizarre reason, the scoring committee at NGC just decided to save time and they assign precisely the same score to all of the varieties as they do for the basic date/miint, for all grades. In many cases, some of the varieties are hundreds of times rarer than the basic coin, and really deserve a much higher score.  I do hope that some day NGC will get around to re-examining this obvious mistake and assign new grades to these varieties.  

But, all things considered    NGC set registry :luhv:  >>>  PCGS set registry. (shrug)

 

 

 

Edited by Cozdred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 6:58 AM, Cozdred said:

.... [NOTE: If I've mis-interpreted how PCGS scores, someone feel free to correct me.]....  

....The thought of ever listing a set with PCGS is incomprehensible to me.....

As to your first comment, I attempted to address this matter years ago here and was promptly shut down.  The charge coming from a member?  Bashing.  Apparently, it was deemed in some obscure precinct somewhere that PCGS was above reproach.  I can say, however, that their "system" for awarding numbers, aside from assigning points for grades, accrue from engaging in activities beyond simple collecting. When I was asked how much a coin had cost me, from whom I had purchased it from, etc., a figure complicated by wire transfers, PayPal conversions, shipping, insurance and postage,  I answered truthfully, in euros. That was deemed unacceptable and promptly rejected.  It was at precisely that moment that I asked myself, if this information is being withheld from the public, then who is it for?  

As to the second count in your indictment, I plead guilty, with an explanation.  You collect Sovereigns.  I collect French 20-franc gold roosters.  I began collecting raw and, though I vowed I would never acquiesce to encapsulations, the pros outweighed the cons. Then, the unthinkable happened. I had slabs from NGC, but fully half the series I sought was by far more accessible in PCGS holders.  I put the NGC compilation on hold and pursued the more plentiful PCGS slabs--at some point broadening my search abroad.

Today, I have a complete short-set of Roosters, known as "restrikes" (1907-1914) here ranked #8, and a complete set of "originals" (1899-1906) there ranked #1.

I am, for all intents and purposes, through collecting.  If a promising "upgrade" were to become available, I would consider acquiring it.  Fact:  Despite over 100 million pieces released for circulation, a disproportionate majority of set registrants have great difficulty completing the earlier halves of their sets.  I succeeded but simply tired of waiting for the Holy Grail to show up. All sets appear to have stagnated but not for lack of resources.  It is simple availability that has stopped most collectors dead in their tracks.

There are two reasons why I would re-assemble my collection here.  One, the second runner-up at PCGS put forth a monumental effort to compile a letter-perfect, cohesive compilation; he deserves the honor I unwittingly took from him, and Two, if I were to move my collection to NGC, I would achieve the #2 ranking automatically. And, quite frankly, unless the #1 ranked player is playing his cards close to the vest with submissions I am unaware of, I believe I could attain the top ranking and spend a lot less time and money doing so.  [There is always the real possibility some of my PCGS slabs would fail to cross successfully here, and if that were to happen, all my efforts will have been for naught.] I consider my options regularly.

Edited by Quintus Arrius
Routine die polishing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 10:36 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

 

[There is always the real possibility some of my PCGS slabs would fail to cross successfully here, and if that were to happen, all my efforts will have been for naught.]

 

Outstanding and informative post, in all respects. And I'm delighted to meet another who collects world gold.  Since you're obviously well-acquainted with the PCGS registry, my assumption about how ridiculously simple-minded their scoring system is must be correct. And of course, I understand how you got entrapped there if most of the available coins you wanted were in PCGS holders. I'm admittedly a novice collecting gold sovereigns, but I'm a quick learner (i.e. extremely old) and I've found that about 80% of the encapsulated coins listed on auction sites all over the world for that denomination are in NGC holders. I'm not really sure why that is. Several possible explanations come to mind. I first thought that maybe others noticed the same thing I did, that PCGS frequently over-grades sovereigns. But in that case, I'd imagine everyone would WANT to send their raw coins to PCGS to get the highest grade possible. Not very ethical IMO, but financially sound. Another possibility is that the turn-around time for grading world gold is about 1/3 as long for NGC as for PCGS, and that would naturally draw people to submit here. This would be especially true for coin dealers, who don't want to wait longer than necessary to get inventory posted online for sale.  I've also read that PCGS holders are more fragile than NGC holders -- there are tales of them being left in hot vehicles and partially melting! Whatever the case, I guess I'm lucky that the majority of coins I'm interested in are either NGC or raw. 

Sorry to hear you are done collecting. Why not start on a new series that's interesting and not too expensive. There are so many possibilities. Even though I've only been collecting full British sovereigns for a year now, I've already decided to dabble in the coin that immediately preceded them, namely the gold Guinea. Although quite old, the later dated ones of King George III are not actually very expensive, relatively speaking, and seem to be plentiful enough. And, as I know you are aware B|, I recently acquired my very first half-sovereign -- not because I have any interest in tackling that difficult series but because I simply couldn't resist owning an R7 rarity coin of any kind. I hope my heirs appreciate all of the interesting treasures I will be leaving them with! :whee:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NGC has a great-looking registry set compared to PCGS, and indeed NGC is more inclusive and collector-friendly because they accept graded coins by both companies (it will be interesting to see if they continue this policy when CAC starts grading coins next year).

PCGS has superiority in registry sets in one regard:  a collector can "retire" a set and it will still be listed in the "All-Time" rankings of the registry if such recognition has been earned -- i.e. a collector's efforts at building a set can still be seen long after the set is disbursed to others, or the collector ascends to the next kingdom (e.g. it's so cool to see Eliasberg's sets).

:idea:  Does NGC plan to create this "legacy/retirement" ability on their registry for collectors? :idea:

'R' Retired Possibility on PCGS Set Registry - 1892 Proof Set.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2022 at 9:20 AM, Cozdred said:

 I recently acquired my very first half-sovereign -- not because I have any interest in tackling that difficult series but because I simply couldn't resist owning an R7 rarity coin of any kind. I hope my heirs appreciate all of the interesting treasures I will be leaving them with! :whee:

 

Fyi, this 1817 beauty of a half-sovereign is in the upcoming January 9 NYINC auction:

https://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/george-iii-gold-proof-1-2-sovereign-1817-pr63-ultra-cameo-ngc-/p/3105-73001.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515

Have fun collecting them, I also want to save up for one of the full sovereigns from either 1817 or 1819!  :takeit:

1817 British Half Sovereign PF63 Ultra Cameo obverse.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
5 5