Why the registry is flawed...

[Bruceswar]

I am not usally a registry type of person and frankly I do not care for points givin to coins. Here is an example of why...

 

1991 S Lincoln Cent PR69 UCam 102 Points - Type Set

 

1942 S MS 65

1940 D MS 64

1939 S MS 65

1937 S MS 64

1936 S MS 64 Combined all together 94 Points. - Washington Qaurters 1932 - 1964

 

 

Now just for sake of it. I own all the coins mentioned. One was a free throw in for shipping cost and the other 5 I paid a nice price for. Thus why the registry is skewd to a point and collectors should proceed with caution when looking for the bump in the registry. Just because a coin is worth X ammount of registry points does not mean the coin is worth more in the open market... Debate away...

[jgrinz]

Because .... Hows that

 

Too many Coins and Not enough people to maintain the database.

 

They Encourage Problem areas to be mentioned to them so they can address them.

but hey would like specific examples to understand your point

Your coin and serial number as compared to another coin and serial number helps.

 

I had to mention a few recently in my 1967 SMS set - Where the Nickel was a ONE of ONE coin and I pointed other one of valuations (points) and it went from

90 to 600 ish

 

All they can do at this point is keep up with problems but over all it is a pretty good system

[Stanley]

Bruce, If you look at what most collectors are putting in the registry sets you will not see many graded as low as the ones you have mentioned. The cost for grading them would not be justified for some. Then there are those who like album sets. Some like buying raw because they are usually cheaper. Doesn’t mean there not worthy of collecting. Just means you have to grade them to have them in the registry.

 

As for the points vs price. The more collectors who need the low population 68 Washington Quarter or the 66 Red IHC the more demand means for higher prices. And when it’s all said and done you can always collect what coins please you and not worry about the points. Just my opinion.

[Architecht]

 

 

That's deliberate. Early in the NGC Registry's life there was a lot of discussion of the fact that a person with a monster pop1 high value coin could actually take the top spot in some registry categories with a set composed of NOTHING but that one coin. People felt that ranking a single coin set over one that was almost complete and with great coins (but not pop1 monsters) wasn't a good thing.

 

As a result we put in a point adjustment that lowers points at the top end of the scale and raises them at the bottom end of the scale. The result of this is that completeness counts for something and single-coin-sets can't rule the day.

 

Of course someone with a complete set of top quality coins will always soundly beat someone with a complete set of lower quality coins, but people are not encouraged to buy just a few key monsters and blow off the set as a whole.

[Bruceswar]

 

As a result we put in a point adjustment that lowers points at the top end of the scale and raises them at the bottom end of the scale. The result of this is that completeness counts for something and single-coin-sets can't rule the day.

 

 

Oh that makes sense to me, but how can a 1991 Lincoln cent that is common as dirt commpared to the coins I have listed be worth more? Top heavy or not, I find that a bit out of line.

 

Stanley.. Most Washington collectors would love to have those Washingtons I posted in thier set.

[TomB]

There are two things to keep in mind about the registry concept as it is implemented by NGC and PCGS.

 

The first is that the points-per-dollar ratio is heavily skewed so as to favor more inexpensive coinage. That is, it is generally true that the more inexpensive the coin, the more points it will earn based upon the cost. This is a simple thing to understand if one realizes that the reason for a registry is not to showcase the best collections, rather, it is to promote the end product, which happens to be the branded slab. I happened to be on the other side of the fence during the debate on how much an ultra-rare coin should be worth in that I favor ultra-high points for such a coin.

 

Additionally, it is somewhat of an apples-to-oranges comparison to use points issued for the Lincoln cent set in comparison to points issued for the Washington quarter set. As long as the points are consistent internally within a set, it should not matter how they compare between sets. However, you may get a better feel for what you are writing about if you compare the points issued within a type set. Of course, by doing that you will also see that your 1991 PF69UCAM is worth 102 points and any Washington graded MS64 is 16 points while any graded MS65 is 59 points. However, in a type set one is not compelled to buy a better date coin, such as the four very tough dates you illustrate.

 

In my opinion, the take home message is that while the registry might be cool to play with, it is ultimately a tool to increase product sales and usage.

[Stanley]

Arch sez...Early in the NGC Registry's life there was a lot of discussion of the fact that a person with a monster pop1 high value coin could actually take the top spot in some registry categories with a set composed of NOTHING but that one coin. People felt that ranking a single coin set over one that was almost complete and with great coins (but not pop1

I was one of the participants who would buy a Top Pop coin and start a set. I remember the disturbances this would cause to see my top rated set with one coin while others had many slots filled. At the time I was only interested in the highest grade but it wasn’t because of the points, it was my personal preference to buy the best I could afford. This was all part of my learning curve. BTW... I removed many Upper Ranked sets which had been started simply because my interest would occasionally shift. I still have my first 3 piece Bicentennial Silver Set MS67 which at one time was a leading set and it was replaced by my current MS68 Bicentennial Silver Set. For me, this set represented an accomplishment in the Registry in that I felt the need to completely finish 1 Top Set.

 

To me I think the NGC Registry is great and I think the folks who created it and keep it going are doing a fantastic job.

[Stanley]

Bruce sez…Stanley.. Most Washington collectors would love to have those Washingtons I posted in thier set.

I agree Bruce

[Oldtrader3]

The fact that an 1863-P, MS64 Trime (a Civil War date with high attrition/meltage) of which there were only 20K struck (23 NGC MS64 pop., 31 higher) is assigned fewer registry points than a SP69, 1994 Jefferson nickel (NGC pop. 325 in SP69) is ludicrous. However, that is the registry game. Jeff. nickels are a popular series, Trimes are not popular and impossible to collect in Type 3 after 1862.

 

I guess that this is more an example of one coin set domination with the trime (i.e. Arch's example), with a 400% price desparity favoring the Trime over the nickel.

[BillJones]

Even coins that are popular, but out of reach for most collectors are getting short changed. I recently added 1795 half eagle in PCGS AU-55 to my collection, and it hardly made a ripple. The coin is worth a mid 5-figure number, and there are probably less than 500 in slab gradable condition and certainly less than 600 or 700 in total.