He isn’t kidding , many of us feel that way . Guys like you , WineSteven , Deplorable Dan and others that participate here really bring a lot to the table and make this so much fun .
If we could only weed out the jerks . A lot of us would be ranked higher in the registry if it weren’t for the guys that won’t remove retired sets . What makes it worse if many of those sets are populated with coins they don’t own. Just like that guy at the 4th spot on Saint Date Sets . Guys like him suck the life out of the hobby and the registry .
Maybe there could be set groups that have the limit imposed and others without. Maybe there can be a registry set where the whales aren’t blue whales but merely belugas and those of us who operate on a herring budget won’t have our fragile self esteem damaged by multiple duplicate sets that seem to never do anything but exist.
One other thought. At some point (perhaps still?) PCGS rewarded those who completed sets or are top entries. It would be nice to have a reward system that also has recognition for other things. Perhaps for each person who has added a certain % of the set in a calendar year, the most percentage complete at the lowest cost (perhaps driven by current value), best photography that didn’t come from the grading company, things like that.
One other thought. At some point (perhaps still?) PCGS rewarded those who completed sets or are top entries. It would be nice to have a reward system that also has recognition for other things. Perhaps for each person who has added a certain % of the set in a calendar year, the most percentage complete at the lowest cost (perhaps driven by current value), best photography that didn’t come from the grading company, things like that.
Good suggestions. Inclusion, not exclusion is always a good thing.
Multiple sets (w/in a series) aside, which I have bitched about here before, is minor compared to current weighting values. A common date AU58 should not outweigh a VF coin with less than 200 known to exist. I see sets with many of the keys missing and yet it is ahead of a set with all the keys in place although they are at a lower grade. Looking forward to the CACG registry and seeing how they apply weighting for the series I collect.
Multiple sets (w/in a series) aside, which I have bitched about here before, is minor compared to current weighting values. A common date AU58 should not outweigh a VF coin with less than 200 known to exist. I see sets with many of the keys missing and yet it is ahead of a set with all the keys in place although they are at a lower grade. Looking forward to the CACG registry and seeing how they apply weighting for the series I collect.
Coins are largely judged by their condition/grades. So if you’re going to have a registry that awards points, I see no good reason why a 58 shouldn’t outweigh a VF, regardless of how common the coin might be. To do otherwise would be silly.
I joined the registry set collecting system back in 2003 mostly as an online bookkeeping device and to see how my coin sets compared to others. I once had the #1 #2 #3 as well as #4 all time mini california fractional type gold set for over 10 years with PCGS . I had so many duplicate high end graded types of different dates including the ultra rare silver piece which was not even added to the registry set. I quickly lost interest once I was able to view my sets. With the new more liberalized grading by PCGS, my sets eventually dropped way down “ in the ranks.”
I am too much of a time traveler to maintain my interest in collecting sets to their ultimate completion. I do enjoy collecting ultra high grade coins not to have the finest set but to have the finest graded issue of a specific year I happen to like under the old time grading standards hence many of my coins are OGH PCGS slabbed coins with CAC stickering.
Examples include:
Only possible complete mint state grading set of PCGS/NGC 1942 J-2054 zinc olated cent patterns that is also CAC stickered 1955 DDO 1c PCGS/CAC MS-65 RD 1798 small 8 10c PCGS/CAC MS-65 1834 small 4 10c PCGS/CAC MS-67 1853 w/a 10c PCGS/CAC MS-68 1859 10c PCGS/CAC MS-68 1911 10c NGC/CAC PR-68 1916 barber 25c PCGS/CAC MS-67 1921 50c P/C MS-66 1940 50c P/C MS-68 1875-S $20 P/C MS-67 which was sold to Pogue in 2009 1908 n/m $20 P/C MS-67 1924 $20 P/C MS-67 1928 $20 P/C MS-67
Nearly all of the above are in very old holders which are technically graded not market graded.
I also enjoy low graded coins and raw obw rolls.
I also dabbled in collecting off center struck silver and clad dimes mostly raw.
I have trouble staying focused. But one thing from the above list is clear. I definitely prefer coins struck for circulation rather than proofs.
My favorite coin is the only late 19th century Childs pedigree $1 gold coin in mint state rather than proof as he was well known as a collector of fabulous proof coins aside from the 1804 silver dollar.
So my final point is I collect what I like and enjoy not collect for registry set collecting.
My prediction is that CAC's slabbing service will take off but PCGS-CAC will still rule the roost because the two most strict and prestigious services have corroborated the grade.
My prediction is that CAC's slabbing service will take off but PCGS-CAC will still rule the roost because the two most strict and prestigious services have corroborated the grade.
Good prediction. Since CAC will phase out at some point, it wouldn't surprise me if another grading guru started a validation/sticker service. Two heads being better than one, so to speak.
My prediction is that CAC's slabbing service will take off but PCGS-CAC will still rule the roost because the two most strict and prestigious services have corroborated the grade.
Good prediction. Since CAC will phase out at some point, it wouldn't surprise me if another grading guru started a validation/sticker service. Two heads being better than one, so to speak.
I doubt there will be such a sticker service with the respect CAC has gained. Who would have the name recognition and credibility to start one that would overcome the objections? CAC experienced plenty of objections and still does in some quarters.
My prediction is that CAC's slabbing service will take off but PCGS-CAC will still rule the roost because the two most strict and prestigious services have corroborated the grade.
Good prediction. Since CAC will phase out at some point, it wouldn't surprise me if another grading guru started a validation/sticker service. Two heads being better than one, so to speak.
My thoughts are that CAC will eventually realize that it would be foolish to totally eliminate the stickering service as it would be abandoning a business model that works and allowing another business to copy the CAC model.
It is a different approach to make the stickering service more selective and chosen much less frequently.
Perhaps if they limited a person to having only one set in each registry entry? I have seen Hansen have Set #1 and Set #2 and maybe even a Set #3 before.
Good suggestion!
I love mid-grade circulated Barbers. So much so, I have an XF set in the PCGS Registry (#1) and I am building a VF30 set as well (#2). I do not plan to compete for top sets and I am doing these builds in Everyman. Your suggestion would limit my ability to enjoy what I love? I appreciate the diversity of thought but humbly would not agree with the suggestion. - Sedulous
Understood, and your point is valid, with you wanting to occupy a few slots in the Top 10 of an Everyman Set. However, does there come a point though, where one can occupy "too many" of those Top 10 spots, in your opinion, and if so, what do YOU feel is too many?
To each his own, but building more than one set per series seems exhausting to me. Explore another series or do something new and different. One set per series is all that is required, throw your best loved coins on the table and put the others aside and secretly love them by yourself.
Extended sets, major varieties added, etc…and CAC sets within a series is fine. Keep it real and keep it simple.
While you and I feel the same way for the way we collect, @sedulous is getting pleasure from building at least two of these Everyman sets, and he's currently #1 and #2. My question to him is there a point where he feels as a generalization a collector is taking up "too many" of the Top 10 spots, and if so, in his opinion, what is the cutoff between what he feels should be allowed, and not allowed? Does he feel a collector with "financial means" that takes all ten Top 10 spots is OK, if that collector is also getting pleasure from building those sets? Where does he feel that cutoff should be? I'm curious.
Excellent post, Steve. That really put things into perspective. You always have to ask yourself why, and what is the purpose? Personally, I don’t even count the super high end sets as they are far from where I will ever be, and that is fine. That said, are two sets required? You have already made your point, move on.
Now, two everyman sets, and maybe at the top two spots, is another ball of wax. To be honest, not sure how I view that, but it is different than two high end sets, and the motive may be different as well. Anyway, I believe you brought up a point about being humble in another post, so I will leave it at that.
To me, it makes no sense to have more than 1 entry per set per person. Even if I have the duplicate coins to have a 2nd set, I would not create a 2nd set that would push others down the ladder.
Sorry, a bit of miscommunication. My #1 set is ranked 5th. My #2 set is ranked 16th. I was attempting to state I was not challenging the top spots and my registry entries "named" as #1 and #2 will never achieve 1 or 2 unless those above me would drop out. Trying to be more clear. Thanks for the replies. - Sedulous
To me, it makes no sense to have more than 1 entry per set per person. Even if I have the duplicate coins to have a 2nd set, I would not create a 2nd set that would push others down the ladder.
Comments
If we could only weed out the jerks . A lot of us would be ranked higher in the registry if it weren’t for the guys that won’t remove retired sets . What makes it worse if many of those sets are populated with coins they don’t own.
Just like that guy at the 4th spot on Saint Date Sets . Guys like him suck the life out of the hobby and the registry .
Fortunately JA is aware and is planing to work with specialists to develop and implement accurate weighting values.
I am too much of a time traveler to maintain my interest in collecting sets to their ultimate completion. I do enjoy collecting ultra high grade coins not to have the finest set but to have the finest graded issue of a specific year I happen to like under the old time grading standards hence many of my coins are OGH PCGS slabbed coins with CAC stickering.
Examples include:
Only possible complete mint state grading set of PCGS/NGC 1942 J-2054 zinc olated cent patterns that is also CAC stickered
1955 DDO 1c PCGS/CAC MS-65 RD
1798 small 8 10c PCGS/CAC MS-65
1834 small 4 10c PCGS/CAC MS-67
1853 w/a 10c PCGS/CAC MS-68
1859 10c PCGS/CAC MS-68
1911 10c NGC/CAC PR-68
1916 barber 25c PCGS/CAC MS-67
1921 50c P/C MS-66
1940 50c P/C MS-68
1875-S $20 P/C MS-67 which was sold to Pogue in 2009
1908 n/m $20 P/C MS-67
1924 $20 P/C MS-67
1928 $20 P/C MS-67
Nearly all of the above are in very old holders which are technically graded not market graded.
I also enjoy low graded coins and raw obw rolls.
I also dabbled in collecting off center struck silver and clad dimes mostly raw.
I have trouble staying focused. But one thing from the above list is clear. I definitely prefer coins struck for circulation rather than proofs.
My favorite coin is the only late 19th century Childs pedigree $1 gold coin in mint state rather than proof as he was well known as a collector of fabulous proof coins aside from the 1804 silver dollar.
So my final point is I collect what I like and enjoy not collect for registry set collecting.
It is a different approach to make the stickering service more selective and chosen much less frequently.
Steve
Extended sets, major varieties added, etc…and CAC sets within a series is fine. Keep it real and keep it simple.
Steve
Now, two everyman sets, and maybe at the top two spots, is another ball of wax. To be honest, not sure how I view that, but it is different than two high end sets, and the motive may be different as well. Anyway, I believe you brought up a point about being humble in another post, so I will leave it at that.