I have occasionally let my ego get the best of me and thought about entering the fray of "Registry Sets" at PCGS and NGC. Well, I looked at a couple of them up my alley in the recent Caribbean categories (ie Bahamas and Panama) and noted that the current top sets are NOT complete despite being reported as such at 100.00% completion. Examples would be PCGS Bahamas: 50c, $1, $2 and PCGS Panama One Balboa currency NGC Bahamas: $1 and 50c NGC Panama: One Balboa Glaring omissions would be the Panama 1982 FM (U) Uncirculated type Mule with "Ley 0.500" in both sets. Panama 1975 FM (M) Uncirculated And then the unc. year 2000 Bahamas 50c and $1, and the 1991 $2 for both. Bahamas proof 1998 (all denominations) for both TPGS. PCGS Bahamas 50c leaves out currency (unc.): 1992, 1996, 2000. PCGS Bahamas currency $1: 1989, 1991, 1992, 1996, 2000 PCGS Bahams proof $1: left out ALL 1981 and later NGC Bahamas: all the (M) matte unc. 1976 & 1977 50c, $1, $2 The importance is that the coins I have listed are requirements for completion of the design type and well recognised.
When you state the top sets are not 100% complete despite being listed as such, do you mean the “Set Composition” /”Eligible Coins” is not complete OR the top set is ranked as 100% but does not have all the eligible coin types in it. The former case is a matter of communicating with the TPG. The latter case is a programming or data entry problem, and the TPG should be informed. To see coin types for a particular set, click “Set Composition” button at top of page that shows set rankings for PCGS. Click “See eligible coins” then box under “Select a slot” for NGC. For many series, the registries sometimes have a simple set and a more complex set (sometimes listed as having varieties). Generally, the TPGs are very responsive to requests for new set types. For example, at PCGS, originally there were no “particular mint only” sets for pre-1933 U. S. gold half eagles. I contacted PCGS about it, and soon there were sets for D-mint, S-mint, etc. available. Sometimes, certain varieties are omitted from set compositions because they are so rare that few sets could have them in it. Cal
The former. Maybe you are better received than most but without going into particulars, the two TPGs have not been that receptive to missives in the past & will leave it at that.
I've been more unhappy with requiring certain varieties to complete a set. For example at NGC, a CC Morgan dollar set must contain two varieties of 1879 and two varieties of 1880 to be complete. One of each date should be enough. One thing I like better at NGC is that to get an annual award for best set, you only need to have the best set regardless of percent completion. At PCGS, the set must be the best AND be 95% complete. For some sets, that means very rare and expensive coins must be included in order to get an award. Cal
I disagree. One of the points NGC made was that someone should not be among the best sets based upon a couple of rare coins which a significant part of the set missing. But that is exactly what has happened. Someone gets some rare U.S. gold Proof type coins, and they shoot straight to the top. I've had 100% complete sets in some tough categories for years, like all of the copper, copper-nickel, silver and gold type coins 1792 to 1964. Yet, I am something like #4 or #5. It also gulls me when the #1 rated sets have no pictures and no write-ups. Those listings are a big zero IMO. They have no educational value whatsoever. The type set points system also gives a huge boost to modern coins. You are better off, for the money, buying MS-67 modern type coins than items like a VF-25 1796 Quarter and a PR-62, CAC Gobrecht Dollar. There was a time when I tried to go up in the set ratings. Those days are over. If I get a better coin because I liked it, fine. I don’t go out spending my money to pass some guy who has nothing but a list of coins in grades X with no pictures and no comments.
I think we’ll remain in some disagreement … which is OK. What I’d like to see is two levels of awards: a lower level where percent completion doesn’t matter and a higher level where percent completion does matter. However, a rigid 95% completion is too severe. The way PCGS does it, 95% completion means 100% unless the set has at least 20 coins in it. I’d like to see a requirement of something like 90% completion OR all coins but one, whichever constitutes the lower percentage. One thing I like about NGC is they change points for particular issues in particular grades as more data on coin populations becomes available. Of course, this makes some participants unhappy because their set may move down in ranking. I don’t think PCGS has ever changed coin weights. This has led to some ridiculous circumstances. For instance, in CC Morgans, 1881 has twice the weight of the rarer 1891. I think “hidden” sets should not be allowed. The main idea of a registry is to share coins. There’s not much sharing if all you see is percent completion and a score. It’s especially irritating when high ranking sets are hidden … c’mon, let me see the coins! Cal
