The NGC Registry Will Recognize CAC coins

I think that are already doing that, or at least it's an option.

I built a large group of NGC registry sets mostly educate other collectors. I have some high rankings in some of them, but I learned a long time ago not to get hung up on that. The system is rigged reflect their marketing strategy.

If you want to be top dog for less money, buy the more modern coins in high grades than older, tough coins in the medium grades. For example, you are better off having Standing Liberty Quarters and other 20th century coins in MS-67 and a 1796 Quarter in AG-3 than you are having the Standing Liberty quarter in MS-65 and the 1796 Quarter in VF-25.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Why? Isn't the idea to assemble the best collection rather than push slab brands?

 

They can't though after bragging about being so inclusive in the release. Even if they did that they're still shooting all their own nonCAC coins in the foot

I don't get why they ever did it either, but since they did they're stuck with it now.

 

No, maintaining the strength of their company versus their competition is paramount. Without reciprocity from PCGS, they absolutely should not allow PCGS coins to have full value in their registry.

You might be interested in assembling a collection regardless of brands, but NGC needs to protect their brand, first and foremost.

 

Sure they can, nobody reads those releases much less remembers them years later. Do you think that the people who have mostly NGC coins are happy that there are all PCGS sets ranked above them?

And they aren't shooting their own CAC coins in the foot. The fact is that CAC coins are valued higher in the marketplace and deserve a higher point value, in much the same way that the + designation does.

No they aren't, they have already flip flopped once, making a necessary adjustment will work just fine and after the initial crybaby phase is over, everyone will calm down and accept the method.

 

That is your opinion, and we shall agree to disagree. One of the things that has made NGC better through the years is a more friendly attitude toward collectors.

So, what if you collection can't hold a candle to the one of the sets with PCGS coins in it, but way ahead of it in the standings. Do you really get off, jumping up and down because you are ahead in a rigged sandbox?

The registry system is already flawed because there are many great collections that never get on it. People who think that they have best collection in the world because they are #1 on the PCGS registry are probably fooling themselves.

I know a collector who has the #1 half cent collection on the PCGS registry for many years, but so long as the Missouri Cabinet collection existed, he wasn't even close.

 

It is interesting to note that PCGS has "Poofed" this entire topic on their blog. That goes beyond freezing it.

 

Probably not and it's certainly embarrassing to them to be giving awards to PCGS sets, but most of the sets on their registry aren't all NGC anyways which is one of the flaws with how they did it from the start

They certainly do command higher prices, but when you give them more points in the registry you're saying your other coins aren't as good. While that is overall a true fact, that's not something a brand should be advertising so openly.

Exactly they did try it, and then they had to reverse their decision from all the sets that got deleted and all the feedback they got because most of the sets are at least mixed. If anything the last time they tried that all they did was encourage crossovers to PCGS. They've always done a poor job with their registry and really pigeonholed themselves into where they are with it today

 

This has nothing to do with their customer service attitude, its about protecting their company.

As long as the registry system is structured as a competition with monetary rewards, then the company running the registry has an obligation to provide a fair playing field. Allowing coins from another company with entirely different grading standards (especially for series with strike designations) is ludicrous.

Regarding those sets that are not on the registry, I can't compete against those who don't bother to show up, so to me, they are immaterial.

 

PCGS sets? Last time I checked, sets can only win an award if at least 75% of the coins are NGC certified.

https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/awards/

 

Like I said, you and I can agree to disagree. I am far more interested in coins and the hobby than in carrying PCGS' water. If you have stock in the company, then I can see your point. Otherwise bowing them as a consumer makes no sense.

 

They stopped doing that, in order to be eligible any monetary award, your set must be comprised of at least 75% NGC graded coins. My contention is that penalty is not severe enough, PCGS graded coins should only count for 50% of the NGC point value. If you want full points, cross the coin into NGC plastic.

Why? Everybody already knows that to be true. Gradeflation has created dreck at the bottom end of the grade for many (if not all) registry quality coins. Incremental grading isn't a secret, and the + designation is already an admission that there are grades within the grade. I don't see the problem with separating the dreck from the worthy. CAC has helped restore the financial value of many coins that were hurt by gradeflation, it stands to reason that it should restore their value in the registry as well.

Eliminating PCGS coins completely was dumb, I am not advocating that they do that, only that they penalize PCGS coins with a lower point value. PCGS is notoriously more lenient on strike designations than NGC. Why should an NGC Franklin Half collector be penalized because NGC requires both sets of lines to be complete for their FBL designation while other participants are using PCGS graded FBL coins that only require the lower set of lines to be complete? A similar problem exists for Jefferson Nickels, and although both NGC and PCGS only require 5 full steps, what PCGS calls FS is much more lenient than NGC.

At the very least, they should design the software so that any set that does not meet the 75% NGC requirement, should not even receive a numerical ranking. For example, the top 2 Jefferson Nickel sets are currently both 100% PCGS coins. So while they are not eligible for monetary awards, they still get recognized as "Best in Category" which is total crap. I don't mind having their sets show up in the position that they do, but the number 1 set in the Jefferson Nickel (1938-64) in the NGC registry isn't Steve Strom or Ray Oveby, it belongs to Eagle's Nest. Strom and Overby should have no number next to their sets, and Eagle's Nest should be #1.

 

Why am I not surprised. That behavior is why I will never, ever give them a cent. So childish.

 

You can see why I made my "I refuse to carry their water" comment.

They invited me to their FUN luncheon for years. Then they cut me off their invitation list for no reason despite the fact that I busted my butt to post educational posts on their blog, the same as I have done here. I have also spent significant amounts for their graded coins. I guess I’m too old and they need to please the next generation.

I’ll maintain objective opinions of them, but I won’t carry their water.

 

That's dumb to me too. Either count them or don't. Either allow them or don't. The more they try and walk the line the more it just shows what a bad position they have really put themselves in.

They really probably should just break off a new category where it has to be all NGC for monetary prizes and just leave the current ones alone counting everything for full points

I'm a big fan of CAC, but that doesn't mean giving them more points over their standard score isn't a bad look for a brand. This is especially true since the NGC set users are more likely to be anti-cac.

Granted this may be an attempt to slow down how many NGC CAC get crossed over to PCGS CAC but at least to me I think this will end up back firing. This does prop up CAC more (no argument against that) but generally PCGS CAC sells for more than NGC CAC and inadvertently props up PCGS

And NGC is generally more lenient on high grades for the grade itself. For Franklins it doesn't really matter if the bottom line is full the middle is as well essentially every time.

 

Well, remember PCGS slabs were banned from being added to the registry for a couple years not that long ago. It seemed like it did more damage than good. I think it hurt participation in the registries as people were very disappointed with the decision to ban them. Sets that already had PCGS slabs entered were grandfathered in but they were worth zero points and new ones couldn't be added.

I'm happy with the way it is now that they switched back and it doesn't make me want to chase PCGS slabbed coins over NGC. Like johnm said I'd rather have the ability to buy the coin I like and not worry about who's slab it's in. Or, find one I like but pass on it because it's in a pcgs slab and I'd have to send it in to cross over if I wanted it in the registry. That sucks for the collector and I feel they did the right thing allowing them back in.
I wouldn't consider trying a PCGS registry set if they don't acknowledge NGC slabs. The NGC vs PCGS argument is about like politics. Who's mind is going to be changed regardless of actions taken? The registries are for collectors enjoyment. I think it gives PCGS a black eye for not reciprocating but whatever they want to do. I still focus on the coin and if it's in an NGC slab already I see it as a bonus, but not a requirement. If I have loose stuff I want graded, I send it to NGC.

 

You can get your 1943/2 CAC approved. I did that with mine.

 

I agree which was largely my point. They really backed themselves in the corner of being the both registry and they just have to own it or make a big sweeping change and live with the business they send to PCGS as a result and work on building it back up. Trying to straddle the fence and be everything to everyone isn't doing their brand any favors

 

But being PCGS’ b*tch is good for their brand?

 

Of course not, but they put themselves in that spot. They either have to roll with it or do what they need to and realize itll be painful short term and work on building it back up over time. Allowing PCGS at all in any capacity while PCGS doesn't allow them already means NGC is holding PCGS pocket no matter how they score them