Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;calcol, post: 26213194, member: 77639&quot;]I think we’ll remain in some disagreement … which is OK.&nbsp; What I’d like to see is two levels of awards:&nbsp; a lower level where percent completion doesn’t matter and a higher level where percent completion does matter.&nbsp; However, a rigid 95% completion is too severe.&nbsp; The way PCGS does it, 95% completion means 100% unless the set has at least 20 coins in it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I’d like to see a requirement of something like 90% completion OR all coins but one, whichever constitutes the lower percentage.</p><p><br /></p><p>One thing I like about NGC is they change points for particular issues in particular grades as more data on coin populations becomes available.&nbsp; Of course, this makes some participants unhappy because their set may move down in ranking.&nbsp; I don’t think PCGS has ever changed coin weights.&nbsp; This has led to some ridiculous circumstances.&nbsp;&nbsp; For instance, in CC Morgans, 1881 has twice the weight of the rarer 1891.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think “hidden” sets should not be allowed.&nbsp; The main idea of a registry is to share coins.&nbsp; There’s not much sharing if all you see is percent completion and a score.&nbsp; It’s especially irritating when high ranking sets are hidden … c’mon, let me see the coins!</p><p><br /></p><p>Cal[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in