Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 7557831, member: 15309&quot;]They stopped doing that, in order to be eligible any monetary award, your set must be comprised of at least 75% NGC graded coins.&nbsp; My contention is that penalty is not severe enough, PCGS graded coins should only count for 50% of the NGC point value.&nbsp; If you want full points, cross the coin into NGC plastic.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Why?&nbsp; Everybody already knows that to be true.&nbsp; Gradeflation has created dreck at the bottom end of the grade for many (if not all) registry quality coins.&nbsp; Incremental grading isn&#039;t a secret, and the + designation is already an admission that there are grades within the grade.&nbsp; I don&#039;t see the problem with separating the dreck from the worthy.&nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; PCGS is notoriously more lenient on strike designations than NGC.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; For example, the top 2 Jefferson Nickel sets are currently both 100% PCGS coins.&nbsp; So while they are not eligible for monetary awards, they still get recognized as &quot;Best in Category&quot; which is total crap.&nbsp; I don&#039;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&#039;t Steve Strom or Ray Oveby, it belongs to Eagle&#039;s Nest.&nbsp; Strom and Overby should have no number next to their sets, and Eagle&#039;s Nest should be #1.[/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