USAuPzlBxBob

Ok, I made a spreadsheet of My Competitive Sets, and followed the rules of Points given at the top of the Top Coin Collectors page. For Top Coin Collectors, each coin is counted once, and only once. I've proved to myself that my coins are counted only once, and not twice, and this spreadsheet really tells the story.

Coinbuf, in the interest of being nice, here is your post that I asked you to edit to make it coherent. You state: In the CC Rider set the coin is given a score of 11,078 points however in the Puzzle Box set it receives a score of 37,726 points. There is no truth whatsoever to this statement. Do you think a simple $5 1891 CC in AU 58 CAC garners 37,726 Points? Please edit your post to make it coherent.

Coinbuf, my reply to your last post is: Please edit your reply to make it grammatically and factually coherent. (You posted without proofreading?) Moving on… NGC is taking notice of this thread. They've changed the Top Coin Collectors "click" to just Top Collectors. I have a feeling NGC will further edit the information of how Competitve Set coins contribute to Top Collectors, but they will leave the Points and Rank methodology "As Is." (Type Sets + "Date" Sets will be allowed to contribute in a "combined" manner, but duplicitous Type Sets, duplicitous "Date" Sets can only use a coin once.) Moving on, even further… Have you looked at the "top" Top Collectors? I have no proof — this is just my opinion since I will not do business with any of them — but I have a feeling that many of their coins are coins that are held in their custody for IRAs of clients. Since the coins are in IRAs, the clients cannot physically possess them, and since they remain in the possession of these "businesses," the businesses join the NGC Registry under the name of someone in the business — like the owner, or chief, whatever — and the businesses then have thousands of coins to auto populate into the NGC Registry, thereby giving them Top Collector Ranks of #1, #2, #3, etc., etc. Just look at some of the titles of the collections within these "top" Top Collectors and I think you'll quickly agree with my opinion. This may be part of the reason why you don't see Images or Comments in these Competitive Sets. What do you guys think?

This thread dovetails nicely with the 'How are NGC registry points assigned?' thread. Coinbuf, I'll get back to you on your post, eventually. (just finished mowing the lawn, and I need to relax… big time)

Coinbuf, I still stand by the results of my "experiment" analysis. Your analysis of your Top Coin Collector Points and Rank is very difficult to understand, and therefore lends itself to a "meaningless" interpretation, due to the complexity involved. I have 14 US Gold NGC Registry coins, they reside in 8 different Competitive Sets, and every single one of my coins contributes to my Top Coin Collector Points and Rank… twice. And to think that just a week ago, I had only one Competitive Set, contributing 37,726 points to my Top Collector Points and Rank, and now — with those same coins — I've increased my Top Coin Collector Points by 30,094, simply by creating 7 more Competitive Sets. Life is good! P.S. It's not a meaningless stat — you just don't understand how it's generated, neither do I… positively. However, given that Ali E. barely replied to my initial post, I have a feeling that a thorough explanation will not be forthcoming from NGC. Moreover, it is almost an absolute certainty that many coin collectors on the NGC Registry are benefiting from their coins counting toward Total Coin Collector Points and Rank more than "once."

Ali E., To help with coherence on this, I tried an experiment. I have one Charlotte Gold Dollar. I made a Charlotte Gold Dollar "date" set and my Points and Rank rose accordingly. Then I created a Charlotte Gold Complete set — this could include additional Charlotte Gold other than $1G, like $5 gold coins, for example — and my Points and Rank did not change. I then deleted the Charlotte Gold Dollar "date" set and my Points and Rank remained at the "rose accordingly" elevated level because the Charlotte Gold Complete set was now contributing the elevated level. So, I get it. When you select a Collection Heading — like Charlotte Gold, New Orleans Gold — click on those "coin icons" to open the possible collections to create under each Collection Heading, if you create multiple sets within each Collection Heading, the coins you use only boost your Points and Rank once. However, I noticed that my Charlotte Gold Dollar still has contributed twice, not once, in the overall scheme of things. It garners Points and Rank in my 1834 — 1933 Gold Type Set and it also garners Points and Rank in my Charlotte Gold Complete set. So, it appears that as long as coins are in sets that are generated under separate Collection Headings, they can contribute to Points and Rank more than "once."

If you're browsing in the Registry and you can see your "Points and Rank" banner on the top left, if you go below the banner (+ Add Coin, Registry Home, My Registry Profile, etc., etc.) eventually you'll come to Top Coin Collectors. Click that. A new page opens and it has the top ranked collectors in descending numerical order, i.e. 1, 2, 3… and this goes on for 222 pages. Now, at the top of the page NGC states: NGC Registry participants receive an overall ranking based on the total score of all coins registered in their competitive sets. Coins entered in multiple sets are counted only once. (If a coin has received different point scores, the highest score is counted.) Use the filter below to see rankings for all coins, US coins or world coins. Of interest here is: "Coins entered in multiple sets are counted only once." Please explain this sentence. Is this currently enforced?

They roll the dice at the FUN show. That doesn't sound like "fun?"

Revenant, you've made me think a little. Right now, I've found that no one clicks on my Type Set… there's no interest. The Type Sets that do get attention have banners proclaiming "something." Best this, best that. Even for myself, I've gone looking at other Type Set collections in my category, and there is nothing to write home about. The second place collection has no photos and no comments, for example. (You have to wonder what that person's collection is all about.) So, another "neat idea" would be to have NGC experiment with rolling the dice… literally. They could have their NGC Registry team, once a year, roll a pair of dice and if the sum total is odds, they keep the current Type Set scoring system, but if the sum total is even, then the Type Set scoring system reverts to Date Set scoring… for one year. That would shake things up, figuratively and literally… in an entertaining way. Add some risk to the current complacency; dust things off, remove the cobwebs, and allow for the possibility of seeing things from two perspectives being in play, just to increase the dynamic of the Registry.

Coinbuf, my coin collecting is done. I don't think I'll ever buy or sell a coin again. Anytime I'm tempted to sell (and then buy a better coin), the money involved would be… really beyond my means. My Type Set is the 1834 — 1933 US Gold, I only can "fit" 14 coins, and so I'll never rise higher than 66% completion, as explained in my Registry listing. (the really high value Type Sets are much closer to 100% completion, btw) Currently, the way I fill my time with the Type Set is by improving my documentation — why I collect it, how I came to acquire the coins, etc. — but there are only a few ways to discuss the Type Set, only a few ways to add interest to it, and I've exhausted that aspect for the most part. Perhaps I will begin a Presentation Set that does not involve grading. But that would only mirror the current Type Set… and that is why I'm mostly interested in letting Type Sets get graded like Date Sets. However, I really like your suggestion on Type Sets possibly getting "personality" Bonus Points. Personality Sells! (but that could be a nuance nightmare for NGC to deal with) However, Coinbuf, there are people coming into coin collecting who can — and will — displace anyone who has any kind of coin collection that is graded, because they will have "moon money" to spend, while the rest of us, all we have are the coins they will want.

Care to elaborate? Roughly speaking, how many people are on the "NGC Registry team," and "some time now," would that be months, years, decades? What sort of issues are involved? Fear of "upsetting the cart" with current Type Set leaders feeling "betrayed" (especially with new management — Blackstone — on the horizon), or the possibility that imprecise NGC Coin Explorer/NGC Registry Scores for individual coins may currently be in place? To help "them" reach a decision toward "abolishment," I'll make the point that the way the Type Set slots are currently "filled," far and away the vast majority of the coins are Philadelphia Mint, leaving all of the other US Mints "hung out to dry." By abolishing the current Type Score system, obscure, interesting coins would start to show up in Ranked Type Sets, and there would be a lot of new activity within the NGC Registry, with collectors perusing others' collections to see how they maybe added different Mints, the challenges they face of how to maneuver with "buy and sell" considerations, increased comments from "owners" as to why they sought a particular coin — instead of perfunctory comments that restate a coin's grade and little more. Renewed interest in this regard would benefit collectors, coin dealers, coin shows, auction houses, NGC, PCGS. There would be a new "buzz" of excitement within the NGC Coin Registry. Very interested in whatever else you can comment? Bob

Ali E., The clickable attachment in your reply reads: US Coins in TYPE sets have different scores than they do in DATE sets. US coins receive different scores depending on the set: a "Date Score" and a "Type Score". The Date Score is for date sets such as "Lincoln Cents 1936-1958, Proof" and reflects the value and rarity of the coin. The Type Score is used only in type sets, where the goal is typically to acquire any example of a single type. Therefore, all coins of the same type will receive the same score, which often results in a lower score for rarer or more valuable dates. Ok, fine. But "we collectors" who collect Type Sets (or parts of Type Sets) only… not Date Sets (No intent of ever collecting Date Sets!), we still strive for qualities in our collections that, if we thought them to be "typical," we would be put off by the very notion of such an expression. It is interesting… when I've clicked on some of the highest Rank collection point scores of the Type Set I collect, what I've found — typically — are boring collections wrt presentation. Few comments from the owners, few photos from the owners — many of which are lackluster in interest because the photos… don't "pop" — and it is almost as though the sole purpose of their being in the Registry is for point value and Rank ascension. It's sort of like they're trying to get the most "Likes" or "Friends" as can be found to be commonplace elsewhere on the Internet. This is the sort of collector NGC wants to herald? So, my real question to NGC is why dismiss collectors from points they would find shown in the NGC Coin Explorer/NGC Registry Scores for individual coins? Therein, things seem to be as fair as they can be, and let the dust settle on its own merit in terms of total point scores for given Type Set collections. In other words, a person could go to any Type Set and assess what each coin they wanted to collect would yield — from PRAG to 70, Base to +★, yes/no CAC — and be able to determine what their score might be before wading in with real money? Type Sets are the most interesting of all coin collections. I would think NGC would want to reward those individuals who strive to collect very rare and valuable Type Sets — against all odds of success — and who compete against the many who also share in their enthusiasm of what a coin, each coin, individually owned by them, is really worth — point wise, when taken upon its own merit — in their Type Set collection.

The answers NGC is providing here are not making much sense to me. Maribeth really didn't answer the question. She touched on it, but little more. I have a Type Set collection. I looked at the points for one of my coins, chosen at random, just to see if I could make sense of the points it delivers to me for determining my Rank against other Type Set collections I'm competing against. My coin is much rarer than other available coins that could fill the slot, and I could only manage it in Grade AU58. Meanwhile, some other collector, going for a most common coin to fill the slot, and able to get it for a similar price to my coin, pulls it off in grade MS63, and practically doubles the points that my coin received. What this tells me is NGC is rewarding coins that are simply "shiny" and little else. It tells me that someone could have an extremely valuable coin, virtually impossible to acquire because of its expense and rarity, and it would get the same registry points that a common — garden variety — coin for the slot would avail. And "we collectors" are supposed to be happy with this? Why? Definitely, something is far from "perfect" in the metrics of the NGC Registry.

Does anyone know the last day the coin resided at The World Trade Center? One article I found says it was moved to Fort Knox "a couple of weeks before the attack." That places its last day at The World Trade Center in August 2001, but there is no specific day mentioned. I was born in late August, two weeks before September 11 (August 29) so I'm sort of curious if it was moved on my birthday.

Even back in the 1960s, kids reading comic books would see end page advertisements on "If you have a 1943 copper penny… etc., etc., then you are rich." Maybe occasionally back then, you might read about someone actually finding one. It would then be authenticated by experts, found to be genuine, and then it was probably stored in a safe deposit box. Suffice it to say that, most likely, every genuine 1943 copper penny has already been found. Just from Googling this topic, you can readily learn that 40 are known to exist, and half have been certified. The odds of finding one from all the pennies in circulation is one in 15 million, though it is vague as to how those odds are arrived at. I think the odds are even smaller.

Just to show how lighting is everything, here is a pic from an iPhone with flash: It's a $10 Carson City in AU 53. Nothing to write home about. Now, look at the same coin, but without the flash… . . . . . . . . . . "the waiting is the hardest part" . . . . . . . . . . Same camera… (without flash) hard to believe it is the same coin.

Personally, I know that if I ever have to sell my gold coin collection, I'll never make a profit. (maybe I'll break even, but inflation will deal me a loss) However, when I consider the time I've put in — hundreds of hours of researching and actually acting upon that research — and then having something tangible, historical, and beautiful to show for my efforts… therein is the profit for me. And I find it to be very satisfying. From an investment point of view, there is no profit. Had I put my time in, instead, on garnering investment skills with stocks and bonds, or devoted to home improvement knowhow, I would be far better off financially. But, you have to round-out your time among different interests or those interests will lose their appeal. Or worse yet… become all work. Life's short so pursue anything and everything, within reason. In the process, you never know where things will take you, and there are rewards all along the way.

Have several coins in these slabs, too, all resubmitted for Scratch-Resistant holders, as far back as February 2019. My only complaint is when the coins are returned and have to be re-resubmitted due to "fibers" entrapped in the holders or bubbles in the Scratch-Resistant film. Then it starts to get expensive: registered mail/insurance shipping costs. Labor costs, if passed on… who cares! I sent a 2019 W $5 gold coin in for Complimentary Reholdering due to slab defects, the Registered Mail/Insurance cost $55.22, and a new, different curlicue fiber can be seen near the coin obverse in the received holder. At that point, I just moved on… diminishing returns when you chase this stuff on and on.

Wouldn't work… you spend way too much money. With the $10 1932 Indian Indian Head, the prices are very low for MS 64… and you stretch the collection to 99 years… essentially one hundred years. From my 2013 Official Red Book, 1932 Saint Gaudens, MS 63 grade: $65,000. When I got my $1932 MS 64 $10 Indian Head it cost just $1,500. I had looked into going with a $20 1930's (any 1930's date) originally, until I saw the prohibitive prices for high grade. It was a no brainer to go with $10 Indian Heads.

You know, I used to know this, and I just went to my Profile page right now, didn't find anything from the past, but then saw a My Activity button to click, and found the thread on Page 2. I don't post here regularly, so although I knew of this thread, I couldn't find it. I rarely go to my profile page. Good to know how to find the old threads activity. I needed to find the thread because I'm trying to document a Registry Set, and by finding this old thread I'm able to access a lot of information for me to include in the Registry Set documentation. Thanks, Bob

And here we are… almost a year later… a year of Covid-19, and with thoughts of maybe trying to correct my 100 year gold collection to be more in line with this one, what I'm finding is that coins needed for this collection are scarcely available. For example, just looking around on dealer websites I used to frequent often, I didn't find any 1863 $3 Indian Princess Heads, and the difficult gold dollars, not that they're expensive (or exceedingly rare) seem to have been snatched up into private collections for whatever reasons, and aren't available whatsoever. It is almost like people have been getting more involved with their collections, or more people, with idle time at home, have decided to take up coin collecting. Looks like I'll just leave my current collection as is since it already accomplishes many of the objective this thread details. Thought this thread had disappeared. I would type in it's title, that I had saved elsewhere, put it in quotation marks to narrow the search to exactly the words and capitalization used, and "Found 0 results" would come back. I then went to the US, World, and Ancient Coins forum and started working my way back… one page at a time. Found this thread 44 pages back.

In this day and age of Internet shenanigans wouldn't it be possible for a high-rating Registry Set to be verified without the submitter owning a single coin? The reason I bring this up is because some Registry Winners provide no photos, no comments, and how is it known that they really own the coins? Does NGC contact them directly asking for proof of ownership before granting an award? For example, imagine an unscrupulous member initiates a Registry Set. Then the slots get filled with valid coins from dealer inventory images that reveal holder brand/coin grade/holder ID number. NGC verifies that the coins match known coins — holder, grade, ID number — but there is no way for NGC to investigate further without contacting the member for proof of ownership. And since the coins reside with dealers, the coins would not be in other member Registry Sets, which could raise a red flag for NGC to investigate further. And for NGC to investigate dealer inventories, which change all the time, this sort of crosscheck might be prohibitive from a logistics perspective. Admittedly, this is an extreme example, and the key phrase is "unscrupulous member." Still, does NGC go the final yard to assure authentic collections, and if so, what would that final yard be?

Matt dac, are you satisfied with the debris reflected onto your coin. That debris appears to be on the inside of your holder, as I would think that you would wipe the outside of your holder of dust before taking pics. Anywhere, in the CAMEO reflection surface, that you see a white spec and a mirror spec nearby, that may be dust on the inside surface of your holder.

"The waiting is the hardest part." ~ Tom Petty Just about every time I've dealt with NCG, and the coins have been gold since that's all I collect, I've gotten so nervous and impatient that I've actually called them. Everything has always worked out fine, and I've had good luck on crossovers from PCGS, where two or three of the coins came back with a "+" in the grade. Love the NGC holders, their presentation — especially for gold coins… the white contrast —, and with a plus mark, the coins just reek of classiness. All my gold coins reside in NGC holders!