BlakeEik

W was a designation NGC used for a short time meaning “white” or not toned. They have abandoned that designation.

Great point @erwindoc! NGC is not consistent with this concept at all. Look at the CC Morgan S$1 set. Why include two rarities? Why not have separate sets: one with rarities and one without? Agree with you 100%. But their response has typically been "that is better suited for a custom set" without providing any rationale.

For me.... not at all. Buy the coin not the holder. If you like the holder too, BONUS!

I’m curious, who would be experienced enough to post such question, yet not know how to look something up in the Red Book or other price guide themselves? did you make this? If so I think it is a crime. Just saying...

Great to hear! After re-reading my own response, I do want to point out the most important aspect about buying graded coins. I DO NOT RECOMMEND BUYING UNGRADED COINS AT GRADED PRICES. For example, if a coin does not have a PCGS or NGC holder and the seller is asking for equivalent prices, be very careful. NGG and PCGS have strict standards, even though they may be different and even sometimes inconsistent. If you ever decide to send coins in to be graded that you did not get straight from the mint, you may be very disappointed in the results! On the contrary, buying coins you like in these holders pretty much ensures you are getting the quality that is advertised.

Hello Matt and welcome! You ask some good questions. I don’t think you will get many answers but you may get a lot of opinions. My advice would be to collect coins not holders. You may want to limit grading services because of the registry, since both only allow their own coins to be counted. Otherwise grades may not reflect how much you like a coin or not. Probably the most important advice is to be careful determining the fair market value. I think PCGS does a much better job keeping their price guide current. The NGC price guide tends to be very inflated for certain coins. The CDN price guide https://www.greysheet.com/cdn-collector-price-guidance Is grading service independent and can give a good idea of a fair market value. Also, in the NGC resources you can find past auction data that gives you an idea how much people are actually paying for coins. Your question about 69 versus 70 is a loaded one. I find it very hard to tell the difference a lot of times. I think the graders sometimes flip a coin on which should be. I’ve seen some 69‘s that like 70s and 70s that look like 69‘s, but usually they all look the same to me When you talk about coins since 1990. But if you buy 69 instead of 70, you may have a problem selling them . A lot of people only want 70 because most modern coins from the mint won’t be graded under 69 anyway. That’s why there’s such a price jump between 69 and 70 many times If you go back pre-1964, you don’t really have to worry about 69 versus 70s because there are a few 70s. The price guides in the population reports are useful tools in determining why a coin cost what it costs. Bottom line, by the coins you like, and don’t pay more than you want to. Best of luck and I hope you get some going to happy with!

I just use decimals. 35, 35.1, 35.15, 35.2, 36, ...

Bright Future, I welcome your common sense, but I'm afraid you may be disappointed here. The topic has been brought up before but no one in charge seems to care about fairness. From experience, I don't really think the "senior team" looks at anything. There are several ways a fair compromise could be made. I prefer that the PRIMARY award is for NGC only coins, not the secondary award no one cares about. If they did that, it would some some fairness problems. Second, they could let ANY PCGS be added, but get ZERO points, which would be great for people that just want to display their collections. They could give the SECONDARY awards to mixed collections, but allow the same rules for all. Very easy concept. I'm a long time fan, buyer, support, and reasonable critic of NGC. In this case, I'm afraid you may find a strong resistance to common sense here, so be warned!

Please note a mistake in the set https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive/united-states/type-sets/889/. In the "5c Jefferson" slot, you need to remove the coin eligibility for "UNITED STATES 1994 5c SP". It makes no sense being there. But if you insist, they you need to add eligibility for "UNITED STATES 1997 5c SP". And the you need to add both coins to the other 20th Century Type Set - Non-proof Only with gold.

Thanks Ali. Great news. Are you going to fix the others sets that break your own rule? Start with the 2016 Anniversary set ... and the Coin and Chronicles set. These allow coins without the proper label so I am sure you will take swift action on them.

How about making this set? 2006 W Gold and Silver Anniversary Set Coins (no special label required)

I followed the instructions in the email. The more I correspond via email with your registry people, the more I question if there is really a plan or vision for the registry. It seems that decisions are being made inconsistently and spontaneously by “the guy behind the curtain.” My criticism is meant only to be constructive. Has such a plan or vision been posted?

The slot I’m referring to says “2006 W S$1 MS Burnished” and does not refer to Anniversary set. The only reference to Anniversary Set is in the list of eligible coins (which is what I’m trying to correct) and the name of the set. And as far as the name of the set goes, look at other Anniversary sets such as 2016. It includes coins without reference to “Anniversary Set” on the label. And there are other sets that do this too. In fact, it’s hard to find other examples in the registry where label, not the coin, has to be a certain type. So what ever NGC decides it should be consistent.

How can you tell my looking at a set if your holder has to have a particular label in order to be eligible, or if the coin itself just needs to be eligible? I do not see any indication of that.

If everyone agrees that it is the exact same coin, why does it matter what the label says? I do not understand.