Walker Sets Devaluation in Registry Value

[$ilverHawk]

I noted an across the board loss in Registry value for Walkers on 9/13/10.

 

I checked other US coin types and did not note any similar Registry devaluation.

 

Exactlly what caused the Registry devaluation of all Walking Liberty Sets?

 

Were specific high grade Walkers devalued or was the loss in Registry value spread across the entire series?

 

Scott please enlighten.

 

$ilverHawk

[Scott_Schechter]

Hi $ilverHawk:

 

All of the Walking Liberty Half Dollar Sets were rescored when we added the variety sets to the competitive Registry. Other US sets will be rescored as new sets are added in the following weeks.

 

The devaluation was caused in part by market factors since our last scoring update and in part by changes in the calculations for star and plus (which include a small refinement to the scoring algorithm). No specific area is ever targeted for devaluation. This change was meant to improve competition to ensure that the sets will be properly ranked and that the best set in the category has the highest rank.

 

The scoring algorithm rewards for set completeness and for grade of individual coins, especially keys. We strive to set up sets so that scores accurately relate all the sets to make Registry competition fun and fair.

 

Obviously it’s no fun to lose points. We know that. When we make changes we really try to improve the accuracy of scores which should benefit the Registry category in the long term. Many collectors are focused on the raw numbers which was never our intent – but we get it. That said, if any scores seem off to you, just let me know.

 

Regards,

Scott

 

[physics-fan3.14]

 

The scoring algorithm rewards for set completeness

 

Scott, could you explain this statement a little more? I'm not sure what you mean, so I don't want to speculate.

[Scott_Schechter]

First, so there’s no confusion, coins always receive the same score regardless of how complete a set is.

 

The algorithm rewards completeness by compressing the scores within a range so that a person with a 100% complete set of Walkers grading MS64 will still rank a set that is 25% complete with MS67’s, even though the market value of the higher grade coins might be greater. Coin values increase exponentially while Registry scores do not.

 

Hopefully that clarifies.

[$ilverHawk]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm still not clear on the machinations of the algorithm you referred to. However, under previous standards, did a collector with a 100% complete MS64 Walker set not out rank a 25% MS67 Walker set in the example you suggested?

 

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on NGC s intentions in making these changes particularly if there was no change in Registry ranking in the 100% MS64 vs. 25% MS67 sets example. I'm simply trying to get a sense of where NGC is going with these changes.

 

Is this process being applied to any other series/sets?

 

Just my curiousity coming out. When all is said and done, I collect coins not Registry points.

 

Regards,

 

 

Carl aka

 

$ilverHawk

[physics-fan3.14]

Yes, Scott, that definitely clarifies. Thanks.

[Scott_Schechter]

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on NGC s intentions in making these changes particularly if there was no change in Registry ranking in the 100% MS64 vs. 25% MS67 sets example. I'm simply trying to get a sense of where NGC is going with these changes.

 

Is this process being applied to any other series/sets?

 

The relationship of the rank of a complete lower grade set versus an incomplete higher grade set should have been improved by the changes that were applied. But the rankings themselves may not have changed in a very significant way. It's likely a couple of sets were jostled around.

 

Sets are re-scored periodically when it is clear that improvements can be made. Within the last year, we re-scored Proof Lincoln Cents, Roosevelt Dimes (rather controversially), Proof Morgan Dollars, and others. Jefferson Nickels are the next area scheduled for re-evaluation. The Walker set was adjusted because we created Variety Sets which made for a convenient and logical time to re-assess scores.

 

Some collectors have proposed that we adjust scores every month to correspond to changes in the value of coins as reported in NumisMedia, which is updated monthly on our site. My personal feeling is that periodic, deliberate adjustments are warranted to keep scores accurate, but they shouldn't feel like a constantly moving target.

 

What do you think?

[physics-fan3.14]

I think points should be tied to the scarcity of a coin and difficulty of finding a coin in a particular grade. It should not be tied to price. Thus, points should not fluctuate based on their price guide values.

 

This also strongly implies that high grade moderns should be worth very little. Take that how you will.

[$ilverHawk]

The price of a particular coin/mintmark/variety is open to manipulation through market forces. Price should not be a consideration regarding Registry Values.

 

Individual coins constitute the value of a particular set. The Registry Value focus needs to be on each coins value in regards to rarity, collectibilty in a specific grade and difficulty to acquire.

 

Yes, in the real world market forces do in fact drive collectibility by price changes. Registry Values should be the buffer against market price changes and not move in tandem.

 

Registry Scores should be adjusted if there is a change in the aforementioned parameters. This would take into account the changes that can occur with shifts in population data.

 

If the NGC Registry Values are adjusted based on market conditions as suggested by some collectors, then the Registry Values become a mirror of price changes.

 

Regarding your comment on Walker sets, the introduction of variety sets, should not have forced a revaluation unless market forces were part of the algorithm. The value of a set is in the individual coins. Appling a "leveling" algorithm is only accurate if it fully considers the parameters previously described.

 

Rarity, collectibilty in a specfic grade and difficulty to acquire independent of price in my view are the main factors contributing to Registry Values.

 

Carl aka

 

$ilverHawk

[World Colonial]

I think points should be tied to the scarcity of a coin and difficulty of finding a coin in a particular grade. It should not be tied to price. Thus, points should not fluctuate based on their price guide values.

 

This also strongly implies that high grade moderns should be worth very little. Take that how you will.

 

I agree with your statements. I do not participate in this competition but the point system makes no sense to me for the reason you state. I do not know if there is supposed to be any consistency between point values assigned for various coin sets or not. But for example, in the South Africa sets, high grade silver proof 1 rand receives more than most Union coins and only slightly less points than many of the KGV MS 2 1/2 Shillings, such as the 1926 PCGS MS-64. That makes no sense because the former are not remotely scarce while the 1926 is the only MS in either PCGS or NGC and is probably one of the few MS in existence. The only reason that I can see how this is possible is because the census pops for the silver 1R are low but that is not a function of their scarcity but because the collector demand is weak and few bother to have them graded.

 

I use this as one example but recall seeing many similar inconsistencies in US coins as well.

[coinman_23885]

I think points should be tied to the scarcity of a coin and difficulty of finding a coin in a particular grade. It should not be tied to price. Thus, points should not fluctuate based on their price guide values.

 

This also strongly implies that high grade moderns should be worth very little. Take that how you will.