Type Set Scores versus Date Scores

[Max Spiegel]

Hi all --

 

As many of you know, type sets have a different scoring methodology than the regular sets. All coins of a type are given the same score in type sets, while the date sets give more points for rarity and value.

 

We are thinking about changing the scoring so that each coin gets an individual (i.e. the same) score, regardless of whether it is in a type set or not. That way, coins that are more valuable and rare will always receive more points than a common coin. The goal is to not only be more consistent (your coin will have one score) but also to make sure that the scores reflect the challenge of finding that coin. We also feel that if you have a collection of rare dates, you should not be penalized if you try to build a type set.

 

Before we make this change, I wanted to check the message boards to see what our Registry users think. Do you want one score per coin? Or do you want to maintain the current system of two separate scores, one for date sets and one for type sets? Please let me know your thoughts.

 

Thanks,

Max

[Lastufka Collection]

Hey Max, happy to hear this might be a reality. It's a little bit of a Catch-22 for me. I have a 1983 No "S" dime that I thought would propel my '83 proof set into first place, but didn't. But I am also putting together a First Year of Issue Type Set, which means I'm locked into the scores/rarity of the first year for each type, which isn't always the rarest/most valuable in a series. So, under the new proposed scoring, I could never hope to have a top ranked type set, unless you make a specific "first year" type set, which I would personally love, wink wink.

 

Anyway, personal type set aside, I do think each coin should have the same score regardless of date or type set. So, that gets my vote.

[Coin Trader]

Agree, this is a change that is overdue. An AU50 1881-S Morgan Dollar should not receive the same points as an AU50 1893-S Morgan in the same slot.

 

Changing the scoring to consider rarity and desirability will not only make the Type Set scores more reasonable and rational, it will also encourage those who have Type Sets to upgrade, resulting in more valuable collections for the member and perhaps more revenue for NGC.

 

Win Win. Let's do it!

[physics-fan3.14]

Absolutely in favor of this. I've thought about this before, thinking it was a good idea. It doesn't make any sense at all that someone who puts a 1932D Washington in his set gets the same points as a 1964! I know some type set collectors try building sets of all key-date coins - it is one of the greatest disparities on the Registry that these people are punished versus the guy who buys the easiest coin to find.

[Walkerfan]

This is a fantastic new change for an older long awaited idea that many users have been hoping for! Thanks, Max & NGC you are #1!

[nunfa0]

Sounds good to me, even though my points will take a hit. It is the fairest way.

[brg5658]

I am in favor of fairness and more points being awarded for coins which are rarer. BUT, I have the following comments and concerns.

 

CONS:

1) The bookkeeping could become a nightmare (both for NGC and for the individual collectors). In type sets, there are a LOT of coins which can fit into that one slot. And, if the scores are shuffled around, or recalculated then it is cumbersome to go through every slot in my type set and "Readjust" my coin in that slot so that it is the one with the highest points. Something that NGC could do to help me out would be to add a little icon or something to the set view so it tells me that "You have a coin with higher points that can fill this spot".

 

2) Type set collecting (for me) has a goal of finding the highest and best preserved example of a particular coin design, not filling the slot with the rarest (or key) example of a particular design. Granted, others may have different goals. But, just as an example, what is more appropriate for a "type set". An common date MS67 buffalo nickel (in pristine condition and fully exhibiting the design of the issue) or a F15 3-legged buffalo nickel (a coin struck from worn/polished dies and with little or no eye appeal). Inconsistent with my personal collecting "type set" goals, I would guess the 3-legged nickel would get more points, regardless of how ugly and unattractive it is.

 

PROS:

For the ultra-modern proof type set (where every coin is relatively easy to find in high grade if not perfect PF70UC grade) this would offer a bit more separation of the top sets based on semi-key modern issues. For example, the 2001-S Sacagawea PF70UC is harder to find than some of the others. But, again, it isn't my personal goal to have a "type set" of the key date coins. My collecting goal is to have the best physical and representative coin of the series slot as a whole. Sometimes this may be a pop 1 coin, other times it isn't.

 

In summary, if people are collecting type sets as "key date" type sets, maybe they can get their own set for such a thing (Called a "Key Date Type Set")?? I have the #1 Non-proof 21st Century Type Set, and I don't think it would move in rank even if you make this change (I have several top pop for the type coins). BUT, for older sets (20th and 19th Century), some of the most beautiful examples of coins in the sets with absolutely unbelievable grades (MS68 1880-S Morgan) could potentially be overshadowed by low-grade keys (e.g. 1893-S Morgan). I would personally rather see the absolutely pristine example, than some old beat up "rare" coin.

 

Edited: I looked at a few of the year set scores. The 1893-S in F15 is 1658 points, and that equates to roughly the points for the 1880-S in MS67+ to MS68 grade. For my type set, I would personally NEVER list the F15 1893-S as my "type" coin over the MS67+ 1880-S. My "type set" goal is "condition/preservation" based, not "key to the series" based. I think that's part of the appeal of the type-set for us non-millionaire collectors.

 

[Coin Trader]

Edited: I looked at a few of the year set scores. The 1893-S in F15 is 1658 points, and that equates to roughly the points for the 1880-S in MS67+ to MS68 grade. For my type set, I would personally NEVER list the F15 1893-S as my "type" coin over the MS67+ 1880-S. My "type set" goal is "condition/preservation" based, not "key to the series" based. I think that's part of the appeal of the type-set for us non-millionaire collectors.

 

You make some good points about Type Set collecting goals. Ironically, I'd rather have the 1893-S F-15 in my Type Set (as opposed to the high grade 1880-S in MS67+, but that's what makes this hobby so flexible and dynamic. One person's preference is "condition" and another person prefers "key or semi-key" (or "value" or "low mintage" etc).

 

In the case of these two particular coins, the scoring change that NGC proposes would allow collectors to choose either way of collecting, rather than giving a competitive advantage to the collector who prefers "condition/preference" as is currently the case. More importantly, it would allow a collector to assemble a hybrid set, with some high grade coins and some key date coins.

 

With regards to the bookkeeping, your suggestion that an icon be added to indicate that a collector has a coin with higher score available is a great idea! Another would be restoration of the ability to automatically add your "best coins" to each set.

 

Coin Trader

[brg5658]

Another would be restoration of the ability to automatically add your "best coins" to each set.

 

Where "best" is defined as the "most Registry Points".

[leeg]

More points for rarity get's a (thumbs u

[Kenneth F]

I think this would be a good change. Points should be issued to the coin, not to where it is placed.

[Desert Gold]

This sounds like a great idea! When will the change occur?

[Max Spiegel]

Update: We will make this change (and the expanded scores) sometime in January after the registry awards are given. I think we're getting too close to the awards entry deadline to make such a dramatic points change. However, we should be able to have it ready for after the awards so that people can build and expand sets with the new scoring in mind.

[physics-fan3.14]

That sounds fair. On a similar note, do you expect AU-50,53,55,and 58 scores to be broken out around the same time?

[CCFFG]

It would be nice to have just one score by coin. The current system seems to reward "label" differences rather than coin differences. Why the newly discovered Frosted Freedom Platinum Proofs (are not added to the competition (classed as errors by NGC ?) is somewhat disturbing. All three denominations are available. Who really makes the rules and distinguishes between varieties, errors, and/or whatever? If there are "hundreds" of perfect sets when newly discovered coins (that may have been delivered legally from the US Mint) may now alter the rankings. But, this could encourage true coin collecting to search for the remaining specimens released by the Mint. Anybody else have thoughts on this?

[coin928]

I'm a bit late to this thread, OK really late, but I did correspond with Max several times in January, 2011. I even posted a journal entry ( Be careful what you ask for... ) which ended with my thoughts on this topic.

 

I'm a collector of USA/Philippine coins, and have a registry type set. Prior to this change, each slot contained the highest graded coin I owned of that type. After the change, the new scoring provided the incentive to select lower grade coins for a type in order to obtain a higher overall score. For example, I had an MS61 1909S Peso in my type set which is worth 477 points, but by switching to my AU53 1912S Peso, my slot score improved to 1821. A nice overall gain of 1344 points, but a noticeable decline in quality.

 

I reluctantly changed the content of my type set accordingly, causing my set score to increase by nearly 4,000 points. Unfortunately, it now contains several AU coins, one XF coin, and a couple of varieties that just happen to have higher individual scores than their normal (higher graded) counterparts. Not the most pristine set, but it did bump me up a notch or two at the time.

 

To me, the intent of a type set is to showcase the finest example of a coin within each type, not the rarest or most obscure. The old type set scores were the same for each coin within a type with a slight premium given for proofs which seemed pretty reasonable.

 

[Coin Trader]

To me, the intent of a type set is to showcase the finest example of a coin within each type, not the rarest or most obscure.

 

You make an interesting point, however, the definition of the "finest example of a coin within each type" varies from collector to collector.

 

Would a collector rather have an MS64 1881-S Morgan in his type set or a VF30 1893-S Morgan in his set? Many collectors would consider the key date 1893-S as "the finest example" of the two choices.

 

And that's the rub... the "finest" example in a type set is determined by the goals of the individual collector. Key and semi-key dates... low mintages... quality toners (or flashy white coins)... first (or final) year of issue... each could be considered "finest" to an individual collector.

 

In a Registry setting, each coin should be rewarded based on its individual merits. The virtues of an individual coin, to the extent possible,should be taken into consideration in assigning a point value to the coin. Graders have taken into consideration strike and color and wear and marks in assigning a grade for each coin, as well as date and mint and scarcity of that coin. The Registry should also take into consideration the date and mint and scarcity of the coin in assigning points.

 

Will some collectors change the way they assemble Type Sets for the Registry? Perhaps. And if someone wants to trade me the aforementioned 1893-S VF30 for my hypothetical 1881-S in MS64, I'll pay the postage both ways ,even if the lower grade key date distracts from the showcase of my higher graded coins.

 

 

[coin928]

To me, the intent of a type set is to showcase the finest example of a coin within each type, not the rarest or most obscure.

 

You make an interesting point, however, the definition of the "finest example of a coin within each type" varies from collector to collector.

 

Would a collector rather have an MS64 1881-S Morgan in his type set or a VF30 1893-S Morgan in his set? Many collectors would consider the key date 1893-S as "the finest example" of the two choices.

 

And that's the rub... the "finest" example in a type set is determined by the goals of the individual collector. Key and semi-key dates... low mintages... quality toners (or flashy white coins)... first (or final) year of issue... each could be considered "finest" to an individual collector.

 

My choice of the words "finest example of a coin within each type," was not as precise as I thought it was, since as you point out, there are many interpretations. I should have said something like "highest absolute graded coin within each type." I include the word absolute to make sure that all variations of a grade receive more points than the highest attribution of a coin at the next lower grade (e.g. MS64BN receives more points than MS63RD).

 

The finer points of linguistics aside, you also make a good point, and have really struck upon the heart of the issue. The words "finest example of a coin within each type," do mean different things to different collectors, but not to NGC. NGC has chosen a very specific definition, they just don't say explicitly what it is!

 

Given the clarification above, I think it's pretty clear what my interpretation is. Equally valid though are the ones you enumerated. There are actually quite a few different, equally valid, kinds of "Type Sets." The problem arises when a single set of scores is assigned to the allowable coins that can fill each slot. That's what really defines what kind of Type Set it is. On January 10, 2011, the USA/Philippines Type Set was a "Highest Graded" (for lack of a better term) Type Set, but when NGC changed the scores on January 11, 2011 it became a "Rarest & Most Obscure" Type Set. I am now forced to choose between the coins that fit my definition of a Type Set and the ones that garner the most points. I could create two distinct Type Sets with different stated goals, but in my case there are several coins that I would want to use in both sets, which NGC does not allow for obvious reasons.

 

NGC could create more kinds of Type Sets to satisfy the collecting goals of each group of collectors. I could then have two overlapping sets with different goals, but that may be overkill. If nothing else, NGC should define explicitly what constitutes a "Type Set" within the context of the NGC Registry since that has changed. The scores already imply a particular kind of set, it's just not explicitly stated what kind of set that is.

 

BTW, I too would gladly pay the postage both ways to get an 1893-S VF30 for my hypothetical 1881-S in MS64. I'd even go out an buy an 1881-S just so I could make the trade!

 

[jerseycat10]

This seems like an obvious win-win to me.

 

The collector wins by having the true rarity of their coin reflected in the coin's score, regardless of the set it is in.

 

NGC wins by only having to maintain a score per coin, while no longer needing to maintain a coin series score.

 

My only concern is intra-series scoring. For example, Roosies being given more points than Mercuries (just made that up).

[CyberspaceVoid]

I am really late in this topic as well, but here I am ...

 

In my view NGC really needs to decide for whom the type set registry is designed to attract … those who can afford the rarest of the rare or those of us with less cash but with an equal enthusiasm for numismatics. I agree that the answer lies in two type sets; one graded as it is currently done with the highest point value considering all coins on an equal basis and another under the new scheme that concentrates on the rare varieties . Now that’s a real win-win when you have two winners .

 

[Kamillion]

i wish i had a clue what ngc registries even are

[Desert Gold]

Update: We will make this change (and the expanded scores) sometime in January after the registry awards are given. I think we're getting too close to the awards entry deadline to make such a dramatic points change. However, we should be able to have it ready for after the awards so that people can build and expand sets with the new scoring in mind.

 

Now that the 2011 registry awards have been announced, will this change be made soon?

[Tim C-migration]

Update: We will make this change (and the expanded scores) sometime in January after the registry awards are given. I think we're getting too close to the awards entry deadline to make such a dramatic points change. However, we should be able to have it ready for after the awards so that people can build and expand sets with the new scoring in mind.

 

Why the delay..... NGC has already demonstrated that the points have nothing to do with the awards, just who you like.

[CSdot]

I initially wondered why they set it up so a coin could received different points in different sets? In the type sets, a presidential dollar could be worth more points than a Saint Gaudens Double Eagle. Everybody wants their set to be in the top 50 (be on the first page), so I suspect they set it up this way to make it more balanced so the less affluent collector could enjoy the registry as much as a wealthy collector?

 

Now that it's set up this way, which point award would you use if you wanted to make every coin have one point value? Would you just do away with type set point system and award the same points the coins would receive in their series sets, or would you adjust the points awarded in the series sets, so they match the type set point awards?

 

Maybe it's best to just leave it alone?

[Oldtrader3]

I have always wondered why there had to be a double standard for a coin within and set as far as score is concerned. I am all for having each coin have a score relevant to the same score that it would receive in a set of thise particular coins by denomination and type. All for it!

[Spencer Collection]

Here we have an example of an NGC representative asking the members who participate in the message boards what they think of a possible change BEFORE unilaterally making the change.

This, in my opinion, is the right way to do things. I only wish that NGC did the same thing when it came to removal of PCGS coins from world registry sets.

As far as the ratings go for rarer and more valuable coins in type sets, the change is desirable and is a no brainer. Do it.

[brg5658]

NGC said they would be making this change "sometime in January". I presume they meant January of 2012. Here we are in February. Guess they were too busy decimating the World Coin sets.

 

As for a presidential dollar being worth the same number of "points" as a St. Gauden, who cares? For any sets that both are in at the same time (like type sets) each person has the same opportunity to add both to their set. And, for the sets that are specific to each of those two types (series sets), why should it matter? Are people worried about their "overall ranking" for all of their collection? And, if so, should this overall rank equate with the dollar amount you spent on your collection? What people seem to be suggesting is that coins should be given points equal to their Numismedia price guide worth. If that's the case, then your "overall rank" is just comparing the balance of your financial portfolio.

 

I think coins should be given a single value across all sets, but that the point values should be determined within a series based on rarity, grade, etc. If your St. Gauden is the same number of points as a 2011 presidential dollar, why do you care? It doesn't affect anyone's score in any sets you are competing in except those where you can also have a high-point presidential dollar. Just my 2 cents.

[TwoKopeiki]

We have had this logic in place for Type Sets in the World Coin registry for a while and the best way to look at it is this:

 

Are you prepared to lose to a type set with 1 extremely rare coin that due to its rarity is worth more than all of the other coins across all other types combined?

 

I will use Mexico 8 Reales Type Set as an example. There are some true rarities in the first type (specifically 1732 or 1733 Pillars in MS). Top two sets have two different examples of this in MS giving each anywhere from 8,000 to 9,000 points. The other types in the set in AU/MS would only worth anywhere from 700-3,000 points each, with that number decreasing as you go through the types to later dates of Charles IV and Ferdinand VII. In fact, it will be near impossible to beat the top set holding this one coin in MS63 unless you can find that exact coin in a similar state.

 

I find it unfair that an MS63 Ferdinand VII 8 Reales in a type set is worth a third of an MS63 of the earlier type. For a complete set for an individual type - sure. But for a type set this makes little sense to me.

[andold]

For what it's worth (yeah - maybe 2 cents or so) I disagree with this change.

 

Seems to me most people consider a "type set" to be the best exemplar of a given type, considering striking characteristics and state of preservation and NOT relative scarcity. In fact, that's why a lot of people have type sets - they simply can't afford the rarities and/or complete date runs but would like to assemble the best (preserved) possible set of coins that come closest to realizing the intent of the designer.

 

Now, I know there are different definitions of such sets and every collector has a unique goal, but in a type set an MS67 Morgan dollar should be an MS67 Morgan dollar, regardless of date/MM. Should my 1903-S AU53 outscore your MS67 1879-S in a type set? I don't think so.

 

YMMV.

[brg5658]

For what it's worth (yeah - maybe 2 cents or so) I disagree with this change.

 

Seems to me most people consider a "type set" to be the best exemplar of a given type, considering striking characteristics and state of preservation and NOT relative scarcity. In fact, that's why a lot of people have type sets - they simply can't afford the rarities and/or complete date runs but would like to assemble the best (preserved) possible set of coins that come closest to realizing the intent of the designer.

 

Now, I know there are different definitions of such sets and every collector has a unique goal, but in a type set an MS67 Morgan dollar should be an MS67 Morgan dollar, regardless of date/MM. Should my 1903-S AU53 outscore your MS67 1879-S in a type set? I don't think so.

 

YMMV.

 

That was my argument exactly. I agree with you that type set collecting for most people is trying to collect one exemplary coin of each type, maximizing strike, luster, grade, etc. But, this change will mean a Morgan 1893-S graded F15 will receive about the same points as an MS67+ 1881-S Morgan dollar. So, as in every other category, the rich will rule the type set category as well as every other in the registry.