Type Set Scores versus Date Scores
2 2

52 posts in this topic

89 posts
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. (shrug)

It seems like the solution may involve creating two different type set categories:

1) High grade type sets - The scores would be determined solely by the grade of the coin, just like the current type sets.

2) Condition rarity type sets - The scores would be the same as for the date sets, thereby giving more points for rarer dates/mintmarks.

 

It seems like creating two different type set categories would make most people happy. What do other people think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
560 posts

I think some kind of compromise is necessary. I like your approach of having 2 different type sets - condition and rarity. This will not discourage people from competing in a type set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,013 posts
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. (shrug)

It seems like the solution may involve creating two different type set categories:

1) High grade type sets - The scores would be determined solely by the grade of the coin, just like the current type sets.

2) Condition rarity type sets - The scores would be the same as for the date sets, thereby giving more points for rarer dates/mintmarks.

 

It seems like creating two different type set categories would make most people happy. What do other people think?

 

I think that's a terrible idea, and introduces unnecessary complication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,196 posts
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. (shrug)

It seems like the solution may involve creating two different type set categories:

1) High grade type sets - The scores would be determined solely by the grade of the coin, just like the current type sets.

2) Condition rarity type sets - The scores would be the same as for the date sets, thereby giving more points for rarer dates/mintmarks.

 

It seems like creating two different type set categories would make most people happy. What do other people think?

 

I think that's a terrible idea, and introduces unnecessary complication.

 

Ultimately, I don't really care which way they decide to "fix" this, but for me a type set means the best example coin of each type I can find. If others want to fill their type sets with beat up "key" coins, then that is their choice. In the 21st Century Type Set, it's a non-issue as there are no real "keys" and the grade scores will win out. Thus, I will likely maintain the #1 spot in the 21st Century Type Sets regardless of the scoring method.

 

I do agree that having one score for a coin across all sets is "easy". That doesn't mean it's relevant. Just because something isn't complicated doesn't mean it's the best choice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
237 posts
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.

 

Well said! This is exactly the point I was trying to make over a year ago towards the end of my journal entry Be careful what you ask for..., and in several earlier posts in this thread.

 

If the ultimate goal is to make it easy, by having one score for a coin regardless of the set it participates in, does that mean that this policy will also be applied to all coins across all sets? Currently, Morgan VAMs receive different scores depending on which Morgan set they participate in not just a Type set difference. When will the single score per coin policy be applied across all sets that Morgan dollars participate in?

 

I still believe that the context in which the coin is viewed should determine the score that it receives in that context. A particular coin should receive a different score in each set that it participates in based on the role that it plays in that set. The role that a Morgan VAM plays in a Type set is significantly different than the role it plays in a "one per year" set or in a VAM Top-100 set.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
560 posts

So, if the decision will be to use different scores for different types of registry sets, will this impact the way World Coin Type sets are working today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,938 posts

FWIW, I think that if a collector goes to the trouble and expense of getting a collector or better date coin to fill a set hole, instead of a widget, that they should in order to get credit for the upgrade in the type set as well. The "feel good" socialism aspect of leveling the playing fields by having single type coin scores for each coin regardless, does not reflect the competitive concept of giving points to registry sets for competitive coins or sets at all. It is like you do give points but only some to type collectors?

 

Registry sets mean different things to different people, just read the reasons why people use them. Why quibble about giving full points for each coin the same as would be given in a standard set. I never did buy into the illogical of having two scores because you choose a collector coin instead of a type coin. The coin ought to be what it can be! There is no unintended consequence, only honesty!

 

To me, on a fixed income now, money matters. The days are long gone when I can buy two coins of the same denomination to use one as a cheaper surrogate solely in a type set. Every coin that I buy is the best that my budget can afford.

 

I thought this topic was going to be implemented across the board and have been waiting for it? I have always felt this way about buying superfluous coins just for type coins. Most of the US coins which I own now are in more than one set. However, I will not get very excited if this decision drops any of my sets in the Registry because, gaming registry sets, is only for players not for collectors.

Edited by Oldtrader3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,742 posts

One problem with this is that it’s going to down grade one of the goals of type collecting, and that is to get the highest grade coin you can afford to represent a particular design. I could see were a guy shows up with a bunch of rare dates in mediocre condition and knocks out a type collector with high grade, common date pieces. I could also see where this rare date type collection could be far from completion and knock out type sets that are 90% or more complete.

 

If you do this I think you need to revise the registry points for the really rare type coins. This would include the pieces like the 1796-7 half dollar, the Chain cents and the 1796 quarter to name a few. In the gold series, any early U.S. gold coin from 1795 to August 1834 (before the Classic Head coins) should get more points.

 

Some guys in the past, like Leland Rogers, made up a type set of key dates in the top conditions. A set like that would be unbeatable for a collector such as I, and I bow to their superiority. (worship) BUT a type set made up of middling grade key date coins, is not a set that many of us who have been at this for years really admire.

 

I know that this is a minority view, but I decided to express it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,938 posts

Both arguments have their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe the original set criteria for some level (top 3 or 5?) sets to be 50% complete as were the rules here 11 years ago? I am pretty sure that there most likely is not a simple response that will make everyone happy.

 

Maybe they need open classes of collectors, like in sailboat races? So a sail dingy does not compete with an America's Cup racer? I am not going to quit the NGC registry or board over it in any case. I just wanted some follow through on prior commitments made. I, by choice, am not even a type registry competing member on the sets that I now have. Maybe that fact does not entitle me to an opinion because I am more emeritis then participative at my age but I am somewhat OCD as well.

 

Plus, my sets are fully photographed (nearly) and have writeups, even if no one else cares that I do actually usually have a Number one set buried somewhere.

Edited by Oldtrader3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,196 posts
One problem with this is that it’s going to down grade one of the goals of type collecting, and that is to get the highest grade coin you can afford to represent a particular design. I could see were a guy shows up with a bunch of rare dates in mediocre condition and knocks out a type collector with high grade, common date pieces. I could also see where this rare date type collection could be far from completion and knock out type sets that are 90% or more complete.

 

If you do this I think you need to revise the registry points for the really rare type coins. This would include the pieces like the 1796-7 half dollar, the Chain cents and the 1796 quarter to name a few. In the gold series, any early U.S. gold coin from 1795 to August 1834 (before the Classic Head coins) should get more points.

 

Some guys in the past, like Leland Rogers, made up a type set of key dates in the top conditions. A set like that would be unbeatable for a collector such as I, and I bow to their superiority. (worship) BUT a type set made up of middling grade key date coins, is not a set that many of us who have been at this for years really admire.

 

I know that this is a minority view, but I decided to express it.

 

I agree with Bill's view 100%, and I have expressed my concerns very early on in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,938 posts

Whatever floats a particular collector's boat, I guess. What do dealers do with lower grade key dates? I think the answer is that they sell them to collectors like me, for what that is worth. Nobody who collects these is gaming the registry because they do not garner anywhere near the points that a moderm PF70UCAM widget does. Some of my ($7 raw) proof Ike's get more registry points than some of these 150 year old, classic coins do.

 

However, being practical as always, I too have seen dealer's eyes hood and see their surpressed yawns under their hand when I even mention looking for this stuff. I hear you Bill, but I have never had a dealer refuse my money for one of these booring (to some) coins.

 

I have come full circle from where I started 48 years ago. I started by collecting mostly older, classic collector coins which held an interest for me. I converted the largest bulk of my coin holdings over to savings years ago, when my kids needed college tuition. Now I collect what I want.

 

May each be able to find and fulfill his/her own needs in this hobby.

Edited by Oldtrader3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,938 posts

We have met the enemy and they were not us after all! All of the effects of type scoring change and speculation is now over. The transition of type to regular set scoring went smoothly for most part, I think. The order and logic of the world did not collapse or even change much that I can see? It surely did not change my life in any really substantive manner, except I am more pleased with the new scores more closely representing value is now more appreciated in better reflected scores.

 

I feel more vindicated score-wise and not certainly in a bad way, just happier that this was done. It is discouraging to have an $8 Ike proof be worth more than a AU55 WLH which I paid more than $300 for. I realise that the Registry is front loaded for maximum collector participation and registry participation and interest. After 10 years of Registry participation, I am ok with all of this and just happy to see some progress toward classical coin scoring realities as they pertain to cost, time spent in acquisition and the points that they get in return.

 

Thank you for listening to the rank and file member's concerns.

 

Arch, you were pretty reserved about this commitment and expressed a strong opinion about "be careful what you ask for" concerns. How do you perceive this change now that it is post-implementation and the ripple effect now seems to have not been a Tsunami but more of a ripple, stated as a concern (IMHO of course)?

Edited by Oldtrader3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,196 posts
We have met the enemy and they were not us after all! All of the effects of type scoring change and speculation is now over. The transition of type to regular set scoring went smoothly for most part, I think. The order and logic of the world did not collapse or even change much that I can see? It surely did not change my life in any really substantive manner, except I am more pleased with the new scores more closely representing value is now more appreciated in better reflected scores.

 

I feel more vindicated score-wise and not certainly in a bad way, just happier that this was done. It is discouraging to have an $8 Ike proof be worth more than a AU55 WLH which I paid more than $300 for. I realise that the Registry is front loaded for maximum collector participation and registry participation and interest. After 10 years of Registry participation, I am ok with all of this and just happy to see some progress toward classical coin scoring realities as they pertain to cost, time spent in acquisition and the points that they get in return.

 

Thank you for listening to the rank and file member's concerns.

 

Arch, you were pretty reserved about this commitment and expressed a strong opinion about "be careful what you ask for" concerns. How do you perceive this change now that it is post-implementation and the ripple effect now seems to have not been a Tsunami but more of a ripple, stated as a concern (IMHO of course)?

 

What are you talking about? This change has not taken effect. I still have coins in type sets worth different that they are worth in series sets. Maybe they are rolling it out piece-meal over series? But, they certainly didn't make this change as they said they were going to do back in January (3+ months ago!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
498 posts
We have met the enemy and they were not us after all! All of the effects of type scoring change and speculation is now over. The transition of type to regular set scoring went smoothly for most part, I think. The order and logic of the world did not collapse or even change much that I can see? It surely did not change my life in any really substantive manner, except I am more pleased with the new scores more closely representing value is now more appreciated in better reflected scores.

 

I feel more vindicated score-wise and not certainly in a bad way, just happier that this was done. It is discouraging to have an $8 Ike proof be worth more than a AU55 WLH which I paid more than $300 for. I realise that the Registry is front loaded for maximum collector participation and registry participation and interest. After 10 years of Registry participation, I am ok with all of this and just happy to see some progress toward classical coin scoring realities as they pertain to cost, time spent in acquisition and the points that they get in return.

 

Thank you for listening to the rank and file member's concerns.

 

Arch, you were pretty reserved about this commitment and expressed a strong opinion about "be careful what you ask for" concerns. How do you perceive this change now that it is post-implementation and the ripple effect now seems to have not been a Tsunami but more of a ripple, stated as a concern (IMHO of course)?

 

I haven't noticed changes like that either. I did see the changes related to AU coins, but nothing making classic coin points higher than modern coin points. Then again, now that I have most of the modern coins in my type set, I am not sure I want to change the game at this point. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,938 posts

I thought that type scopes for higher denomination gold coins in type sets (e.g. 18th Centry Type Set) were going to be adjusted so that the scores for the individual coin were going to be used in type sets as well. I notice that this was upgraded for AU coins but not for MS coins. Is this really a separate issue? I thought that we had agreement in principle that the better coins were going to get higher grades in Type Sets across the board, not just AU?

Edited by Oldtrader3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,742 posts

Yes, that change has not happened, not that I want it happen. I have an 1838-D half eagle in MS-63 in my type coin slot, it's still scored the same as an 1834 in MS-63 would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,742 posts

I for one, think each coin should have the same score regardless of date or type set.

 

 

If you were a type collector, you would not agree with that statement. The object of type collecting is to locate the finest preserved and in some cases struck, (made) example of a design or type that you can afford. If you let down the flood gates and give people high registry scores for ciruclated key date coins in the type slots, those of us who are dedicated type collectors will be pushed to secondary areas of the rankings. This policy would be totally contrary to the long held goal of the building a type set with high grade coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 posts

I think you misunderstood me Bill. And I totally agree with you.

 

Right now though, some of my coins with high regisry points in a date set are showing a different, and much less points, in the type set registry sets.

 

I want these coins to have the same points no matter what registry sets they are in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 posts

This change is ridiculous. Not everyone wants a low grade example of a rare coin. This change does nothing but lower the value of high grade examples of common date coins and push more big bucks to the pockets of those with the rare date coins. This change does nothing to expand the hobby. Max I think you guys need to rethink this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
89 posts
This change is ridiculous. Not everyone wants a low grade example of a rare coin. This change does nothing but lower the value of high grade examples of common date coins and push more big bucks to the pockets of those with the rare date coins. This change does nothing to expand the hobby. Max I think you guys need to rethink this one.

 

One of the great aspects of coin collecting is that there are so many different ways that one can form a collection and I think that NGC has done a great job so far of facilitating different collecting styles. While you may prefer high grade examples of common date coins, I much prefer AU grades of rare coins. Neither one of these collecting philosophies is "ridiculous" and they both have their merits. In fact, in Jeff Garrett's latest article he states that "One collector that I have known for years liked the idea, but took it one step further. He decided to buy one of every major type of United States coinage, but would only buy the rarest coins for the Type. His theory was that as the hobby grew, there would be increased demand for the “key” dates of each series. He was right! This style of collecting has been very successful as he has seen his collection grow substantially in value over the years."

 

Why not just have two different type set categories like I previously described earlier in this thread. The issue of how to score type coins seems to be important to a large number of people since there have been 3441 views of this thread so far.

Edited by Desert Gold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,938 posts

I absolutely agree with both Bill and with Desert Gold. I would always prefer a rare AU or even XF coin in lieu of a common date MS coin. I guess this is a bona fide difference between collectors and accumulators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2