LOL! What is the point? posted by Augustus
0

36 posts in this topic

3,247 posts

Why keep doing this?

 

Can't seem to understand why certain sets are continually dramatically reduced in points value on the registry. One of the rarer coins in Canadian circulation coinage is 1955 NSF 1 cent coin. An NGC top pop issue is now worth a whopping 72 points. Whereas new MCM releases seem to receive 1000 points, even though 60-70% of their releases are grading PF70. I don't see the point in spending all this time and money creating a registry for users, if you are constantly going to change the rules (PCGS inclusions, points, set names, types, interface, etc). Anyway, from a user's standpoint it feels a little disappointing and takes a lot of the fun away.

 

Have a great day. 2016 will be my last year on here, as mentioned in my previous journal. Josh

17515.jpg

 

See more journals by Augustus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts

There was another thread in CS Journals discussing the changing point structure, this time in the context of US Presidential dollars.

 

In my opinion, the points awarded for coins like those Canadian NCLT are vastly excessive. There are plenty of actually scarce or even rare coins whose points are either less or not remotely reflective of their scarcity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78 posts

Anything that discourages customer participation/engagement is bad for business, bad for the registry and bad for the hobby/investment. There was a time not too long ago where registry journals had well over 1000 reads, now it is often 100 or so. That is a dramatic reduction in engagement.

Look, the registry is a wonderful tool. Whether one admits it or not, registry points can affect a coin's desirability in the open market which is reflective in price. If someone has invested 100s of thousands of dollars in rare coins, it will be in their interest to protect their investment. If desirability continually decreases, or the hobbyist/investor no longer feels engaged, they will put their money elsewhere.

I see the registry, and the massive database behind it as an opportunity in many aspects. One could create a sight unseen market, similar to a stock market, where coins are traded on a live platform. You could deposit the registry number in your account, and make money on the fluctuating price. The platform operator could generate commissions in the bid/ask spread.

Alternatively, a rare coin hedge fund could be constructed using registry numbers owned by the fund. Investors could buy shares in the fund. This is not unlike a gold or silver ETF.

Definite expansion of our hobby/market share is possible, but I think NGC should not discourage customer participation, especially since the platform is so well constructed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 posts

I have to be honest, I have never paid as much attention to specific coin scores as I have to my Registry Set total scores. I see point adjustments now and then and have chalked it up to changes in the number of coins getting a 70 grade or the increase in the population total of that coin that has been submitted. I'm assuming there is an objective, not subjective, approach in assigning the points for a specific coin. Some formula that takes into account total mintage population, number submitted for grading, number grading 70 vs 69 vs 68, etc., otherwise the points would have no meaning and relevance at all. ComeToCanadaNGC makes an important point in that the points given to a coin will affect the desirability in the open market and will be reflective in the price collector's are willing to pay for it. That may not be the case for the collector who doesn't bother with the Registry and only collects coins for the fun of collecting.

Just curious Josh, did you ask about the huge reduction in points in your set above and why it happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,220 posts

If you're only collecting coins so you can compete in these "artificial" arenas, then you may want to consider whether you're in the right hobby. I have read so many complaints about how the registry is doing this or that wrong -- but who cares honestly? Are you collecting coins or are you collecting registry points? (shrug)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts
Anything that discourages customer participation/engagement is bad for business, bad for the registry and bad for the hobby/investment. There was a time not too long ago where registry journals had well over 1000 reads, now it is often 100 or so. That is a dramatic reduction in engagement.

Look, the registry is a wonderful tool. Whether one admits it or not, registry points can affect a coin's desirability in the open market which is reflective in price. If someone has invested 100s of thousands of dollars in rare coins, it will be in their interest to protect their investment. If desirability continually decreases, or the hobbyist/investor no longer feels engaged, they will put their money elsewhere.

I see the registry, and the massive database behind it as an opportunity in many aspects. One could create a sight unseen market, similar to a stock market, where coins are traded on a live platform. You could deposit the registry number in your account, and make money on the fluctuating price. The platform operator could generate commissions in the bid/ask spread.

Alternatively, a rare coin hedge fund could be constructed using registry numbers owned by the fund. Investors could buy shares in the fund. This is not unlike a gold or silver ETF.

Definite expansion of our hobby/market share is possible, but I think NGC should not discourage customer participation, especially since the platform is so well constructed.

 

Your comments on the registry do not reflect how most collectors actually collect.

 

The only sight unseen market that will ever exist is for "widgets", whether for NCLT or common generics such as Morgan dollars and US type gold.

 

As far as your comments on how registry points impact collector perception, same thing. If this is true, it is predominantly for collectors of NCLT and high grade moderns. The posts I have read with the biggest complaints are by the collectors of these coins. I have on occasion read comment by those who collect other series but from the content of their other posts. there isn't any reason to believe its particularly important to them.

 

The registry is a marketing tool, nothing else. Placing first in one of the innumerable set categories isn't much of a real accomplishment anyway. The largest number of participants are in the most common series where anyone with the money can buy their ranking and where they cannot place first, there is no substantive difference between the quality of the coins either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
422 posts

I find the registry points to be meaningless to my collection goals. I do however feel they should be fair in how they give them out. I have noticed that if there is a specific rare coin that there is only 1 of and it has never been on the registry then it may not even have a point value for it. Or, it may have very low points compared to inferior coins. A simple email usually fixes that issue.

 

I have more issues with the FMV including PCGS coins and for some issues the difference between PCGS and NGC values are staggering. Take for example the 1974 10c PF70UC. This coin has never existed in NGC plastic until this year. The man who made all that exist basically just charged as much as the suckers (I mean buyers) would pay. I am one of those (suckers)buyers. The price listed on the registry is far lower than what they actually sold for.

 

It is listed at $375 which is expensive if you are buying it in PCGS plastic. In NGC plastic it is really low.

 

Back to points. As long as they are fair within a coin series then who cares. I just want to have more points because I have better coins. I don't want a 69 to receive more points than a 70. I have no problems unless I see that happening.

 

So if they suddenly lower all the scores within a series but they are still giving more points to the better coins then all is still right in the world. I plan on keeping my coins for the long term and don't look at them as a short-term investment, even though I have sold some for profit.

 

Does anyone agree with me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348 posts

I agree that, in general, the points within a series need to be consistent with the relative scarcity of the coins within that series, and the actual point numbers should not matter outside of the series. One place where this breaks down is year sets, which include different denominations with wildly inconsistent variations between denominations. Case in point; the 1947 Mint set, where Roosevelt dimes in MS-67FT, with dozens of examples graded, were awarded well over 1000 points while MS-67FS Jefferson nickels with populations of 5 or so were awarded less than 200 points. Not a problem within the respective series, but really skews the numbers in year sets (the points for FS Jeffersons were modified a couple of years ago, and this isn't as much of an issue as it once was).

 

Still, Registry points don't enter into my thought process in building my collection, they are just a by-product of bulding and dsplaying sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78 posts

You had 5 major collectors of Canadian NCLT on the registry. I mean the really strong buyers that are picking up $5,000 to $10,000 a month in NGC coins. Martens, Dan Hughes, Jormaka, Augustus, Rochester Collection. 4 of them are no longer registry active/competitive.

 

Further to that, and to anyone saying that points/registry doesn't have any effect ... Several major dealers use the registry to fill holes in the sets of these big shot collectors. Liberty Coin, MCM, Colonial Acres, First Modern Coins, and E_Coins. I have personally seen these collectors pay insane amounts of money to acquire modern NCLT in PF70 grade, at great profit to the dealers. So here you buyers that are strong enough to have 5 or more companies catering to the registry needs. I think these collectors are very healthy for the hobby going forward, and honestly, as the grow frustrated or disinterested, I do not see any other strong and interested buyers like this coming in to fill their shoes.

 

Hard to dismiss their frustrations when they spend more in a month on coins than most here do in a year or two. Jmho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts

Yes, but every post here is still referring to NCLT or other moderns. I haven't seen any other coin mentioned.

 

This was the point of my last post. It's important to some of these collectors but disproportionately not to anyone else. I am aware that there are a very low number of collectors who "pay up" for these sets and the ranking. From a financial standpoint, I know this is going to be a losing proposition longer term and the reason is because it should be apparent that having enough money is the primary obstacle to achieving the desired set ranking. This doesn't exactly generate much longer term interest and there isn't any reason to be believe it will either.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,003 posts

Registry sets are fun and are a nice way to show off your collection and compete with fellow enthusiasts but they do not drive my purchases.

 

There are many ways that the sets are 'not weighted properly' or are 'skewed' but as long as all the sets are the same, then everyone is being treated fairly and consistently.

 

There is also the 'NGC Registry Forum' where scoring problems are addressed and solved. I have found Ali E. (who runs the Registry) to be very helpful & friendly and she is just a mouse click or a phone call away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75 posts

Personally, I have a bunch of points but I don't buy coins by the number of points they garner. I use the number of points to give me an idea about the rarity of the coin relative to the series. For instance, I have 2 Capped Bust Half Dollars I am considering, one is an AU55 and the other is an AU53 for a different year. Seeing the points that each get do help me get an idea of its rarity. Combined with the census and historical auction prices generally complete the analysis on which to buy. That does not account of eye appeal though.

Edited by Yevrah1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
There was another thread in CS Journals discussing the changing point structure, this time in the context of US Presidential dollars.

 

In my opinion, the points awarded for coins like those Canadian NCLT are vastly excessive. There are plenty of actually scarce or even rare coins whose points are either less or not remotely reflective of their scarcity.

 

Hey WC, I have to agree with you. I just started a mint state type set and already have run into huge anomalies where a common coin with a large pop has a lot more points than a truly rare one. It makes one wonder who's plugging the numbers- is there a monkey in charge, or are they all monkies? I don't mean to disrespect anyone personally, but come on, someone has got to be called to account for the crazy point structure. I could point out ten different obvious contradictions in the points given just in the one set and I just started it, but I just completed (nearly anyway) the long date/mint set of liberty half eagles and it has the same discrepancies. I did get them to change a couple early on in that set but gave up when I saw how bad it really is. Since then I've had correspondence with the reps at NGC but nothing came of it. As far as I'm concerned- I am not buying points or standings, I am assembling a difficult set because I love collecting, so while confusing and aggravating, no biggie here. On the other hand, I can see the complaint of the poster, he is correct- why change the rules in the middle of the game, and who gets to add coins to a 'set'? They shouldnt add ANY coins other than the regular issues, varieties shouldn't even be considered imho...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts

Like I and others have stated, it is predominantly marketing. In the instance of NCLT, it is disproportionately a "money" grab" because most of the coins have nothing to distinguish them and when I make this comment, I am not referring to their mintage or their supposed scarcity. I am referring to the themes.

 

For the US modern commemorative series, the US Mint keeps churning out multiple different coins for different themes practically every year. The most ridiculous one I have heard of (assuming it is legitimate) is the pink colored coin planned for Breast Cancer. Worthy cause? Sure. Does it merit a coin? Not in my opinion because there are an innumerable number of causes that are equally worthy and all of them don't deserve one either. The US Mint has issued commemoratives (practically) every year since 1986 and there is no end in sight to this numismatic mediocrity..

 

Some say why should anyone care but then others complain about the price dilution in the secondary market. There are so many of these coins with so many more to come that I expect most of these coins to lose most of their premiums to spot decades from now, regardless of how "scarce". Many of the gold already have now.

 

The RCM is even worse, much worse. I recall reading here that recently 20 coins per year (at least) have been issued in one series and this where I presume these references to spending $5 to $10k per year originate. I expect these coins to perform even worse financially than their US Mint counterparts.

 

Decades from now, the overwhelming percentage of these coins will be mostly forgotten, lost in obscurity. The growing size and cost will make it financially impossible for the target buyers/collector base to afford keeping a never ending series current and most of them won't remotely be compelling enough in isolation either..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,216 posts

Good Morning, LuckyOne.

The last and only score correction request we have on file from you is dated March 2015. If we inadvertently missed a communication from you, we apologize. If you have a score request, please email us the exact NGC Registry Set name and coins in question to registry@ngccoin.com. We are happy to look at it. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
Good Morning, LuckyOne.

The last and only score correction request we have on file from you is dated March 2015. If we inadvertently missed a communication from you, we apologize. If you have a score request, please email us the exact NGC Registry Set name and coins in question to registry@ngccoin.com. We are happy to look at it. Thank you.

 

Hi Ali, thanks for reaching out. As I said in my emails to you, I have no dog in this fight- I collect purely for pleasure and points matter not in the scheme of collecting. The problem is that too many just don't fit the pattern of scores NGC has compiled, and I believe a comprehensive review of each series, possibly with the help of collector-volunteers to lighten such a huge burden, would be in order, especially in light of how many people bring it up in the public forums. Granted, the scores are the same for everyone involved, but they're still grossly inaccurate in enough areas that the complaints won't go away in my humble opinion, and they'll likely get louder.

 

I also want to say publicly so that no one reading this misconstrues- you have been a wonderful liason and always quick to help and get things done, and if you worked for me, you'd get a raise regularly. Thank you for your help, it is much appreciated and so are you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
Like I and others have stated, it is predominantly marketing. In the instance of NCLT, it is disproportionately a "money" grab" because most of the coins have nothing to distinguish them and when I make this comment, I am not referring to their mintage or their supposed scarcity. I am referring to the themes.

 

For the US modern commemorative series, the US Mint keeps churning out multiple different coins for different themes practically every year. The most ridiculous one I have heard of (assuming it is legitimate) is the pink colored coin planned for Breast Cancer. Worthy cause? Sure. Does it merit a coin? Not in my opinion because there are an innumerable number of causes that are equally worthy and all of them don't deserve one either. The US Mint has issued commemoratives (practically) every year since 1986 and there is no end in sight to this numismatic mediocrity..

 

Some say why should anyone care but then others complain about the price dilution in the secondary market. There are so many of these coins with so many more to come that I expect most of these coins to lose most of their premiums to spot decades from now, regardless of how "scarce". Many of the gold already have now.

 

The RCM is even worse, much worse. I recall reading here that recently 20 coins per year (at least) have been issued in one series and this where I presume these references to spending $5 to $10k per year originate. I expect these coins to perform even worse financially than their US Mint counterparts.

 

Decades from now, the overwhelming percentage of these coins will be mostly forgotten, lost in obscurity. The growing size and cost will make it financially impossible for the target buyers/collector base to afford keeping a never ending series current and most of them won't remotely be compelling enough in isolation either..

 

Again, I agree with everything you said, we think alike. I have been collecting seriously since 1965 and have seen a lot in my collecting career. I remember Canadian silver/gold sets selling for less than melt at a couple different times over the years so they obviously aren't worth their weight in precious metals at times no matter how limited the mintage, so I don't understand why so many people are suckered into so much of the mass produced, under-talent designs that are hoist upon us year after year. What I do know is who runs the world's mints today, and it isn't the gov't. I don't know how many people reading this has heard of the term 'revolving door', but it applies to the in and out of govt and supercorporation employ, and it is obvious that the mint is now being treated as a for-profit business when it was intended to mint legal tender coinage. But then again, what would we expect when we allowed the fools to take us off the gold standard, sell off our massive national stockpiles of gold and silver, and devalue the dollar via fiat printing? Money is no longer 'real', as in if you had a wheel barrow full of coins, they wouldn't be worth the weight of the base metals in them, so what else do you do but staff the mint with corporate minded employees and tell them to have at it. You see what we got- 30 years of some of the silliest trash imaginable. And most of it ain't worth a plugged nickel and never will be, over melt that is...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts

Yes, I concur.

 

To go back to the original post, the change in the registry set points is a minor problem compared to the one we both described. TPG's reducing registry points is trivial compared to the flooding of the market by world mints issuing coins that are disproportionately no more than trinkets which are mostly collected because they are "legal tender".

 

I believe there would be a lot more longer term collector interest in NCLT if mints would limit themselves to a lower number of coins which have more substance. What that might be is a matter of opinion, but it sure isn't what exists now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78 posts

Yes, Mints flooding the market with new issues every few weeks is a massive problem unto itself. I agree with that whole-heartedly, but it does not negate the other points raised here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts

No, it does not.

 

The reason I raised these other points is because the issue (raised here once again) seems to be from the financial standpoint where the reduction in number of registry points either adversely or supposedly adversely impacts the market value. What I am telling those who hold this view is that its the equivalent of looking at the mole hill instead of the mountain.

 

If its really only about the collecting aspect, its overblown because NCLT and modern set collectors seem to have the biggest problem with it. But as usual, I suspect that it isn't. My advice to those who collect these sets and get bent out of shape with the registry point system is to rethink why they collect it. I'm about as positive as I can be that these sets at any substantial outlay are going to be almost guaranteed huge (proportionate) long term money losers and somehow, I don't think that fixing the point system is going to make them any happier about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
Yes, I concur.

 

To go back to the original post, the change in the registry set points is a minor problem compared to the one we both described. TPG's reducing registry points is trivial compared to the flooding of the market by world mints issuing coins that are disproportionately no more than trinkets which are mostly collected because they are "legal tender".

 

I believe there would be a lot more longer term collector interest in NCLT if mints would limit themselves to a lower number of coins which have more substance. What that might be is a matter of opinion, but it sure isn't what exists now.

 

I personally think they buy them mainly because they're told they are low mintage and will be rare one day. The logic escapes me though- how can something that is made perfectly and placed in verrrry protective packaging in large quantities be 'rare' ever when most will survive in perfect condition? 10,000 is a large mintage when no one will even remember it was issued next year because of the flood you mentioned from everywhere imaginable- a thousand 10,000 mintage issues is a LOT of unknown and unwanted coins down the road. But I do think that the average buyer of this stuff thinks. Mass produced objects do not go up in value, look at the Franklin Mint items or the collector plate market or any other mass produced collectible and you can see just how un-rare they are priced today...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
No, it does not.

 

The reason I raised these other points is because the issue (raised here once again) seems to be from the financial standpoint where the reduction in number of registry points either adversely or supposedly adversely impacts the market value. What I am telling those who hold this view is that its the equivalent of looking at the mole hill instead of the mountain.

 

If its really only about the collecting aspect, its overblown because NCLT and modern set collectors seem to have the biggest problem with it. But as usual, I suspect that it isn't. My advice to those who collect these sets and get bent out of shape with the registry point system is to rethink why they collect it. I'm about as positive as I can be that these sets at any substantial outlay are going to be almost guaranteed huge (proportionate) long term money losers and somehow, I don't think that fixing the point system is going to make them any happier about it.

 

I agree- the points were reduced likely because the reduced series were comparatively too common to deserve the point structure. Or maybe they're just as crazy here as the gubmint, I don't know. (no insult intended, just tongue in cheek) Those who say it will affect the market are those who bought into the supposed rarity and are heavily invested in them. I don't know what happened, but in the old days when I learned the hobby and how to wheel and deal, you put a simple grade and price on it and when two parties agreed, the coin changed hands. No fancy holders, no special labels or stickers or opinion upon opinion upon opinion- you KNEW what you were doing before you went in deep, and if you didn't, you lost big time most of the time. To blame NGC *or* the market is mental laziness. I'd tell them to figure it out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts

 

...Decades from now, the overwhelming percentage of these coins will be mostly forgotten, lost in obscurity. The growing size and cost will make it financially impossible for the target buyers/collector base to afford keeping a never ending series current and most of them won't remotely be compelling enough in isolation either..

 

 

yes sir, and history proves it. The only difference between this era and the last is that back then, you paid your money and got a bullion coin worth real money. Now you get 'real money' made out of base metal and worth less than it's cost of manufacture, so the losses are built in when you buy them, never to be recouped... sad

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78 posts

So the original post was 'what is the point?'. Meaning what was the point of reducing all the points in the series by 80%? Further to that, this is not an NCLT set. It is the Canada Circulated 1 cent series, which was officially removed from circulation in 2012.

 

You guys are on an NCLT tangent, which although valid, hasn't much to do with the original post. As was asked by many other poster's, why does NGC feel that it is necessary to reduce a set by over 80% in points value in one fell swoop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,738 posts

The point is that the newer released modern coins have hit an overload in high grades. Therefor the rarity of such coins is behind us and the actual drop in points shows it. I think that is a great move on NGC points as to not make a new collector think they are actually investing in a rare collection.

The registry is fun BUT --- some folks really take the points to heart. Learning early on that your coins are not rare and holding 1000's of points is actually a future money saver in a way.

 

I have over 1000 graded coins. I enjoy collecting for sure.

 

POINTS ??? ---- Who Cares!! :grin:

 

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts

you got it right but save it Rick, some people just refuse to see it as a valid reason because they're now stuck holding the bag...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,118 posts
you got it right but save it Rick, some people just refuse to see it as a valid reason because they're now stuck holding the bag...

 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,003 posts

....This is why I don't fool with moderns.

 

Mass produced and saved and not tough to find even in 'perfect' or 'near perfect' condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
....This is why I don't fool with moderns.

 

Mass produced and saved and not tough to find even in 'perfect' or 'near perfect' condition.

 

agreed. We have our granddaughter visiting right now and she's interested in coins so I pulled out a box full of treasury issued mint sets from 1960 to beyond 2000 that I had removed the quarters from for my gem set, and as she looked at them, I started noticing how many would grade very high, as in MS68 & MS69. In the last debate I stuck my nose into out here about the relative rarity of moderns I told the gentleman I probably had a bunch of clad stuff in superb gem condition. Now I know I do, but it wasn't these I was thinking of, so just think about how many people purchased sealed mint sets that haven't seen the light of day since. As for my little gems, I wonder if NGC or PCGS ever does promos for moderns? I'm curious how many of these I could get into high grade slabs... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0