NGC graded coins ONLY in Registry Sets (US and World) 0

[david3142]

I am not a fan of this decision either. I have two registry sets here and both have a mix of NGC and PCGS coins. While I never expected to compete for the top of the heap in Morgan Dollars, I am competitive with my 20th century type set. I won't ever complete either now, because I have no intention of crossing coins to just one service.

 

I have a registry set at PCGS as well, but I don't keep up with that one as well because I have too many NGC coins and it is annoying to keep up two inventories.

 

I love the feeling of completing a set and I enjoy updating my registry sets with each coin I add. On the plus side, I am no longer bound by the set definitions provided by our host. This frees me from buying two 1879-CCs, and perhaps some overdate varieties which are not that important to me (1887/6-O). I can now define the set how I choose and I can look more closely at ANACS coins as well.

 

So now neither of my registry sets will be complete and I will probably lose interest in both. This is unfortunate because my coins won't be as easily accessible to others and I enjoyed being able to easily share my sets with people.

 

I agree that PCGS has been less consistent lately and some toned coins have been bumped too much. That said, coins still bring more money in PCGS holders because there are enough Kool-Aid drinkers that will only buy PCGS coins. I know very few people that feel the opposite way. As long as that is true, it would be silly to cross to NGC and risk a lower grade.

 

[bsshog40]

None of my registries will ever be in the award category, so that doesn't bother me. Most of my registry coins are already ngc, but I do have a few in pcgs as I collect what I feel are the better coins for my money. I like the idea of the registry mainly as a database of those coins, but like others, feel now I won't be able to show completed sets as I can't afford 2 slabs as for the coin I want and the slab ngc wants. Oh well, it's their show and they can do what they want with it. Really doesn't hurt me that much, will probably just wein me from the registry altogether.

[Mohawk]

I am not a fan of this decision either. I have two registry sets here and both have a mix of NGC and PCGS coins. While I never expected to compete for the top of the heap in Morgan Dollars, I am competitive with my 20th century type set. I won't ever complete either now, because I have no intention of crossing coins to just one service.

 

I have a registry set at PCGS as well, but I don't keep up with that one as well because I have too many NGC coins and it is annoying to keep up two inventories.

 

I love the feeling of completing a set and I enjoy updating my registry sets with each coin I add. On the plus side, I am no longer bound by the set definitions provided by our host. This frees me from buying two 1879-CCs, and perhaps some overdate varieties which are not that important to me (1887/6-O). I can now define the set how I choose and I can look more closely at ANACS coins as well.

 

So now neither of my registry sets will be complete and I will probably lose interest in both. This is unfortunate because my coins won't be as easily accessible to others and I enjoyed being able to easily share my sets with people.

 

I agree that PCGS has been less consistent lately and some toned coins have been bumped too much. That said, coins still bring more money in PCGS holders because there are enough Kool-Aid drinkers that will only buy PCGS coins. I know very few people that feel the opposite way. As long as that is true, it would be silly to cross to NGC and risk a lower grade.

 

I feel the opposite way. No PCGS for me. Ever.

[rmw]

From what I read today, any PCGS coins in current registry sets are grandfathered. So anyone thinking of having to sell existing PCGS coins their current registry sets might be jumping the gun a bit depending on what their objective is (assuming my understanding is right).

[david3142]

I feel the opposite way. No PCGS for me. Ever.

 

This seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Why wouldn't you buy the coin? If you don't like the holder, then cross it. I would still buy nice coins raw or in other holders but grade/cross them before selling (if not beforehand for convenience).

 

Also, I am aware my current PCGS coins are grandfathered in but my sets have a lot holes and I am likely going to be filling many of them with PCGS coins.

[Mohawk]

Good question. The answer is that for what I collect (Ottoman Empire mainly, with some German and other European coins) PCGS grading just isn't very good. And the crossing issue.....that never ends well with those coins. They always downgrade here at NGC. It's an absolute nightmare.

 

For you US guys, I imagine it might be different.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Mohawk

[Lablover]

I agree with the decision, with some reservation.

 

If it's true (some) PCGS coins are over-graded in NGC's opinion, then why allow any PCGS coins in the Registry? Let's say I have an MS67FT in NGC, but another set has a PCGS MS67+FB. They get more points than mine, but their coin would/could not meet NGC's FT designation. There is a difference between the designations. Or, the Plus.

 

Does that seem fair?

 

My all NGC set takes a step back while the set w/PCGS coins grand-fathered in gains benefit. Perhaps we should provide Bonus Points to those sets with all NGC coins vs. mixed sets.

 

Oh, and by the way, my NGC Registry Set has never had any PCGS coins. It's 100% NGC, and always will be.

 

Just saying...

Edited November 11, 2016 by Lablover

[Yankeejose]

I too fall into the extremely disappointed but not that surprised category. My collection is probably 60-65% NGC. I buy the best coin at the best price with my fairly limited funds. I know I will never compete for a number 1 set- that was not my goal. My goal was to complete sets with coins that fall into a consistent appearance and grade range. It took me 6 years to complete my 32-98 proof and business strike quarter set. The feeling of joy and sense of accomplishment are still hard to describe. Being limited to only NGC coins makes it much less likely I will get that feeling again- although it could be done. As others have said I don’t want the need for a particular name on the holder to be part of my decision to buy a coin.

I am thankful to NGC for the grandfather clause so I can still enjoy what I have accomplished to this point. I just don’t see that I will be going into the registry as often as I have been. I am wondering if the next time I buy an NGC coin would I even bother to add it to my registry. The registry will not have my complete collection anymore. Maybe I will need to look at how to do custom sets going forward.

 

[coinman_23885]

What exactly does NGC gain from the decision? If the issue is that some people were only interested in NGC only sets, then there was a filter for it. The only thing I can think of is that NGC may have become tired of manually verifying the PCGS certification numbers, which I could understand.

[leeg]

Since I'm all about the coin and not the holder this change has no effect on my collecting habits.

 

I used the Registry just as a source to place my coins mainly for inventory purposes. I knew I would never reach the top in any set so no big deal for me.

 

Enjoy your coins.

 

[Jaggy]

Good question. The answer is that for what I collect (Ottoman Empire mainly, with some German and other European coins) PCGS grading just isn't very good. And the crossing issue.....that never ends well with those coins. They always downgrade here at NGC. It's an absolute nightmare.

 

For you US guys, I imagine it might be different.

 

Agree on PCGS. I bought a PCGS slabbed UK coin (MS65). It was horribly misattributed; they got the denomination wrong and the variety wrong. I broke it out of the slab, sent it into NGC with my appreciation of denomination and variety. They agreed and graded it MS66.

 

Until recently, the majority of my coins were 'raw'. I took a decision to move to grading and slabbing and did my research. I chose NGC based on a number of factors. As a collector of UK coins, the ability to display PCGS in registry sets was not one of them. I can still do that in custom sets.

 

I get that some people want to collect registry points and compete in registry sets. But, if it is all about the coins rather than about the competition, then custom sets do the job just as well and, in some respects, better.

[BillJones]

What exactly does NGC gain from the decision? If the issue is that some people were only interested in NGC only sets, then there was a filter for it. The only thing I can think of is that NGC may have become tired of manually verifying the PCGS certification numbers, which I could understand.

 

NGC thinks that it is going to encourage us to by more NGC graded coins. It's not going work with me. I buy the coins I like at the prices that are fair.

 

I have defended NGC against the "PCGS only crowd" for years, and I feel betrayed. I have enjoyed the NGC registry and have spent many hours to make my sets as attractive and educational as I could.

 

In the past NGC showed that its leadership was far more open minded than the executives at PCGS. Now they have stooped to the PCGS level.

 

You have lost my voice, Mr. Salzberg. I will NOT to go out of my way to defend your product again, because you have betrayed me. This decision stinks, and if you have any sense, you will rescind it

 

[CSdot]

NGC currently has a feature that allows users to view the registry as (1) NGC only, or (2) all coins. One solution NGC might consider is reversing the default so the "NGC only" setting is the default setting, and the "NGC only" setting becomes the one used by the moderators in awarding annual Best Set awards. That way collectors can maintain their sets here, but NGC has a legitimate way to reward collectors who exclusively patronize the host's grading service. Additionally, if collectors had a way to see where they would have ranked, there might be the added benefit of encouraging members to cross their coins to NGC for competition purposes.

[asdfgh]

I huge number of registry sets. I buy NGC when I can, however sometimes there are only PCGS coins available for sale. This decision is a real let down. I will most likely just delete my registry sets and go back to just tracking them in my excel as always. I wont be buying any more coins just to compete in the registry. I will use my money else where. This decision will definately not help NGC.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

What exactly does NGC gain from the decision? If the issue is that some people were only interested in NGC only sets, then there was a filter for it. The only thing I can think of is that NGC may have become tired of manually verifying the PCGS certification numbers, which I could understand.

 

NGC thinks that it is going to encourage us to by more NGC graded coins. It's not going work with me. I buy the coins I like at the prices that are fair.

 

I have defended NGC against the "PCGS only crowd" for years, and I feel betrayed. I have enjoyed the NGC registry and have spent many hours to make my sets as attractive and educational as I could.

 

In the past NGC showed that its leadership was far more open minded than the executives at PCGS. Now they have stooped to the PCGS level.

 

You have lost my voice, Mr. Salzberg. I will NOT to go out of my way to defend your product again, because you have betrayed me. This decision stinks, and if you have any sense, you will rescind it

 

I agree 100%

[SkyMan]

It is NGC's product, and they can do whatever they want. Along those lines, they can do the same with these boards. HOWEVER...

 

NGC thinks that it is going to encourage us to buy more NGC graded coins. It's not going work with me. I buy the coins I like at the prices that are fair.

 

I have defended NGC against the "PCGS only crowd" for years, and I feel betrayed. I have enjoyed the NGC registry and have spent many hours to make my sets as attractive and educational as I could.

 

In the past NGC showed that its leadership was far more open minded than the executives at PCGS...

 

You have lost my voice, Mr. Salzberg. I will NOT... be going... out of my way to defend your product again.... This decision stinks, and if you have any sense, you will rescind it

 

+1

 

 

 

[brg5658]

What exactly does NGC gain from the decision? If the issue is that some people were only interested in NGC only sets, then there was a filter for it. The only thing I can think of is that NGC may have become tired of manually verifying the PCGS certification numbers, which I could understand.

 

NGC thinks that it is going to encourage us to by more NGC graded coins. It's not going work with me. I buy the coins I like at the prices that are fair.

 

I have defended NGC against the "PCGS only crowd" for years, and I feel betrayed. I have enjoyed the NGC registry and have spent many hours to make my sets as attractive and educational as I could.

 

In the past NGC showed that its leadership was far more open minded than the executives at PCGS. Now they have stooped to the PCGS level.

 

You have lost my voice, Mr. Salzberg. I will NOT to go out of my way to defend your product again, because you have betrayed me. This decision stinks, and if you have any sense, you will rescind it

 

I agree 100%

 

I also agree 100%.

 

I have sent an email to the NGC registry folks (registry@ngccoin.com), and I have asked for Mr. Salzberg's direct email address (still no reply on that). I encourage others to do the same.

[numisport]

After digging into a few registry sets I see that even though your PCGS coins are given a score in the NGC registry they are not included in the total. Therefore there has been no advantage with PCGS coins except for show. Example I note is Dr. Mark Dixon set of proof Franklins. His PCGS coins are scored but not tallied for totals.

[Forest City]

As a collector of UK coins, the ability to display PCGS in registry sets was not one of them. I can still do that in custom sets.

 

I get that some people want to collect registry points and compete in registry sets. But, if it is all about the coins rather than about the competition, then custom sets do the job just as well and, in some respects, better.

 

They won't be allowing PCGS coins in the custom sets either. I called NGC and discussed this. I asked if I could put a coin as "Want" and post a photo of a PCGS coin just to have it show in my gallery, and they said no. It's clear this is about more than just grading issues, but also branding. It's their choice, but I think it's foolish, and I'm giving them my thoughts about it.

 

Keep up the fight brg!

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Forest City

[toneddollars]

In my area of collecting (GSA's) NGC is the one and only choice for me. NGC graded GSA's sell for much more in auction than PCGS and are much more desirable than PCGS graded ones. I have crossed several PCGS to NGC for just this reason. A second reason is I can store my GSA dollars in the original boxes. You can not do this with PCGS graded ones.

[Zebo]

After digging into a few registry sets I see that even though your PCGS coins are given a score in the NGC registry they are not included in the total. Therefore there has been no advantage with PCGS coins except for show. Example I note is Dr. Mark Dixon set of proof Franklins. His PCGS coins are scored but not tallied for totals.

 

I disagree - my PCGS coins have points that count towards the total score. As for the custom sets - I agree with most everyone. It is nice to have them included. If PCGS is over grading their coins (again) then do not nclude the grade. Over grading is a great way to increase business of resubmitting for higher grades. Too bad!

[physics-fan3.14]

After digging into a few registry sets I see that even though your PCGS coins are given a score in the NGC registry they are not included in the total. Therefore there has been no advantage with PCGS coins except for show. Example I note is Dr. Mark Dixon set of proof Franklins. His PCGS coins are scored but not tallied for totals.

 

I disagree - my PCGS coins have points that count towards the total score. As for the custom sets - I agree with most everyone. It is nice to have them included. If PCGS is over grading their coins (again) then do not nclude the grade. Over grading is a great way to increase business of resubmitting for higher grades. Too bad!

 

A couple of years ago, NGC added a filter button that would allow you to filter NGC only coins, or would let you see both. All coins counted for scores when you were viewing both. It sounds like you were on the "NGC only" tab, which I viewed as stupid and insulary, but realized was only a precursor to this week's unfortunate and shortsighted mistake.

[ldhair]

What exactly does NGC gain from the decision? If the issue is that some people were only interested in NGC only sets, then there was a filter for it. The only thing I can think of is that NGC may have become tired of manually verifying the PCGS certification numbers, which I could understand.

 

NGC thinks that it is going to encourage us to by more NGC graded coins. It's not going work with me. I buy the coins I like at the prices that are fair.

 

I have defended NGC against the "PCGS only crowd" for years, and I feel betrayed. I have enjoyed the NGC registry and have spent many hours to make my sets as attractive and educational as I could.

 

In the past NGC showed that its leadership was far more open minded than the executives at PCGS. Now they have stooped to the PCGS level.

 

You have lost my voice, Mr. Salzberg. I will NOT to go out of my way to defend your product again, because you have betrayed me. This decision stinks, and if you have any sense, you will rescind it

 

I agree 100%

 

I also agree 100%.

 

I have sent an email to the NGC registry folks (registry@ngccoin.com), and I have asked for Mr. Salzberg's direct email address (still no reply on that). I encourage others to do the same.

I agree as well. Not a great move in my opinion.

[Hack]

I am going to bite the bullet as I am moving on to the PCGS Registry. My paid membership at NGC ends later this month and I will not be renewing. My NGC Registry type set has 24 PCGS coins and 13 NGC coins. 6 of the NGC coins are under $100, and I will sell these and buy PCGS coins. The 7 NGC coins over $200 each have CAC stickers and these coins I will send to PCGS for crossover. I understand If I show the documentation on a crossover CAC will re-sticker. If the coins do not cross, I will crack out or sell.

 

I started using the PCGS Registry today as I entered 3 PCGS coins and what a pain the software is to figure out. I do like the virtual 7070 album at PCGS.

 

Physics-Fan, you have an amazing PL type set and I am sorry that I will not be able to follow your collection journey on the NGC registry.

 

Bill Jones, I feel your pain and agree with you 100%.

 

I will still buy the NGC coin that is outstanding, but I am going to start drinking the Kool-Aid ATS.

[USAuPzlBxBob]

First off, let me just say that I have not participated in the Registries of either company. In this regard, it could be said that I am impartial in any viewpoint I might express.

 

However, every single coin (and there are not many) that I own is in an NGC holder. I have even crossed coins from ATS holders over to NGC holders because I just like the appearance of the NGC holders more than that of ATS.

 

Now, being biased toward NGC holders, I hope Mark Salzberg's message is only the first hint of an overall migration. I hope that eventually the NGC Registry will allow registry points only for NGC holdered coins, and in other words, no grandfathering in of ATS holdered coins whatsoever, and for ATS holdered coins in the NGC Registry, well…buh bye!

 

To all those who are leaving for whatever reasons, all you will do is create opportunities for others to move up in the NGC Registry tallies.

 

I applaud NGC for stepping up and playing hardball on as many fronts as possible with their competition, and I look forward to NGC becoming the clear TPG leader by incorporating even more innovation in this wonderful hobby.

 

 

 

 

[Brol]

Few years ago when NGC disallowed PCGS graded coins to their World registry sets I registered my own domain: http://www.coinsregistry.com/ ;

And currently displaying one of the best in the world, if not the best, Lithuanian coin collection: http://www.coinsregistry.com/lithuania in both PCGS and NGC holders.

I was thinking to create joint registry which would accept both companies, but never had time and enough knowledge to do this. And I'm not sure I want to invest my own money to this project.

 

[wvucoinman]

I began using the NGC registry set approximately five years ago. The NGC registry set has enhanced my interest in coin collecting because it gave me an incentive to compete with other collectors to improve the coins that I have. Without the NGC registry sets I would have only been interested in gold and Morgans. But, with NGC providing their members with the registry and demonstrating that there are many interesting coin collections to obtain I have become an avid collector of many types of US coins.

 

I am very disappointed that Mark Salzberg and NGC have decided to exclude future purchases and additions to my collection of PCGS coins from the NGC registry. The reason that I originally choose the NGC registry over the PCGS registry was so that I could add both my NGC and PCGS coins to the sets. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars to accumulate the best possible set that I could possibly obtain. Like many others, I was purchasing the coin not the slab. It is clear that the only reason the grading companies such as NGC and PCGS offer the registry to their members is to generate a source of income - to create competition solely among their members, thereby creating a division between collectors.

 

A true coin/set registry should be administered by an independent numismatic service for the purpose of providing avid coin collectors with a true and unbiased opportunity to compete with other members. This is a prime opportunity for the American Numismatic Association (ANA) to step up to the plate, take a leadership role and promote a dying hobby by creating an independent, unbiased national numismatic registry for both PCGS and NGC coin collectors. Thus, I am requesting the ANA take note of my suggestion and act immediately.

[richarma]

I am disappointed in the decision to no longer accept PCGS coins. I'm not sure how I will proceed. I'm fairly new here so I doubt my thoughts will have much impact on NGC's decision but I wanted to atleast let them know I am disappointed.

 

[#]

 

A true coin/set registry should be administered by an independent numismatic service for the purpose of providing avid coin collectors with a true and unbiased opportunity to compete with other members. This is a prime opportunity for the American Numismatic Association (ANA) to step up to the plate, take a leadership role and promote a dying hobby by creating an independent, unbiased national numismatic registry for both PCGS and NGC coin collectors. Thus, I am requesting the ANA take note of my suggestion and act immediately.

 

The ANA already has something very similar in place; it's just not used by very many.

[BillJones]

The ANA already has something very similar in place; it's just not used by very many.

 

The ANA would be an ideal provider for such a service. They could further their goal of spreading knowledge to collectors and avoid the petty attitude projected by the grading companies.

 

Are there any access addresses for the ANA resgistry or whatever they might call it?