Will CoinFacts ever include all color designations for copper proofs?

MonsterCoinz · August 4, 2015 1:28AM

I believe Lincoln proofs are the only set that CoinFacts doesn't include all of the available color designations. It lists Red, CAM, and DCAM, but no RB or BN. Most people who send in RB or BN copper proofs get TrueViews because of the toning they have. It would be so cool to see those.

I would contact Mike (@androiddev) but I'm unsure how to reach him. He is the software guru that has done the PCGS apps and website.

keyman64 · August 4, 2015 3:23AM

It is certainly a big flaw with PCGS CoinFacts and that's a shame but it speaks to the bigger issue of the
color designations to begin with! PCGS had a suggestion thread where this was discussed in the last couple
of weeks July 10th posts were made to it. PCGS DELETED the thread where great feedback was provided.

The thread was here,
I bookmarked it. http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=946447&STARTPAGE=1
I am not sure why the thread was deleted. It was useful and there was nothing offensive in it.

PCGS (and other TPGs) designate coins as RB or even RD when there is ZERO MINT COPPER RED on the coin.
Here is a PCGS TrueView Example of a PR68RD that has ZERO Original Copper Mint Red.

Here is a PCGS TrueView Example of a PR64RB that has ZERO Original Copper Mint Red.

Here is a PCGS TrueView of a PR69RB, again lacking Mint Copper Red.
I think this may have been an example that WingedLiberty1957 used in his post.

And then we can take things to another extreme where a coin HAS ZERO Original Copper Mint Red
and it is NOT BROWN either. My silver toned 1964 1c PCGS PR67BN. Very experienced dealers
laughed at the designation when I showed the coin around at Summer FUN. But let's be CLEAR, this
is not just a PCGS problem, it is an INDUSTRY WIDE PROBLEM! In the DELETED PCGS SUGGESTION
THREAD, I even suggested that PCGS should be the MARKET LEADER in correcting this that has been
wrong for far too long. I hope someone takes the lead on this because it is just plain nuts!

WingedLiberty1957 spent a lot of time in the DELETED PCGS SUGGESTION THREAD and even typed up a solution to the problem!
I can't recall the details at this time though.

WingedLiberty1957 started another thread on a slightly different topic and what was posted was not nearly as great as
what he posted in the suggestion thread. HERE IS THIS LINK

Maybe WingedLiberty1957 can re-share what he shared in the PCGS Suggestion thread?

I think PCGS should be the market leader in solving this problem.

Back to the OP and the CoinFacts, the developer is only going to do what he is told I imagine...that direction will need to come from above
so I am not sure how reaching out to him would be of much help. Ron Guth is the President of CoinFacts and it would be helpful to get him in
on this conversation for sure. That is likely who we need involved. Don Kagin is listed as the CoinFacts expert on PCGS' website. Maybe
drawing his attention to this thread would help? Wondercoin is listed on the Board of Experts for Moderns which this issue covers.
David Hall would be the one most likely to make major decisions about being a MARKET LEADER in ANYTHING.

Maybe it would be good if we just had a NATURALLY TONED classification maybe called TFI for Thin Film Interference.
Could you imagine the additional REVENUE STREAM for PCGS that would be created here?
People would send their coins in for reclassification. Additional VALUE would be more clearly realized on these coins.
CoinFacts would be an even MORE AMAZING website to visit! PCGS would again be a Major Market Leader in something!
This could be win win win win win win all across the board.

I case anything happens to this thread, I have saved my post so that I can reference it again. If there is a problem with my post,
please send me a PM and hopefully I can fix my post instead of it getting deleted.

MonsterCoinz · August 4, 2015 4:26AM

Thanks for the links. I won't go into how BN/RB/RD needs a change, that would take months of planning and rolling out a new platform.

However, adding a simple tab on CoinFacts for BN and RB Lincoln proofs is a matter of approval and an hour or less from a development standpoint. The functionality is already there; it's just disabled for Lincoln proofs.

keyman64 · August 4, 2015 5:04AM

It certainly seems like an easy enough fix for the CoinFacts website that would take very little time to change.
I sent an email to what I believe to be Ron Goth's email address. This would certainly need to be addressed
by him so we will see if he chimes in. Fingers are crossed!

WingedLiberty1957 · August 4, 2015 6:48AM

When I called PCGS Customer Service in 2013 and suggested this. The customer service rep basically laughed at me and told me that

"Nobody collects BN and RB Lincoln Proofs" and they dont list coins in CoinFacts that nobody collects

I thought it was a really odd response

I emailed Ron Guth, the head of Coin Facts, a few times but never got any response from him.

keyman64 · August 4, 2015 6:54AM

<< When I called PCGS Customer Service in 2013 and suggested this. The customer service rep basically laughed at me and told me that

"Nobody collects BN and RB Lincoln Proofs"

And they dont list coins in CoinFacts that nobody collects

I thought it was a really odd response

I have emailed Ron Guth the head of Coin Facts a few times but never got any response from him at all

My impression is they really dont care.

They have enough listed to get people to subscribe and thats really all they care about

is the bottom line subscription dollars

Doing work to improve CoinFacts or make is more complete is just not on their radar

And more than likely never will be. >>

That's a real shame and makes me sad.

I will cross my fingers and hope that Ron will either reply to my email or reply in here.

WingedLiberty1957 · August 4, 2015 7:25AM

<< And more than likely never will be. >>

That's a real shame and makes me sad.

I will cross my fingers and hope that Ron will either reply to my email or reply in here. >>

It just seems like such an odd decision that on coins dated 1952 and later ... BN and RB Proofs completely disappear from CoinFacts

They list only RD's ... which all look the same

Oddly I think for Lincolns dated 2013 or 2014 ... Coin Facts started listing RB and BN Proofs again ... even though they are a supper rarity that late.

So the BN and RB gap in proofs ... is only for the years from 1952 through 2012 or so.

I know quite a few people that are interested in toned Proof copper.

keyman64 · August 4, 2015 7:45AM

<<

>>

AMAZING! Why the heck would anyone want to collect these things?

Maybe a new designation such as TFI (thin film interference) would be the proper answer to the * designation ATS?

BUT, back to just enabling BN and RB coins in CoinFacts now would be the right thing to do...AND EASY TO DO VERY QUICKLY!!!
As someone said to me, "I truly hope they can enable BN and RB proofs on CoinFacts so I can enjoy the images, pops and auction history. It's the purpose of CoinFacts in the first place, isn't it?"

DonWillis · August 5, 2015 1:49AM

I don't know what happened to the previous thread that was deleted.

The reason we only show Red, CAM and DCAM in the PCGS Price Guide and PCGS Coinfacts (there are a few exceptions) is that the vast majority of Lincoln memorials fall into those categories. We've graded hardly any BN coins and very few RB for the entire series and none at all for some dates.

I agree that some of these 'colored' coins are very pretty but there isn't much of a market for them. Listing every color of every coin is a lot of work.

Maybe we will someday.

keyman64 · August 5, 2015 2:27AM

<< I don't know what happened to the previous thread that was deleted.

The reason we only show Red, CAM and DCAM in the PCGS Price Guide and PCGS Coinfacts (there are a few exceptions) is that the vast majority of Lincoln memorials fall into those categories. We've graded hardly any BN coins and very few RB for the entire series and none at all for some dates.

I agree that some of these 'colored' coins are very pretty but there isn't much of a market for them. Listing every color of every coin is a lot of work.

Maybe we will someday. >>

Thank you so much for your reply. Your time is appreciated. I also have to respectfully disagree where you say
there isn't much of a market for them. I am not sure you are even tracking the market (by using CoinFacts and auction history
of these coins to pick out the outliers to know). The market is happening every day. This is like saying there is no
market for tarnished Morgan Dollars when we know a base value $1K Morgan can and WILL sell for over $10K with the right tarnish.
We are just trying to enjoy the hobby at a lower pay scale than you and others. We would like to see these coins shown in CoinFacts
so we can look at them and maybe track their auction history. We are not talking thousands of dollars here but we are talking
about several hundred dollars for a coin that you assign a value of $1 or less to at times. You don't get to several hundred dollars
without there being a market for them. I have a degree in Finance and am knowledgeable enough in economics to know this.

We are not asking you to do anything different than what you have done for Wheat Cents or IHCs. Then we can use CoinFacts
as a tool, as it was intended, to view photographed examples in different categories and track auction history etc. There is a
thriving market for these, it just isn't the millionaires that play this game or participate in the "Hobby of Kings."
A stand alone Top Pop 1961 PR68BN just changed hands recently and you might be shocked to know how high the market supported it!

robec · August 5, 2015 5:57AM

<< 
I agree that some of these 'colored' coins are very pretty but there isn't much of a market for them. Listing every color of every coin is a lot of work.

Maybe we will someday. >>

What?? I've spent thousands getting these things graded and TrueViewed and there's no market?????? Oh Boy!!

lasvegasteddy · August 5, 2015 7:01AM

<< I agree that some of these 'colored' coins are very pretty but there isn't much of a market for them. >>

this must be a reply from april 1st

MonsterCoinz · August 5, 2015 9:41AM

<< We've graded hardly any BN coins and very few RB for the entire series and none at all for some dates.

I agree that some of these 'colored' coins are very pretty but there isn't much of a market for them. Listing every color of every coin is a lot of work.

Maybe we will someday. >>

Thanks for the reply Mr. Willis!

My point is that CoinFacts is an extremely useful tool, not only for finding nice TrueViews but for finding market trends through the recent auction history. I find it odd that CoinFacts (which I pay for) is purposefully incomplete.

MS and PR Lincolns with the BN designation are far, FAR rarer than their RD counterparts. I can't emphasize that enough. BN and RB (especially toned) Lincolns are selling for 10s, 100s of times PCGS Price Guide value. Do you see that happening with any RD Lincolns? Or any U.S. coin?
This phenomena is becoming more and more the market standard everyday. I would bet that CoinFacts images have grown more (% wise) in the BN and RB Lincoln department than any other coin in the last few years.

If CoinFacts had been keeping track of auction records for these different color designations, you would be astonished at the prices that have been paid for high grade examples.

This is something PCGS should be writing articles about, not ignoring.
Until then, I will be keeping my fingers crossed.

leothelyon · August 5, 2015 7:13PM

Wow..........reading this thread made me think of fast-food. Good luck to you guys getting your brand of coin some recognition. But I think there needs to be a plan, a record of hard data of auctions and sales. Like a wise man said to me once, "come up with a plan and its costs and I'll consider it.

Leo

WingedLiberty1957 · August 5, 2015 8:18PM

i have to say, I am in computer programing and website design and saying "Listing BN and RB Proof Lincolns would be a lot of work" is just wrong. Coins facts is database driven, pages in coinfacts are not designed by hand ... it's all automated. Adding BN and RB Proof Lincolns to the coinfacts pages is as simple as editing a few lines of code which would simply build those dynamic page.

After all CoinFacts IS including RB and BN proof Lincolns from 1909 through 1952 and then started listing them again starting in 2012 and moving forward ... so clearly this is something that is easily within the realm of possibility.

Also using the smaller populations of RB and BN proof lincolns as a reason not to list them also doesn't seem plausible as they are included in 2013 and 2014 -- and there are few if any for those really late dates.

And if you back up 60 years ... the pops of RB's and BNs get even higher ... Just look at the monster spike year (for toned BN proofs) of 1961. There are over 50 PCGS graded BN Proof Lincolns just for that one year! The early 1960's is a treasure trove of colorfully toned proofs. Both Lincoln Cents and Jefferson Nickels.

One other thing, when I get a nice looking coin TrueView photographed at PCGS -- it shows up in CoinFacts immediately. This just proves my point that when a coin goes into the PCGS photographic database, the computer is doing the work to grab that image and insert it into the CoinFacts page. There is not a "man in the loop" editing each page. If there was a man in the loop, the delay between a TrueView Photo being done and that showing up in CoinFacts would be weeks or months (depending on the backlog) and not seconds or minutes as it is now.

So the statement about the "labor involved" in making this change being too high -- just does not sound right to me.

This "man in the loop" paradigm might have been how webpages were done 20 to 25 years ago, ... but in today's modern electronic world, HTML and webpages are infinitely more dynamic and automated.

Bottom line is adding BN and RB Proof Lincolns to CoinFacts for the years from 1952 through 2011 would be as simple as someone in power telling your website programmer to make that change to the database software. which I am guessing would take less than an hour to change (and it would be a one time change (a single hour or investment)) then the automation process would take over and build all the dynamic pages.

Finally saying there is no market for these is just not right. Try following any of the various internet auction sites: on eBay or CollectorsCorner or Heritage. When a colorful PCGS BN or RB copper coin comes up for bid, they typically fire off at 2x, 5x, 10x, sometimes 20x, sometimes more over the PCGS Guide.

IMHO, the coins that TRULY have no market are the later date RD coins which are dime a dozen and have huge populations -- those modern RD copper coin languish on auction sites with no buyers for months or years. It's a matter of supply and demand. There are thousands of untoned modern red coins to pick from (and they all look the same) so the prices collapse. But a PR66BN or PR67BN coin (esp if if has great color, as most do) is a unique rarity and the price explodes in response.

Toss up a beautifully toned proof on any auction site -- say a rainbow toned PR67BN dated after 1955 and you will see fireworks bidding action.

TopographicOceans · August 5, 2015 8:22PM

<< I agree that some of these 'colored' coins are very pretty but there isn't much of a market for them. >>

IMHO I think there is a market for toned cents second only to toned Morgan's.

Because of the wide variety of toned coins, I guess leaving them designationless is about all you could do.

WingedLiberty1957 · August 5, 2015 8:50PM

Just one of hundreds of examples I have on how modern BN and RB Proof Lincolns have a dynamic market ...

The BN Proof 1961 got 18 bids and fired off over $100 ... well over the PCGS guide

While the RD Proof 1961s (and there are a myriad listed on ebay) havent sold yet, have many fewer bids and will struggle to clear $5

dlmtorts · August 5, 2015 9:42PM

Check out this thread!

Thread Title: An interesting choice by PCGS to show their Virtual Album feature on their Home page

lkeigwin · August 5, 2015 10:48PM

<< i have to say, I am in computer programing and website design and saying "Listing BN and RB Proof Lincolns would be a lot of work" is just wrong. Coins facts is database driven... >>

Exactly. Coin Facts is not the problem. It doesn't track anything. It is a report. Creating RB and BN tabs is simple. But there's little data to display.

Unless I'm mistaken I believe PCGS is being asked to commit to grading and tracking Lincoln proofs of color, across the board. And to modify the Coin Facts report to display this data.

It appears that PCGS feels there isn't enough interest, comparatively speaking, to justify the effort. Sounds like a business decision.
Lance.

keyman64 · August 5, 2015 11:20PM

THESE FIRST TWO COINS ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN THE LAST TWO COINS SHOWN!!! ARE YOU SHOCKED YET?

I think these coins have just as much of a place in Coin Facts as Morgans or Mercs.

Another coin cheaper than some of the monster toned Modern Proof Brown Lincolns.

Yes, the first two coins in this thread are MORE VALUABLE than the last two! You could actually argue that they are in
HIGHER DEMAND and there is MORE OF A MARKET FOR THEM than there is for many Toned Morgans and Toned Mercs!

I bet we could even find some GOLD COINS that Modern PR BN Lincolns Can beat out!

MonsterCoinz · August 6, 2015 12:15AM

<< Check out this thread!

Thread Title: An interesting choice by PCGS to show their Virtual Album feature on their Home page >>

I noticed this as well. Their graphic for the Virtual Album is... you guessed it... toned BN/RB Lincolns.

<< Good luck to you guys getting your brand of coin some recognition >>

We're not trying to get CoinFacts to adopt some type of die state, or minor variety (super low pops there and they're still included), VAM's, Overton's etc etc. Or even add auction history or a PCGS price to each grade. Simply allow us to see the available (but hidden) TrueViews. Ours are no different than any normal 66 or 67 grade, except the color designation.

And being a software engineer, I know that if these pages were created dynamically with efficiency in mind (coders love shorcuts!) then this is simply a matter of 'flipping a switch'. No oversight involved. Basically a one-off daily maintenance fix.

leothelyon · August 6, 2015 12:23AM

Maybe it's the extra work that goes into making labels, the amount of information that needs printed out? My suggestion here is if the task is laborious and costs run high, perhaps a simple generic label could be made by limiting the wording to a grade and "USA Coin". A few other not so popular, so marketless series could fall under this umbrella and receive a certification number. Wondercoin wants "PL" and DMPL" designations and I want a "6 Full Steps" designation and others want "color designations" for copper proofs. But I'm talking about a "stepping stone" kind of label that will help usher in special interests especially for coins that are actually rare and are seldom encountered, that there would actually never be enough of the coin to create a popular interest market. Just give us a plain looking label with a couple of lines and cert number and let the collectors figure out what it is. Wow, how brilliant! If the submissions increase over time, the cause would be noted and that particular series within that umbrella introduction label could branch off with it's own"more wordy" label.

Leo

robec · August 6, 2015 12:39AM

<< Maybe it's the extra work that goes into making labels, the amount of information that needs printed out? My suggestion here is if the task is laborious and costs run high, perhaps a simple generic label could be made by limiting the wording to a grade and "USA Coin". A few other not so popular, so marketless series could fall under this umbrella and receive a certification number. Wondercoin wants "PL" and DMPL" designations and I want a "6 Full Steps" designation and others want "color designations" for copper proofs. But I'm talking about a "stepping stone" kind of label that will help usher in special interests especially for coins that are actually rare and are seldom encountered, that there would actually never be enough of the coin to create a popular interest market. Just give us a plain looking label with a couple of lines and cert number and let the collectors figure out what it is. Wow, how brilliant! If the submissions increase over time, the cause would be noted and that particular series within that umbrella introduction label could branch off with it's own"more wordy" label.

Leo

>>

BN and RB designations are already on the label.........and up to 1950 and 1951 are in CoinFacts. We would just like them to be included beyond those years.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with what this thread is about. We are not asking for a a new designation or label. The designation is already in place and has been since the beginning. That "stepping stone" has been achieved.

keyman64 · August 6, 2015 2:53AM

Very interesting choice to feature these coins on the home page of the brand new website.

tradedollarnut · August 6, 2015 4:42AM

You seen one PR69RD Lincoln modern, you seen em all. Spectacularly toned RB on the other hand are all unique.

keyman64 · August 6, 2015 4:48AM

<< You seen one PR69RD Lincoln modern, you seen em all. Spectacularly toned RB on the other hand are all unique. >>

Thanks TDN! That is the point.
By including all of the normal categories in CoinFacts that we have for Pre-1951 Proofs then we will be able to view All Photographed of a certain date
and category like 1961 PR BN 1c and then we can also track the auction results of really cool coins.

SanctionII · August 6, 2015 5:19AM

I have a few raw post 1949 Proof, SMS and MS US cents that would fall into the RB and BN categories.

They are very attractive and I can see how easy it would be for a collector to be smitten by them. Unlike the standard blazing RD examples of these same coins (which are very attractive in their own right but are also great in number) the RB and BN examples offer an unlimited variety of "looks". Many of them are unique, or close to unique in their appearance, which only adds to their collector appeal.

SanctionII · August 6, 2015 5:20AM

I have a few raw post 1949 Proof, SMS and MS US cents that would fall into the RB and BN categories.

They are very attractive and I can see how easy it would be for a collector to be smitten by them. Unlike the standard blazing RD examples of these same coins (which are very attractive in their own right but are also great in number) the RB and BN examples offer an unlimited variety of "looks". Many of them are unique, or close to unique in their appearance, which only adds to their collector appeal.

SanctionII · August 6, 2015 5:34AM

I have a few raw post 1949 Proof, SMS and MS US cents that would fall into the RB and BN categories.

They are very attractive and I can see how easy it would be for a collector to be smitten by them. Unlike the standard blazing RD examples of these same coins (which are very attractive in their own right but are also great in number) the RB and BN examples offer an unlimited variety of "looks". Many of them are unique, or close to unique in their appearance, which only adds to their collector appeal.

SanctionII · August 6, 2015 5:35AM

Oops. Triplicate post.

My bad.

VanHalen · August 6, 2015 7:50AM

<< You seen one PR69RD Lincoln modern, you seen em all. Spectacularly toned RB on the other hand are all unique. >>

And the BN ones can be beautiful as well.

sparky64 · August 6, 2015 8:58AM

First: I love toned BN designated copper and agree with it being highly desirable.

Second: I admire the passionate pleas.

Third: It is unwise to scream & yell, use bold, caps & exclamations

Fourth: It is unwise to call PCGS stupid and tell the President of PCGS that he is an out of touch with reality, wealthy ex-gold Eagle collector. I can't see that as helping anyone's cause.

Fourth: It was very wise to use the edit function so thoroughly.

WingedLiberty1957 · February 3, 2016 3:35AM

Here it is Feb 2016 and I am still waiting for RB and BN Proof Lincolns (1952-2012) to be included on CoinFacts !!!

I am still not sure why PCGS would want to SPLIT the Proofs into color classes and then OMIT some of the classes

Doesnt make any sense

Esp since the RD's pretty much all look alike ... while the BN's and RB's can really vary and some of are just breathtakingly beautiful

RichieURich · February 3, 2016 4:46AM

An interesting thread. I have a set of colorfully toned proof Indian cents which are graded either BN or RB. But most of them are more valuable than the RD in the same grade, because of their color. Similar to colorfully toned Morgan dollars, the price is vastly different than for the average coin of its grade.

Take for example this PR66BN coin shown below.

My solution is to add a COLOR designation similar to CAMEO, DCAM, PL, and DMPL.

WingedLiberty1957 · February 3, 2016 5:38AM

Fantastic 1896 Indian.

FYI ... There is no omission in indians ... and no ommission in Lincolns from 1909 through 1952 or so

The gap starts in 1952 and runs through 2012

Interestingly PCGS INCLUDES BN and RB proofs for Lincolns starting in 2013 moving forward

Even those those are so recent it's hard to find any coins that toned

Not sure what is so special about the years 1953 through 2012 tho ????

To me it looks like a software glitch but pcgs seems unwilling to fix it for some unknown reason.

keyman64 · February 3, 2016 10:20AM

Reading over this old thread again just makes me sad.

It would be very cool to see auction history of special

examples in CoinFacts, not to mention viewing the

photos of all of them!

When a couple dollar coin sells for over $1K, I think that means

there is a market or demand for said item.

WingedLiberty1957 · November 3, 2016 6:27PM

I wonder if there has been any update from PCGS on this policy?

It just seems strange to cut such a popular series (it must be the one of the top three collected US coin series) into three color classes and they systematically exclude two of the three of the color classes from CoinFacts.

Sadly, the color classes that PCGS has decided to exclude: namely the RB and BN color classes -- are where all the action and beauty lie.

BN and RB coins like these shown beow sell for huge multiples over PCGS Guide price (30x, 50x, 100x or more) -- I see this all the time on eBay and other auction sites. (Meanwhile RD coins languish and don't sell and when they do sell -- they sell for a fraction of guide).

MonsterCoinz · November 4, 2016 6:25AM

This thread should get bumped more often..

It's truly inexplicable why a particular design in a particular grade is purposefully excluded from CoinFacts. CoinFacts isn't there to give us images and info on coins people like to collect, it's there to provide info on all US Mint coins that PCGS grades.

Imagine CF not inluding CAM Franklins or any Overtons. Does anyone from PCGS have a better explanation why?

WingedLiberty1957 · November 4, 2016 8:46AM

I wonder why PCGS is so down on BN and RB Proof Lincoln Cents?

WingedLiberty1957 · November 4, 2016 8:52AM

How beautiful is this beast?

MonsterCoinz · November 4, 2016 9:09AM

I remember being outbid on that one when it sold

keyman64 · November 8, 2016 9:39AM

@WingedLiberty1957 said:
How beautiful is this beast?

I sure like my 1962 but yours is wayyyyy AWESOMER! Lol

Will CoinFacts ever include all color designations for copper proofs?

Comments

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

Leave a Comment