What's the point of weighting moderns?

Russ

If weighting is based on rarity, and there really is no such thing as a "rare" modern, what's the point? It makes perfect sense for older coins that actually have very low mintage years, but moderns are all minted in the multi-millions.

Take my series, for example, Kennedy proofs. I think the thinnest year is still over two million in mintage. None of the coins are rare. Even the accented hair variety, if the estimates are correct, isn't rare. Scarce, maybe. But, rare? no.

Or, is the weighting based on "grade" rarity, rather then real rarity?

Russ, NCNE

nivek

Take a look at the following sets of current auctions on eBay.

1999 PCGS MS-67 State Quarter Auctions

2000 PCGS MS-67 State Quarter Auctions

Notice any difference? The 1999 coins are MUCH harder (and more expensive) to get in MS-67 than other years (so far). My guess is these are weighted more heavily because they are more difficult to obtain in high grade despite the roughly equivalent mintages.

braddick

Some coins are easier to obtain than others, even with the Kennedy proof series. Those coins are slightly weighted more than the others (although I'm not even sure the Kennedy Proofs are weighted yet). Sounds fair to me?

Unlike some Registeries the Moderns are 'Weighted' but only on a small scale. Some of the Classics carry big-gun weights vs other coins in the series (1932-S Washington vs 1958 comes to mind).
Although the Moderns will never face the same set of challenges other more classic series may- they have their own built in rewards.

keithdagen

None of the coins are rare. Even the accented hair variety, if the estimates are correct, isn't rare. Scarce, maybe. But, rare? no.

Would you consider a DCAM Accented Hair rare?

Russ

<< <i>Would you consider a DCAM Accented Hair rare? >>



Yes, of course. But that's a grade designation. Which I guess answers my question. Weighting is based on grade rarity, rather then the actual fundamental rarity of the coin itself. I guess I'm thinking back to my childhood when none of this existed. The only thing that was important then was how many of a particular coin/mint mark were made, and that was what determined rarity. Condition of the specimen was considered separately.

My point is that, most moderns are fundamentally plentiful and worthless. They don't really obtain any value until they are in a slab. Older coins can have intrinsic value without being surrounded by the plastic.

Russ, NCNE

Spooly

Russ, I am glad you brought this up! The PCGS system doesn't really work well for modern coins.

The NGC "Value" system works great for "grade" rarity modern coins!

wondercoin

Russ: In your series of choice, I agree with you that for most proof Kennedys and especially those dated 1977-2002, there is no "rarity" whatsoever. The only factor is proof set cost (e.g. a 1995 silver Kennedy being worth multiples of a 1982 proof for example). Even the PR70 column, imho, improperly skews reality by showing "low pop" 70's where essentially the only thing going on is when PR Kennedys were submitted vis a vis PCGS' policy on slabbing PR70's.

IMHO, until PCGS fixes its policy on PR70, series like yours (and nearly every other modern (1965-date) proof series) will be of little consequence to true weights, as you yourself point out. Wondercoin.

dbldie55

<< <i>Russ, I am glad you brought this up! The PCGS system doesn't really work well for modern coins.

The NGC "Value" system works great for "grade" rarity modern coins! >>



Actually, the PCGS system does not work well for any grade rarity coin. Many in the Morgan series come to mind.

braddick

Mitch- Isn't PCGS aware of this and simply give each easy coin a "1" weight (or whatever system they use)? Maybe one or two coins in the series gets the "2"?
I know with State quarters the weights are pretty close. In other words, no coin gets a "10" while others rate a "1".

cladking

Russ; If most moderns are fundamentally plentiful and worthless, then
why do you collect Kennedies? Why not collect something scarce and
valuable with a lot of intrinsic value and worthy of weighting like CC ten
dollar gold?

Russ

I collect Kennedys because I like them.

Russ, NCNE

BowAxe

I don't believe grade (condition) rarity, which is detemined by the population reports, is taken into consideration in assigning the weighting to a coin. It has to be based solely on absolute scarcity of the coin, otherwise the weighting would constantly fluctuate as the population reports changed due to new submissions. This would necessitate constant recalculation of set ratings for every set and you would see your sets constantly moving up or down in the rankings without your adding or deleting a single coin--it would be a bizarre, relativistic world! If grade rarity actually were to be taken into account in the weighting, a different weight would have to be assigned for each grade of a coin to reflect the grade rarity. Instead, where the grade of your coin comes into account is when the grade is multiplied by the weighting.

For a good illustration of why grade rarity does not correlate with weighting, consider the modern commemorative gold circulation strike set and the current populations of these coins in MS70. The rarest by "grade rarity" is the 1994W Olympic $10, pop. 1. Yet it is weighted only 4, compared to the 1996W Cauldron (pop. 4, wt. 6), Flag (pop. 12, wt. 6) , and Smithsonian (pop. 10, wt. 5). If grade rarity affected the weighting, how do you explain those numbers? And why would a 1984W Olympic $10 in MS70 (pop. 1) be given the same weighting as the same coin in MS69 (pop. 219)? That doesn't make any sense. Someone should ask BJ to "weigh in" [pun intended] on this discussion and tell us in what respect, if any, condition rarity is taken into account in assigning weights.

Russ

BowAxe,

If it is not based on grade rarity, then we're right back where we started with my first post. What's the point in moderns when millions were minted every year?

Russ, NCNE

keets

my understanding of how the system works is as BowAxe suggests, overall population of a coin, not grade population. as your original post stated, russ, there doesn't seem to be a logical point to weights in most modern series. possibly for some coins such as the years 1982-83 there could be a weight of 2, but the overall majority should have a weight of 1. there must be some type of formula that PCGS uses to assign the weights.

al h.

BowAxe

For some of the moderns, such as the basic Lincoln circ. strikes 1959- where all the coins have a weight of 1.00, weighting does appear pointless. Maybe that is the very reason that a lot of the modern sets still have not been weighted and maybe they never will be. But for the same Lincoln set WITH varieties, where the scarcity of the varieties can be established by overall population, market price, etc, weighting makes sense.

I would point out that there is some actual rarity in some moderns, specifically the circ-strike commemoratives where some of the mintages are under 10,000. Look at the Jackie Robinson $5 with a paltry mintage of less than 6000, and where the prices are headed on that coin!

RGL

All points well taken ... as we know, grading weights are not based on rarity, but rather the holy grail of grade. Take for example, in a series I know well, early proof Jeffersons. I have a 1957 Proof Jeff, a common coin, in uncommon condition of PR-68. Granted, it is not a deep cameo or a deep cameo, but only (only?) brilliant. These are not common critters. There are only 15 graded PR-68 non-cameo with none higher. In contrast, the PR-68 1964 DCAM has 202 graded in PR-68 and another 118 in PR-69. And, that PR-69 '64-DCAM is worth full grade points, while my seven-year-older, 10-times-plus rarer brilliant PR-68 '57 is worth only PR-66 after the two-point deduction for non-DCAM. By the same token, the miniscule number of 16 1950 PR-68s, with none higher, are worth less than our plentiful 1964 PR-69 DCAMs. Something's wrong somewhere. Granted, deep cameos are valuable and desirable coins, but should not pop figures work in somewhere before weighting? There should be a happy median. Just a thought (from one whose ox is gored, of course). RGL

wondercoin

"Mitch- Isn't PCGS aware of this and simply give each easy coin a "1" weight (or whatever system they use)? Maybe one or two coins in the series gets the "2"?
I know with State quarters the weights are pretty close. In other words, no coin gets a "10" while others rate a "1"."

Pat: I can not speak to what PCGS is thinking with their rankings, but I can tell you this.

IMHO, most (not all, but most) 1977-2002 proofs in virtually every series are as common as the next coin within the series. This is the complete opposite with the Mint State coins from those same years. For example, a 1979(p) Lincoln cent in MS68RD is a very scarce coin, while a 1999(p) in MS68RD as as common as the day is long. A 1989(p) quarter in MS67 blows away a 1972(d) in scarcity and on and on and on. So, for PCGS to give a 1972(d) quarter the same weight as a 1989(p) quarter for MS67 coins is bizarrre. Or, how about a 1989(p) Kennedy in MS67 vs. a 1999(p) in MS67. No one really "knows" these MS moderns inside and out I believe when these charts are being prepared -hence the problem. Just my opinion. Wondercoin

keets

why would they give a coin a high "weight" just because it's rare in high grade, when it's as readily available as the day is long? it's sensible to weight if a coin is difficult to find as a result of overall mintage, but not if it's easy to find but hard to locate in high grade. that's the point BowAxe tried to make, and it makes sense because if more high grade pieces were ever "made" the weights would need to change.

al h.

wondercoin

Keets: They shouldn't give a modern coin a high weight in low grade. They should give a coin a high weight in the difficult grades. Bonus points - whatever you want to call it. Consider the 1972(d) vs. 1989(p) quarters I was talking about. No one collects them in grades MS61-MS64 or even lower (well, besides Braddick). Hence, grades MS65-MS67 are really the only grades that exist for registry purposes. 3 grades for all practical purposes. 4 one day when an MS68 is made. How difficult would it be to award the proper bonus points to the rare coins in super high grade in the series - IF YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE DOING. That would still be the lazy way because you are not value weighting the entire series -just the top grade. But, at least that would give some credit where credit is due. Otherwise, not only should PCGS not weigh moderns as this thread suggests. They really shouldn't even have a Registry for them! Wondercoin

Whitewashqtr

How is the weighting determined? Shouldn't obtaining difficult coins in higher grades give you more points towards your set rather than counting that coin at the grade assigned 10 times. For example.. in the Washington set (im partial) you could have all 66 and higher coins but if you get the early date 32d, 32s or 34 in 64/65. You are screwed because you have to have a rating of below 66. Seems like the weighting should be to give bonus' points to the set rating not, counting a lower graded Ms65, so hard to find 10 times. which will guarantee a lower rating for a great set.


Seems the weighting isnt done properly to me.

Typetone

I have given extensive comments on the weightings of certain series and have, I think a pretty good idea of what's going on. Mitch is basically correct. They look at the pop of the 2 or three most collectable grades for registries and go from there. So in SBAs they are probably looking at the pops of the 66s and 67s. In Kennedy's an 88P should have a higher weight than a 99P. If they don't, the Kennedy collectors should have been all over it when they published the proposed weights. In IKEs, the relevent number is the pop of 66s. The weights reflect the scaricity of that grade.

Should moderns be weighted? That's a good question. I always liked the original simple average (all weights = 1). but the new system seems OK to me.

Greg

keets

typetone----given your line of thinking i would wonder why in the modern circ set jeffersons don't recieve some type of weight?? i think the minted population is a better barometer for the weighting. if you look at the modern proof set, since all the mintages are identical, the weights would theoretically be identical. a lower mintage due to alloy or design change is reflected in the weighting. some of the shorter date runs receive a weight. there are inconsistencies as there is most likely more to it than that , but it seems simple enough to me.

al h.

Typetone

Keets:

I don't think they have gotten around to weighting the modern Jeff sets yet. I don't know those series so I don't know what the appropriate weights should be. Watch the registry news page and be sure to comment once they put the proposed weights up. If you really know the series you might want to contact David Hall and volunteer to propose the initial weights.

Greg

perfectstrike

Wondercoin has stated my feeling regarding moderns and condition rarity, better than I could. I've made suggestions to David Hall regarding weighting, and haven't ever received a response.

Condition rarity in all moderns exists and should be rewarded. It's also fairly easy to recognize a condition rarity, if you collect the series. You can also generalize and come pretty close. Condition rarity starts at the first grade above the average submission. For some years in a series this means 66 for others 69. The total real population above the average grade determines scarcity. This would be easy to "weight" into the modern sets by awarding each grade above average (for a year/mint) different weights.

perfectstrike
my $0.02

wallstreetman

Russ, Coin collecting is not just about how rare the mintage is, but how rare the grade is! COIN COLLECTING 101.

BowAxe

Thank you, Keets! A voice of understanding, a beacon of light in the pitch blackness of confusion! (Sorry, guys, I'm just excited that someone actually SEES my point!)

The way the Registry is set up at present, even though the weighting of a given coin is independent of grade, you will see the effect of the grade of your coin when the weight is multiplied by the grade. This is the reason that although one grade point difference may be a huge difference in condition rarity, it only makes an infinitessimally small difference when the total set points are calculated, and explains why only a few hundredths of a point sometimes separates the top sets in a series.

As Mitch suggests, the whole system could be redesigned so that bonus points are awarded based upon condition rarity, but the basic weighting of a coin would still be based upon its overall availability, not its condition rarity, for the reasons set forth earlier.

keets

whitewashqtr---i'm not familiar with the quarter registry, but the coins you mentioned, 32-D&S, wouldn't lower your set pts. in the grades you mentioned because they should be weighted as a result of there lower mintages.

typetone---i wasn't referring to the upcoming weights of the jeffersons. i was trying to point to the modern circulation strikes registry set which includes jefferson's with a weight of 1. given the low populations above MS65 and the even lower FS population RELATIVE to the other coins in that set, the coin should be weighted higher than 1. but it's a one-type-coin from 1950-present so it has a HUGE population, hence a low weight. and on top of that, since it has a strike designation, if you go for a higher grade sans FS you get a deduction!!!!make sense of that.

al h.

BNE

It looks like we will be getting the Jefferson nickel weighting previews any day now. . . .

Can you feel the electricity in the air?

GQ

Please take this with a grain of salt but how did I manage to collect coins for 40 years prior to the registry and not know that each of my coins was weighted? A coin is a coin is a coin that you need in your collection; the end result being to complete the set. Completed sets are on parr with other completed sets because weights are a moot point (you all have the same coins) and grade is the factor. The same is with deductions; a proof 68 coin looses two points if it is not DCAM. So PCGS is telling me that my coin is really a proof 66. Why not just slab it as a proof 66? No complaint at all here just idle thoughts on a friday morning..............(P.S. don't let it out but I really do like DCAM coins!)

Enjoy your coins and the Registry...........

keets

the weights and designations/with adjustments are purely a registry issue. same date coins in the same grade all look different and i think most collectors know that. i have same date cameos that are better than DCAM's. i have nickels with full steps that don't look as good as non-FS regarding color and marks. the points just help in regards to "competition" for the top set and they help level the field with regards to rare coins. i only wish that PCGS would reply to this thread and tell us EXACTLY how they assign the weights, because the only thing our discussion has clarified is that none of us knows with any certainty how it's done.

al h.

BJ

I've been asked to make a statement on what criteria is used in our weighting.

The weights used in the PCGS Set Registry are determined by taking into account the following factors:

1. The overall rarity of a coin. The Set Registry is for all collectors, including both those with very modest budgets and those with unlimited purchasing budgets. The overall rarity is determined by the PCGS Population Report figures and the general rarity history of a coin.

2. The rarity in high grade. This is determined by the PCGS Population Report figures.

3. The value of a coin. Value, i.e. price, is a barometer of demand and importance. Therefore, the relative price of a coin is a factor considered in its weight.

These three factors are considered when weights are determined.

Note that the weighting concept is new to numismatics and is therefore in the testing phase. As more information and experience are obtained it is possible that some weights will be changed.

Russ

<< <i>The Set Registry is for all collectors, including both those with very modest budgets and those with unlimited purchasing budgets. >>



Since weighting clearly favors those with deep pockets at the expense of those of lesser means, I'm having a hard time understanding the reasoning behind that statement.



<< <i>The value of a coin. Value, i.e. price >>



From whence do you derive the value? I hope it's not the CU price guide. No offense, but it's nowhere close to reality in most of the moderns.

Russ, NCNE

kieferscoins

<< <i>No offense, but it's nowhere close to reality in most of the moderns. >>



It is nowhere close to anywhere.

Cameron Kiefer