Jefferson nickel weighting preview now available

NIckelCollector

After just a quick scan there appears to be some big inconsistencies in the weighting. Comments?

keithdagen

Frank,

Beyond PCGS suggesting a FS bonus for the 38-D and 38-S, what did you not like? I don't know a lot about the series as far as rarites, so can't make many comments.

Ronyahski

My comment - PCGS needs to go back to the drawing board. Here is a classsic case of generally attributing too much importance to desginations like Full Steps, yet not recognizing the true rarity of some dates that atttain that designation.

There are some dates, pick on a 40-D or 41-D, that generally come full steps. They receive 2 bonus points. What for? They are common, there are (will be) thousands of them graded. A full step coin of this date is probably less rare than one without full steps.

There are some dates, 53-S, 54-S, 60-D, 61-D, that are absolute rarities, meaning that one coin in many thousands may be full steps. Yet they only receive an extra bonus point or two! Psshawww. Worse, the Type 1 dates of 38-D and 38-S have yet to see their first full step coin graded, but they receive the same bonus points (2) as the most common full step coins!?!? No way!! Not even credible. (Don't get me started on how PCGS has no idea how to grade a full step Type 1 coin.)

PCGS - don't just slap bonus points on coin designations for the heck of it. It comes across as too gimmicky and marketing focused. Make it mean something.

NIckelCollector

Keith:

Here are my comments:

CS 38 -64 w/o varieties

All weights should be the same at 2. All of these coins are generally available in high grade, there may be a few exceptions. In fact the proposed weighting has a higher weighting for 1940s vs. 1960s - this makes no sense.

FS bonus should change for 38D & S to 5 - no coins have ever been graded FS by PCGS

CS 65 - current

All weights should be the same at 1. All of these coins are generally available in high grade. Pop reports for these coins don't reflect rarity but what coins has been submitted to PCGS

FS bonus should change for 66, 67 68D, 69D, 69S to 5 - no coins have ever been graded FS by PCGS.
65, 68S, 70D and 70s should increase to reflect true rarity.

Proofs -

38 -50 should not have a weight of 6

DCAM weighting for 38 -42 should be higher than 1950s weighting. 65, 66,67 SMS & 71 NO S DCAM weighting should be higher

Varieties

2 proof varieties should be included 1939 rev of 40 and 1940 rev of 38. 1964 SMS should also be included

1939 double, 43/2 49 D/S should have weighting higher than 54 S/D and 55 D/S.

See additional changes below. I had trouble with formatting. If you would prefer to see an excel file PM me.

Comments?


Jefferson Nickels with Varieties - Circulation Strikes (1938-Present)
Coin Weight FS Bonus
1938 2 2 to 3
1938-D 3 to 2 2 to 5
1938-S 3 to 2 2 to 5
1939 DM 5 to 4 2
1939-D 5 to 2 2 to 3
1939-S 4 to 2 2
1941-S 3 to 2 2
1942-D 3 to 2 2
1942-P T 3 to 2 2
1942-S 3 to 2 2
1943-P DDO3 to 4 2
1943/2-P 3 to 4 2
1949 2 3 to 2
1950 3 to 2 2
1950-D 3 to 2 2
1951 3 to 2 2
1951-S 3 to 2 2
1953 3 to 2 3
1953-D 2 2
1953-S 3 to 2 4
1954 4 to 2 2 to 3
1954-S 2 3 to 4
1954-S/D 4 to 3 5
1955-D 1 to 2 3
1955-D/S 4 to 3 5
1956 1 to 2 2
1956-D 1 to 2 3 to 2
1957 1 to 2 2
1957-D 1 to 2 2
1958-D 1 to 2 2
1959 1 to 2 2
1959-D 1 to 2 2
1960 1 to 2 3
1960-D 1 to 2 5 to 4
1961 1 to 2 3
1961-D 1 to 2 5 to 4
1962 1 to 2 2
1962-D 1 to 2 2
1963 1 to 2 2
1963-D 1 to 2 2
1964 1 to 2 2
1964-D 1 to 2 2
1965 1 2 to 4
1966 1 2 to 5
1967 1 2 to 5
1968-D 1 2 to 5
1968-S 1 2 to 5
1969-D 1 2 to 5
1969-S 1 2 to 5
1970-D 1 2 to 4
1970-S 1 2 to 3
1982-P 2 to 1 2
1982-D 2 to 1 2
1983-P 2 to 1 2
1983-D 2 to 1 2
1984-P 2 to 1 2
Jefferson Nickels with Varieties - Proof (1938-Present)
Coin Weight CA Points DC Points
1938 6 to 3 1 to 2 2 to 4
1939 6 to 3 1 to 2 2 to 4
1940 6 to 3 1 to 2 2 to 4
1941 6 to 3 1 to 2 2 to 4
1942 T-1 6 to 3 1 to 2 2 to 4
1942-P T-2 6 to 3 1 to 2 2 to 4
1950 6 to 3 1 3
1951 5 to 3 1 3
1952 4 to 3 1 3
1953 4 to3 1 3
1955 2 to 3 1 3
1965 SMS 2 1 2 to 3
1966 SMS 2 1 2 to 3
1967 SMS 2 1 2 to 3

CarlWohlforth

We get to preview the Jeff weights just as I'm leaving on a vacation!!!! I won't be able to fight for changes!

Now that they have a with varieties proof set they droppped the 2 major varieties ?!? Why even bother if they have identified only the NO-S as the only variety??? -- The only thing I disagree with Frank on is making the 64 SMS a variety

I agree the '38-'42 should have a higher DCAM weight than the 50s coins. It is clear there won't be as many of them. The SMS DCAMs should be weighed as much as the 50s DCAMs.

We need to write PCGS with our opinion. Please feel free to mention I agree with Frank's opinions!

RGL

Frank has it nailed. I cannot disagree with his suggestions one iota, they make sense in reflecting both rarity and reality. Listen to the people who know the series, BJ and PCGS ... Good job, Frank.

leothelyon

Frank,
Where, oh where can I preview the Jefferson's new weighting system? I've looked (almost) everywhere
and had no luck. In my opinion, any weighing system they have contrived up, unfortunately will not reflect the true average grade for any collection. If anything would be practical, subtract the 2 points if the coin is not full steps instead of adding the 2 points. Heck, regular series collections should have there own listings then we would not be dealing in points here. This way, I can see the true average grade of a FS collection without all the hoopla. If we keep adding points to the scarcer dates, we'll have grade averages up to MS68 and 69 for some series. Is a MS70 average designation practical for a business strike collection? Sure it's not, I know you'll agree with me on this.
So how do we show that one collection is credited for having some of the scarcer dates? It's simple, show a tally number for the number of scarce dates in the collection in bold red numbers noted after the grade point average. Like MS 65.89-13 and yes it would include the varieties. Come judging time, the extra points can be added, subtracted, multiplied and then divided again to select a winner. But the collections need to stick with their true grade averages.

Man, I can hear the eruptions of the applauses all over again. Thank you, thank you, (I'm running off and on from the stage again, now with great bows of dignity).

Seriously, I can’t believe CU didn’t ask for input on this. I can see it now, how the great so called minds
of the FS Jefferson’s convene together in a forum to discuss this. ‘No, not that one, it’s this one, yes, give it a 4, no wait, make that a 5. What about this one? I don’t know, haven’t really seen one of those…( after 30 sec of silience) give it a 4, no a 5, wait, how about a 6. You can’t give this a 5 when that other date is a 5.
That date is pocket change. What?! Hey, where you going Leo? To the CAN.

NIckelCollector

Leo:

These are the proposed jefferson weightings so we have the opportunity to get them changed. The weightings can be found on the PCGS Registry home page under "news".

Let me know what you think.

Frank

GQ

I have a question regarding the weighting of Jefferson Nickels (and other series too)......Why? The end result of collecting coins is to complete the set; once the set is complete I would think that weights would be a moot point....grade would be the only factor (every complete set has the same coins). Are weights designed for uncompleted sets to compete with rarer coins? I am apolitical on weighting.....everyone still plays by the same rules but I need to know.

Enjoy your coins............

Monstavet

In simple terms, weighting will allow one 100% set to be compared to another 100% set to better establish the superior set. Whether it actually achieves that goal is another story...

keithdagen

GQ,

Think of two Washington quarter sets in silver 1932-1964. One guy has a complete set of MS-65 coins, but has the 32-D in AU-58, the other set is complete in grades of 64 and 65, with the 32-D in 64. Weighting allows you to stack similar sets by giving more importance to the rarities and showing how much of a gap there is between sets. If a lot of the second set's coins are 64, does the one key date outweigh the other set that has more 65's?

Monstavet

My input on the weights for proof Jeffs 65-present:

#1: What is the point of a variety set for 65 to present? It only adds one coin (the 71 no S). IMHO this coin should be included in the basic set. Also, making it an optional coin greatly decreases its value...it is no longer needed for the basic set so many people will simply not buy one. Question: can coins be registered in both the basic set and the variety set at the same time? If not, it means I have to buy all new coins 1965-present in order to include my no S coin, right? What a scam. The weight of 10 seems to be a bit high for this one....I would make it a weight of 5, with a 3 point bonus for cameo, 6 point bonus for deep cameo. As Frank points out, these are very rare in DCAM. And not a lot more will be found.


#2: For the SMS pieces, I would increase the bonuses as follows: 2 points for CAMS, and 4 point for DCAMs...these are exceptionally tough to find for this series.

#3: I would also increase the DCAM bonus for 1971. The pops may change significantly in the future, but for now, this year is very tough to find in DCAM. And having spent a lot of time looking for nice examples of this year, I can say they are tough to find raw or certified. I think they should get 3 points for DCAM in this year.

Those are my thought for now...ah one more: I think the 94 and 97 SMS pieces should be included here...but not very many people aggree with me on that. I know they are not true proofs, but they aren's circulation strikes either. And for that matter, the 65-67 SMS pieces aren't true proofs, but get included. All the SMS pieces (even thought produced differently) should be in the same place. Just my opinion though, and what do I know?

Monstavet

BTW Frank, great analysis. Nobody knows this series as well as you, so I hope the Registry Gawds are listening.

keithdagen

Monsta,

The 94 and 97 pieces are minted the same way that MS Modern Commems were minted. That's why they are considered MS coins. The 65-67 pieces are closer to proofs and can occasionally be found in CAM and DCAM, similar to the proofs.

All,

Make sure that you e-mail your opinions to the Registry crew. The odds of them seeing a thread are very low.

keets

hey frank----your review of the proposed weights i s in line with my thoughts. the only coins which should be weighted are the are coins with lower mintages. pcgs is assigning their weights to reflect slabbed coins and not availability as it relates to the total mintage. the sets will "weigh" themselves with acquisition of F/S coins, CAM and DCAM coins. with a minimal cash outlay all the coins in all the sets could be located in short time. this seems a little like overkill to me. no need for weights in modern sets with the exception of a few coins.

al h.

pontiacinf

looks good even though i dont play nickle wise

tompkins

Just one question: as they move toward a CAM and DCAM bonus (rather than the penalty they used to have), there is no bonus for 78 and later (not sure if it is the same date for all series, but I think it is). Does this mean that for modern proof coins, a PR69CAMEO and PR69DCAM count the same? While the pop report doesn't acknowledge the existence of Cameos since 1978, I know that to be untrue (I have at least one--a 2002-S Jefferson graded PR69Cameo, and I think I have had others at times). So it seems wrong that my cameo should count the same as a dcam, yet that appears to be the direction PCGS is heading.

Pete

NIckelCollector

Pete:

The answer to your question is yes - there would be no difference between a 1978 PR69 vs CAM vs DCAM. The DCAMs are the norm for these years.

Perhaps the best approach would be to penalize non DCAM coins for these years (1978 - current). By the way my 2002 proof Jeffersons were mostly all cameos - the worst year I can remember.

tompkins

Frank,

I understand that DCAMs are the norm for 1978 and later. But, as you say, there are a tremendous number of cameo 2002 nickels out there (including one I own), and they should certainly be penalized. I'll try to find a nice dcam, because the one I have is pretty ugly, and the extra point isn't that important (getting this second rate coin replaced by a nice one is much more important), but it just seems unfair for the cameos to count the same.

Pete

tompkins

Actually, as I think about it, since PR69DCAMs are sort of the norm, maybe we should just make 69's and 70's count the same! That's probably the only way I'll ever make a run at your magnificent set!!

Pete

BNE

I wish those brilliant and CAM numbers were available for '78 on. I want to know the highest grades for these recent dates in brilliant, and how common or rare they are. I think it would be a lot of fun to try to track these down and build a top-grade late brilliant proof Jefferson set (if I could find good examples).

Perhaps there should be a premium for brilliant proofs from the 80's and 90's because of their "condition rarity."

NIckelCollector

Pete:

I like your first comment - definitely not the second

Frank

Justhavingfun

To the top. This is a fascinating thread. If you're a Jefferson Nickel afficionado, you're almost certain to learn some interesting schtuff here.

Best wishes,



Just Having Fun!