A Crazy Idea - Anticipated and Mintage Cameo Rarity Scale

FlyingAl

I had a crazy idea, and I thought it was interesting enough and dumb enough to share it with you guys. Set me straight !

Based on what I could find about the URS (Universal Rarity Scale) developed by Bowers, it plays off of current graded populations or known examples. I wanted to take that a bit further, for coins with a certain quality - Cameo and Deep Cameo coins. Here's the idea:

If we take the amount of graded CAM or DCAM coins and divide it against the total graded population, we can get an idea of what percent of coins sent to the TPGS came back CAM or DCAM for that specific coin. By taking that percentage and multiplying it against the total mintage of that coin, we can get an anticipated total of CAM or DCAM coins graded.

Here's the scale I came up with:

ACRS (Anticipated Cameo Rarity Scale) 10: None expected (0)
ACRS 9: 1-4 expected
ACRS 8: 5-10 expected
ACRS 7: 11-40 expected
ACRS 6: 41-250 expected
ACRS 5: 251-500 expected
ACRS 4: 501-1500 expected
ACRS 3: 1500-5000 expected
ACRS 2: 5001-15000 expected
ACRS 1: 15001-25000 expected
ACRS 0: More than 25000 expected

Let's use a 1892 Barber Half as an example, I will use a cameo rating scale (CRS) and deep cameo rating scale (DCRS) rating using the above scale for current KNOWN populations, or ones that exist in NGC or PCGS slabs today:

CRS: 6
DCRS: 7
ACRS (Anticipated Cameo Rarity Scale): 3
ADCRS (Anticipated Deep Cameo Rarity Scale): 6

This could be further adapted to allow for the percentage of CAM or DCAM coins based on how much of the mintage is expected to be cameo or deep cameo based on the ACRS:

MCRS 10 (Mintage Cameo Rarity Scale): 0-1% of mintage cameo
MCRS 9: 2-3% of mintage cameo
MCRS 8: 4-5% of mintage cameo
MCRS 7: 6-7% of mintage cameo
MCRS 6: 7-8% of mintage cameo
MCRS 5: 8-9% of mintage cameo
MCRS 4: 10-15% of mintage cameo
MCRS 3: 16-20% of mintage cameo
MCRS 2: 21-30% of mintage cameo
MCRS 1: 31-60% of mintage cameo
MCRS 0: 61-100% of mintage cameo

So for a 1892 proof Barber half:
MCRS: 2
MDCRS: 9

The purpose of this would be twofold:
1) It would make it so that people looking for a CAM or DCAM coin would have an idea of how many could conceivably exist, and
2) It would give them an idea of how rare a CAM or DCAM is based off of the rest of the mintage.

As we can see, a CAM 1892 Barber half is not particularly rare when compared to the rest of the mintage, while a DCAM is. The ACRS and ADCRS do not show this very well, as lower mintages will show lower surviving populations resulting in high rarity numbers on those two scales when the coins (CAM or DCAM) aren't particularly rare when compared to their mintage. Using these two scales together would give a great comparison for buyers to use when choosing the premium a cameo or deep cameo should deserve - a cameo 1892 half does not deserve a massive premium while a deep cameo may. Personally, I think the mintage rarity scale has more use for this purpose.

The problem with this is that the scales can be skewed by crackouts. I don't see a way that I can fix that.

Anyways, I think I have a bit too much time on my hands this Saturday afternoon! Also, I apologize for using so many different abbreviations and making you guys think!

AUandAG

Interesting idea and an extremely lot of work. But, any information I can gather about a coin is certainly welcome. I see quite a few Cam or DCams in my series. CC Morgans
bob

jmlanzaf

Submissions aren't random. Is a cameo or near cameo as likely to be submitted (or resubmitted) as one that isn't?

You're also essentially assuming 100% survivorship.

But it could serve as something of a benchmark.

P0CKETCHANGE

@jmlanzaf said:
Submissions aren't random. Is a cameo or near cameo as likely to be submitted (or resubmitted) as one that isn't?

You're also essentially assuming 100% survivorship.

But it could serve as something of a benchmark.

The majority of surviving 1892 Barber half proofs are likely holdered (between the two primary TPGs), right?

So perhaps this is more effective with some coins than others (like Jefferson proofs, for ex.).

In either case, it’s too much work/math for me to do on my own to have any usefulness. I just want to look at pretty coins!

FlyingAl

@jmlanzaf said:
But it could serve as something of a benchmark.

That's the main idea - to give somewhat of an idea of the rarity of a particular issue in CAM or DCAM. It's nowhere near perfect, but it could help prospective buyers.

ricko

@FlyingAl ... Wow... that is a lot of work. Good information. Thanks for sharing. Cheers, RickO

Maywood

I have an easier method: determine how many dies were used to strike a particular issue and calculate from there. A best case assumption might be less than 25 possible Deep Cameo strikes and perhaps another 75 Cameo strikes, affected by how well the dies were prepared and the era in which the issue was released. Certain eras like during the 1950's for some issues the numbers are much less and for others, like current, virtually every coin has Deep Cameo or Cameo surfaces. Further, for most issues prior to 1950 all this has been sorted out and the current numbers are what exists.

I think the best way to "help prospective buyers" is for that buyer to gain experience and make their own assessment based on that.

edwardjulio

How does this issue fit in your scale?
1877 $10 Proof
Mintage 20
PCGS encapsulated 2, PR64CAM & PR64+DCAM
NGC encapsulated 2, PF64CAM & PF65UCAM
4 encapsulated out of an original mintage of 20

FlyingAl

@Maywood, I did think of that. The problem is the unknown number of CAM or DCAM coins a die could strike. For example, some dies struck no CAM or DCAM coins, while others can strike up to hundreds of each, or as you pointed out, all of the coins were DCAM in modern proof sets and offerings. I thought this was a better alternative. Of course, you're absolutely right about the buyers, but I do think that this is a good example of relative rarity when it's not always noticed. Here's an example:

A 1959 half:

ACRS: 0
ADCRS: 4
MCRS: 8
MDCRS:10

When compared to a 1960 half:

ACRS: 0
ADCRS: 0
MCRS: 4
MDCRS: 9

So we see in a one year difference a drastic decrease in rarity. It's not always to help collectors, but this could point out the years where policy changed at the mint leading to different die production, or different solutions used etc. as it happened in 1959.

@edwardjulio - The pop reports are showing different numbers, so I used those.

1877 $10
ACRS: 7
ADCRS: 9
MCRS: 1
MDCRS: 3

gumby1234

Sounds good in theory, but how many certified CAM coins got cracked and resubmitted multiple times? How may of those upgraded to DCAM? How many DCAM got re submitted looking for a higher grade? I like the idea dont get me wrong. Its like pop reports in general. The only way you know for sure is if its pop 1 and none higher.

jesbroken

Not sure it would be enough info to make a buying decision, but is certainly enough info to make it interesting and worth viewing by hunters of Cam/Dcam coins. Lot of work. Thanks for sharing.
JIm

edwardjulio

@FlyingAl - The pop reports are showing different numbers, so I used those.

1877 $10
ACRS: 7
ADCRS: 9
MCRS: 1
MDCRS: 3

These population reports are incorrect for the 1877 $10 in PROOF. Only 4 examples are encapsulated PCGS/NGC.