A Rarity Study of XF and AU Seated Dollars
EVillageProwler
Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭✭✭
I received my Gobrecht Journal today, and I excitedly went to read every page of it. The first article, also the title of this thread, was co-authored by a friend of mine.
Upon reaching the 2nd page of the article, I felt compelled to call him to yell at him. (He also knows that I'm going to post my thoughts of his article on the message boards.)
For those who don't receive this journal, the articulately-written article uses the PCGS and NGC pops to arrive at 6 rarity groupings for the EF40 to AU58 grade range for all business strike Seated Dollars.
To be fair, the co-authors did express in their article the reasons why I disliked the article: common date specimens in EF and AU don't get submitted due to their value; resubmissions; and, grade inflation. However, the authors placed this disclaimer at the very end. I felt that this should have been said before they introduced their data. To me, it seemed like they tried to bury this caveat.
I have a huge problem with any assertion based on what is essentially a flawed basis. That is simply bad mathematics.
While I did happen to agree with much of their results, I'd like to point out some glaring assertions that with which I am in strong disagreement:
1. They only looked at slabbed specimens in two services, and ignored nice specimens that are raw or in other services' holders.
2. They list the 1861-63, 65 dates (Group 2, 30-60 specimens) to be as rare as the '71-CC and '73-CC. I would love to trade with the authors these Civil War dates for the '71-CC and '73-CC.
3. They have the 1860, in Group 3 (60-90 specimens), as being rarer than the 1848, 50, 50-O, 56, 69, 72-S dates (Group 4, 90-130 specimens). Hah! The 1860 is one of the most common dates around, on par with the 60-O in UNC and the '71 and '72 in circ. I will gladly trade every 1860 for one of the others that I mentioned!
4. The 1860 is of the same rarity as the 1872-CC, and the 1853 as rare as the 1850-O, 56, and 72-S. Wanna trade?
My comments about wanting to trade with the authors is not intended to make out financially. We all know that there are numerous examples where relative pricing is skewed compared to relative rarity.
My point is meant to illustrate my absolute belief that the data is simply incomplete.
EVP
Upon reaching the 2nd page of the article, I felt compelled to call him to yell at him. (He also knows that I'm going to post my thoughts of his article on the message boards.)
For those who don't receive this journal, the articulately-written article uses the PCGS and NGC pops to arrive at 6 rarity groupings for the EF40 to AU58 grade range for all business strike Seated Dollars.
To be fair, the co-authors did express in their article the reasons why I disliked the article: common date specimens in EF and AU don't get submitted due to their value; resubmissions; and, grade inflation. However, the authors placed this disclaimer at the very end. I felt that this should have been said before they introduced their data. To me, it seemed like they tried to bury this caveat.
I have a huge problem with any assertion based on what is essentially a flawed basis. That is simply bad mathematics.
While I did happen to agree with much of their results, I'd like to point out some glaring assertions that with which I am in strong disagreement:
1. They only looked at slabbed specimens in two services, and ignored nice specimens that are raw or in other services' holders.
2. They list the 1861-63, 65 dates (Group 2, 30-60 specimens) to be as rare as the '71-CC and '73-CC. I would love to trade with the authors these Civil War dates for the '71-CC and '73-CC.
3. They have the 1860, in Group 3 (60-90 specimens), as being rarer than the 1848, 50, 50-O, 56, 69, 72-S dates (Group 4, 90-130 specimens). Hah! The 1860 is one of the most common dates around, on par with the 60-O in UNC and the '71 and '72 in circ. I will gladly trade every 1860 for one of the others that I mentioned!
4. The 1860 is of the same rarity as the 1872-CC, and the 1853 as rare as the 1850-O, 56, and 72-S. Wanna trade?
My comments about wanting to trade with the authors is not intended to make out financially. We all know that there are numerous examples where relative pricing is skewed compared to relative rarity.
My point is meant to illustrate my absolute belief that the data is simply incomplete.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
0
Comments
I couldn't help but want to compare their population numbers with the ones Randy Campbell used in his Coin World series.
Frankly, for all that they're supposedly "common", I have yet to see a slabbed, XF-AU 1842 or 1843 dollar at the coin shows I got to. (And I don't see that many other slabbed XF-AU Seated dollars at shows, either!)
Thanks for your comments.
Check out the Southern Gold Society