A Registry quandry: What would you do? (Or, why PCGS' weights are off)

RGL

On a submission or raw coins, I today scored a 1950 Jefferson Five-Cent PR-65 CAM (13/69). Don't get me started on why this is a DCAM (13 in all grades.) My existing PR-67 1950 Jeff has a pop of 204/16 vs. the 13/69 on the PR-65 CAM. Entering the CAM in my No. 6 early basic Jeff set, my score drops from 67.58 to 67.49, a deduction of a very healthy and hard-to-gain .08 at the upper echelon of the series. The overall set grade drops dramatically for a 65 CAM coin nearly three times rarer than the brilliant 67. Does this truly reflect rarity vs. grade?

A case in point. To my knowledge, BNE still owns the ONLY DCAM from the 1936-42 proof era, a 1942 Type 2 PR-66 DCAM Jeff. This DCAM one-of-a-kind coin carries a points-added weight of 2 in the early Jeff proofs vs. 3 for all DCAMS from 1950 to 1959. Should a silver P DCAM '42 (1/0) carry less clout than a '55 DCAM Jeff (22 in all grades)? The question answers itself. I recall many, including leading nickel numismatists Frank and Carl, questioning the proposed weights when they were revised. And, this is not a self-serving observation. Collectors above me would gain appreciably over me if things were as they should be. Is it time for another campaign?

Which would you rather have, rarity over grade or inflated score over true score?

cameoproofcoins

I think the dcam coins are so much rarer than the cams that the weights don't make any sense. This is true for 50-70 coinage and for early types. In some denominations there may be only a couple dcams for the whole series, and even then some of them don't have nice mirrors. Couldn't agree with you any more.

Mark

RGL:

In a real sense, you do not have to make the decision about rarity over grade or inflated score over true score because regardless of which coin you put in your set, you still own both coins. So you could continue to list your PR67 (in order to reap it's relatively high point value) and note in the "owner's comment" section that you also have a PR65 CAM example.

That said, I agree with you that some of the bonuses could use reworking. I'd dislike seeing PCGS go the NGC route, because I value the simplicity of the PCGS method. But most likely the bonus for the 42 DCAM might (!) need to be increased a bit and ditto for the 50 CAM and DCAM.

Why not post a question about this topic on the Q/A board so that perhaps HRH sees it? After all, I agree with you that to ask the question "Should a 42DCAM receive less of a bonus that a 55DCAM?" is to answer the question.

Mark

lava

The registry system has problems that need to be worked out. In my area of morgans, it makes no sense to me that pl and dmpl morgans get no higher weight than their same grade counterparts in the non-pl/dmpl registry set. Who is going to pass the opportunity to take an ms65 over an ms65dmpl for the same price? Given the population differences, giving them equal weight makes no sense to me.

By comparison, NGC seems to understand demand, and their weights have been set accordingly, although they too need much fine tuning (many coins offer very few points, if any, on upgrades)

bigt

All of the early fifties Jeffs are weighted incorrectly, they add weight to the date with not enough bonus to the cams and d-cams.
Pcgs didn't listen to us and we are buyers/collectors/makers of the coins!!
Pop. alone does not reflect the difficulty of obtaining those dates in cam and d-cam.
T

TWQG

What is this on topic thread doing here?

Typetone

Same problem in proof Franklins. A 1950CAM only gets one bonus point while a DCAM gets 5. OK, I can't argue about the DCAM weight, but the CAM weight is to low. For example, a PR67 gets the same weight as a 66CAM. While the PR67 is a good registry set coin it is not as expensive or rare as a 66CAM. Some of those 50s proof weight should be redone.

Greg

NIckelCollector

Randy:

I agree with your comments completely. However, while there are many inconsistencies with the current weights, in my opinion the weighted sets are a still an improvement over the previous non weighted sets.

It does not appear PCGS has a process in place to effectively evaluate and process input from collectors, the coin market and population changes that might impact the weights. Perhaps some sort of registry weighting committee with collectors, coin dealers and PCGS officials recommending and making changes to the weights on an annual basis.

Clearly, changes need to made to weighting system to better reflect rarity, etc.

Frank

CarlWohlforth

What would I do? I would keep the Cam. I agree that DCAM Jeffs from 1960 and earlier are not weighted enough. For 1938-1953 I also think the plain Cameos are not weighted enough. Perhaps 1957 and 1958 Cameos also need a boost?