Is There An Error Calculating Bonus/Deductions for the New Basic U.S. Coin Design, No Gold Typeset

Typetone

I think there is an error in the way points for 19th Century proofs are calculated in the new Basic Design U.S. Coin, No Gold Typeset. Below is the email I sent DH. Am I correct on this, or do I have it wrong?

Greg



Hi David:



Wow, the new basic U.S. Coin Design, No Gold typeset already has 30 sets registered! Thank you for doing this one.



I did have a question/comment about the bonus/deduction system. Most of the 19th Century Type proofs have a 1 point deduction if not DCAM. This is different from most of the sets where a CAM is +1 and a DCAM is +2. This is creating some distortions. For example, a PR66CAM Barber half (about $5K) gets the same points as an MS65 (about $2,500). A PR67CAM Lib 5c (2 point deduction and a $4,000 coin) gets the same points as an MS65 Lib 5c (a $500 coin). A PR66 RD IHC (a $2,000 coin) gets the same points as an MS65 RD (a $500 coin) There are many such examples, and apply to most of the 19th century type pieces. For moderns where DCAMs are easy to find and cheap a non-DCAM deduction makes sense. But for 19th century type, the deduction seems to be very biased against proofs.



I assume this was an error. Would it be possible to correct. I would think the standard +1 for CAM or +2 for DCAM makes sense for pre-1913 proofs. At a minimum +1 for DCAM nothing for CAM might also work. If this was not an error, can you explain why the bias against proofs for this set.



Thank you for taking a look.



Cheers



Greg Samorajski

DAM

Greg,

I noticed the difference between this and other sets too. I thought it was an attempt to work up a different weighting program. It does seem a bit unfair, IMO.

Typetone

Any other thought on this issue?

CalGold

I usually don't partake of threads here because I am not a registry kind of guy. But, I think it would be real interesting to leave the point designations as they are and see if it has an impact on the market price of 19th century proofs. If the registry has any real market power in this area, one would expect to see upward pressure on dcams and downward pressure on cam and brilliant proofs. Some collectors who don't care about registry points might actually like that result.

I am surprised that some of the paranoid, conspiracy theory guys who post here or in the US Coin Forum have not posted speculation about "insiders" hoarding dcams and using this new registry category to manipulate prices.


CG

Popcoin

Greg,

I noticed this also. Why did they go with only deductions in this set and not the others I do not understand.

I realize that there is usually a big jump in price between CAM and DCAM but there is also a jump between a NON-CAM and a CAM in all years.

I think CAM's should get some recognition over regular PR coins (pre-1965 coins at the very least).

Larry

Typetone

I got a message from David Hall on the issue. He said they did not want a PR65DCAM to be worth more than an MS66. So under the current deduction system a PR65DCAM would be equal to an MS65. The problem is that it makes PR65CAMs and regular PR65s worth less than an MS65. DH, understood our issue, and said he would at least think about it. I could see a system with no bonuses or deductions. That would keep proofs and cs coins on equal footing.

Greg

DAM

Tough call, I suppose, trying to compare MS and PR coins with a single weighting system that applies to all dates and mint marks. The best way would have been not to combine MS and PR coins in sets. That's not possible now of course.

How likely is it weighting would be eliminated in the Basic Set?