Home› PCGS Set Registry Forum
Options

Morgan VAM Valuations

sonoranmonsoonsonoranmonsoon Posts: 2,078 ✭✭
in PCGS Set Registry Forum
I am confused about something. I am trying to determine a fair offer for an 1896-O Morgan Dollar, VAM 19, PCGS MS-62 (not in vam holder yet). I notice that according to the PCGS set composition rarety weights, if the 1896-O is kept in the origional holder the weight is 9, but if it is put in a vam 19 holder, the weight drops to 4. Am I missing something here. I thought the VAM's would have a higher weight, because there should be fewer of them than the generic date. If any of you can explain this to me and/or help with what would be a fair offer for this coin would be, I would be very appreciative.

Comments

  • Options
    BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 30,987 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Without looking I would guess that it is one of the more common VAM's for this date, hence the lower ranking as a VAM. I don't think that the weighting in one set has much to do with how its weighting figures in another set or subset.
    theknowitalltroll;
    MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
  • Options
    sonoranmonsoonsonoranmonsoon Posts: 2,078 ✭✭
    Both of these weightings are included in the superset. I thought the generic date weighting included all the vams as well as the commons. I guess I am mistaken. Apparently, when the vams are seperated out, the generic weight excludes them. I am making assumptions here. I have not seen it clarified anywhere on PCGS.
  • Options
    DennisHDennisH Posts: 13,963 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sounds like a good question for David Hall.
    When in doubt, don't.
  • Options
    Yale68Yale68 Posts: 376
    My guess is that it is an inadvertent error on the part of PCGS, and they will correct it when notified. A quick scan of the weights reveals that this is the only case where a VAM is weighted less than its generic counterpart.
Sign In or Register to comment.