Weighting of sets?

LindeDad

OK people who make the sets and weight the sets I have a question.
Why in the Half Dollar set is a 1961 half dollar worth three times as much as a 1795.
I am talking about the U.S. Half Dollars Complete Set, Circulation Strikes (1796-present)
I realize there are not very many of us with this set but the weighting is way out there in left field. The only bonuses are for the full bell line Franklins all other coins are at one point per grade. I for one feel that we need to give credit where deserved and Flowing Hairs are a lot harder to find than Kennedy’s and most of then cost more too.

I don't have the complete answer for this but something like what is used for the United States Half Dollars Date Set; Circulation Strikes (1794-Present) would be a lot more realistic in my opium.

I do not know if this problem is in the other "Complete" sets but welcome comments from the players that have noticed problems in the favorite areas.

LincolnsRule

I wonder if their software doesn't allow one coin to be weighted differently in different sets (i.e. giving a 1961 a weight of 3 in the fbl Franklin set, and a weight of 1 in the complete half dollar set). It seems like it should be a very easy problem to fix and one that should be fixed. I've already complained in depth about the mis-weighting of some modern sets and the lack of a weighting on others.

cointime

Syl,

You and Jaime are very correct and if I can take it a step further. Most if not all of us are bulding sets and in some cases need to purchase key coins. We know that in all series i.e. Jeff nickels there is a weight for each coin. For an example I will use my 1964 mint set. Now the 1964-D in MS65 full steps the pop is 23 with 2 in MS66FS. The weight is 2 and you get 2 more points for the FS. The same coin (if I was collecting the whole series) is either worth 1 or 2 points depending on the set. Now if I use the same low pop coin in my 1950-Present type set it is only worth 1 point. In each case you do get 2 points for FS.

If I replace my 2006-P MS69FS pop 186/0, weight 69 points, value $80.00 to my 1964-D MS65FS pop 23/2, weight 65 points, value $800.00 my set would move down a notch to 17th from 16th and my rating of 61.00 moves to 60.92. I think we can do the math and it just doesn't add up

1) The Weight for a coin (same date, mint mark and grade) should be the same in all sets.
2) The weights need to be based on the (rarity=pop) + (condition=Grade) + (value=PCGS Price guide) = True Weight.

Just my thoughts.

Twincam

There's certainly something wrong when THIS COIN, which sold for $5, garners you more registry points than a pop 1/0 1797 Draped Bust Half with a price guide value of $800,000.

yevrah

My two cents:

Modern coins and Vintage coins are, IMO, apples and oranges. I don't see them on the same level.

While I have both, I prize my vintage coins most.

Although...... I do like any coin that is made of gold, platinum or silver.

Nysoto

Weighting will always be subjective. All coins in a set should be equal - no weighting. A more complete set is better IMO than a partially complete set that happens to have some rarities. No weighting would also give an accurate average grade that would not be distorted by a heavily weighted coin that you can only obtain in a lower grade. The most complete set with the average highest grade will still be on top.

mansco

I don't know if there is any "simple but good" approach to weighting, but it seems to me that somehow rarity and condition should be factored in. I've oftened thought that maybe weighting by using the PCGS price guide values would be interesting.

tradedollarnut

That set obviously hasn't been weighted yet and the bonuses are throwing it off. Kinda silly to have such a large bonus.

Silverstate

They have quite an extensive formula on many of the sets.
Check out the weighting on the Lincoln cent registry sets.

LindeDad

<< <i>Kinda silly to have such a large bonus. >>



You think that is silly check out the 1903 nickel in the complete circulation set. 1903 Oh and the Full steps is a player in this set.

BTW Mr. Hall says he will bring this problem to the attention of the registery folks.

mrcommem

I have a solution for coin weighting for type sets. For instance the gold type set current weighting for two coins.

1854 three dollar AU55 is weighted at 55 (grade) X 4 (rarity)=220
1854-D three dollar AU50 is weighted at 50(grade) x 4(rarity)=200

Clearly an 1854-D gold three is much rarer is any grade and should be rated higher than just a high pop 1854

I suggest another factor be added to the equation to account for the rarity within the series.
The weighting factor in the three dollar gold series is 1 for the 1854 three and 8 for the 1854-D.

Thus we have for the new proposed weight of the coins for type sets:

1854 55 X 4 X 1=220
1854-D 50 X 4 X 8=1600

This kind of weighting accounts for the rarity of coins within a series.

What do you all think of the idea?

mrcommem

I just checked out the weights of the coins in the Half Dollars Complete set and they are all weighted at 1. Something surely is amiss. I also checked out the Half Dollars Complete Date Set and the coins are all weighted differently. The 1795 is weighted 8 and the 1961 is weighted 2.

So, if you use my proposed system as expained in an earlier post.

1795 AU55 has a weight of 55 X 6 X 8=2640
1961 M65 has a weight of 65 X 4 X 2=520

Clearly a more equitable result for those two coins.

LindeDad

I for one like your idea of putting in the rarity factor. Especially since I just got one of those 1795 coins and it sure cost a lost more than any of my 1961's did even though it is only a F15.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>I just checked out the weights of the coins in the Half Dollars Complete set and they are all weighted at 1. Something surely is amiss. I also checked out the Half Dollars Complete Date Set and the coins are all weighted differently. The 1795 is weighted 8 and the 1961 is weighted 2.

So, if you use my proposed system as expained in an earlier post.

1795 AU55 has a weight of 55 X 6 X 8=2640
1961 M65 has a weight of 65 X 4 X 2=520

Clearly a more equitable result for those two coins. >>



They have a long backlog of sets to weight. They just haven't gotten around to that set yet.