What is the Difference Between a 1977(s) & 1978(s) PR70DCAM Cent?
wondercoin
Posts: 16,953 ✭✭✭✭✭
ANSWER: NOTHING, EXCEPT THE 1977 IS NOW WORTH SUBSTANTIALLY MORE IN THE PCGS SET REGISTRY.
Some forum members have asserted the variety additions in the sets are designed merely to help "dealers". Other forum members have asserted that adding varieties will likely result in many, many collectors quiting the registry and this will have a very harmful effect, overall, on dealer sales down the road.
Now, we see more changes, just like this 1977 vs. 1978 distinction. There are "winners" and "losers" with each change no doubt. Some changes certainly make more sense than others. But, my sense of it (and I did not complete a survey) is that if a collector simply stays on course with whatever his/her collecting objective was in the firstplace, these extraneous rule changes may mean very little to such collector in the longrun. And, if a collector had second thoughts about his registry collecting pursuits anyway, these rule changes make the perfect reason to quit the registry, no doubt.
Let me close with what I find to be an interesting point. So far, in nearly all the major public auctions of great collections I have witnessed these past 5+ years, whether it be Mercury Dimes, Standing Liberty quarters, Wash quarters, etc, the coins are sold BY THE LOT, PIECE BY PIECE. A collector could have an 90% complete collection and it has hardly mattered, because each coin has stood on its own merits come sale time. If a super Buffalo collection was missing a 1918/17 it really didn't matter; if a Wash Quarter set was missing a 1950d/s it didn't matter. Many of these collections where collectors are worrying about getting "100% complete" with varieties included will likely end up being broken up and sold, piece by piece, anyway in the end. So, who cares what "big brother" is doing with rule changes etc. why not just have fun collecting what you feel like collecting and if you could care less about a 1916/16 Doubled Die nickel, then don't buy one!
Wondercoin.
Some forum members have asserted the variety additions in the sets are designed merely to help "dealers". Other forum members have asserted that adding varieties will likely result in many, many collectors quiting the registry and this will have a very harmful effect, overall, on dealer sales down the road.
Now, we see more changes, just like this 1977 vs. 1978 distinction. There are "winners" and "losers" with each change no doubt. Some changes certainly make more sense than others. But, my sense of it (and I did not complete a survey) is that if a collector simply stays on course with whatever his/her collecting objective was in the firstplace, these extraneous rule changes may mean very little to such collector in the longrun. And, if a collector had second thoughts about his registry collecting pursuits anyway, these rule changes make the perfect reason to quit the registry, no doubt.
Let me close with what I find to be an interesting point. So far, in nearly all the major public auctions of great collections I have witnessed these past 5+ years, whether it be Mercury Dimes, Standing Liberty quarters, Wash quarters, etc, the coins are sold BY THE LOT, PIECE BY PIECE. A collector could have an 90% complete collection and it has hardly mattered, because each coin has stood on its own merits come sale time. If a super Buffalo collection was missing a 1918/17 it really didn't matter; if a Wash Quarter set was missing a 1950d/s it didn't matter. Many of these collections where collectors are worrying about getting "100% complete" with varieties included will likely end up being broken up and sold, piece by piece, anyway in the end. So, who cares what "big brother" is doing with rule changes etc. why not just have fun collecting what you feel like collecting and if you could care less about a 1916/16 Doubled Die nickel, then don't buy one!
Wondercoin. Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
0
Comments
You don't happen to have these lying around by any chance.
Mentioned in another thread, but the 77 vs 78 cutoff seems odd.
Do you know of any reason that they would have picked this year? (packaging change, change in minting process, etc..)
Keith
I can't say that definitively for cents, but it is certainly true for dollars and I believe the other coins. In particular, Deep Cameo becomes the norm beginning with 1978.
But more likely it's just another victim of an imperfect static formulized weighting system, that would be of course solved by a dynamic real-world market value system. I think that was what Mitch was trying to say.
Keith
And, if I had 10 of each coin "hanging around" or none of each coin (which is the case), what would it matter? I just said there is no difference between them anyway
And, I do agree with Supercoin that in the case of some denominations (not Lincolns obviously), 1978 produced a much better DCAM coin that 1977. But, it is on a case by case basis, which is why relative value weighting on a case by case basis is the only ranking system that effectively works imho. Absent the obvious problems in the system (like this 1977 vs. 1978 Lincoln), this is another "baby step" in the right direction however
I believe that Keyrock's question was a purchase inquiry.
Do you think that the potential of having a +5 for some coins (1950-1977) will "help" when it comes to weighting? Seems like that was a step in the right direction to recognzie the genuine rarity of some of those proof issues in CAM and DCAM that would not have otherwise been appreciated. Still not a value-based system, but getting closer.
Maybe we need to convince them to add bonus points for coins that have significant rarity between grades in Mint State, like the MS-68 silver quarters.
Keith
Didn't mean to step on any toes, I'm looking for those coins (atleast in 69DCAM). I'm currently number 2 on the Lincoln proofs (RS Gore collection). I was thinking you may have just gotten them in and noticed a bid price difference.
Rich