CEOs Weighting Idea - I Like It - What Do You Think?

Typetone

New member CEO posted what I think is a brilliant set ranking idea. I like it. What do you think?

Now that PCGS posts the number of coins graded higher, his idea is simply to add up all the available coins graded higher than the set's coins. Lowest number gets the highest rank. I think that works for three reasons.

1.) Completeness is rewarded. If a set is missing a coin, it will get a high score (poor rank) because there will probably be many coins graded in the missing date.

2.) Absolute and condition rarity is also rewarded. For complete sets, those with the most low pop coins will get the lowest points (best rank). Everyone will be able to get the dates and grades where many are graded. But, to get the final low scores will require picking off some low pop pieces. For example, Dennis and I have the #1 and #2 ranked mint state IKE sets. We have the exact same pieces in the exact same grades, except for one. For my set there are 19 higher graded coins for all dates and mintmarks. For Dennis's set, there are only 16 available. So, he gets the better ranking. The difference is I own the 77 in MS66, and I believe that Dennis has the 77 in MS67 (with a pop of three). So, he gets rewarded for buying that final low pop piece.

3.) It is objective. We don't need an expert to set 1-10 weights, or weights per date and grade (like NGC), or even prices. We won't have to argue incessantly about those. Instead, the pop report would contain all the info needed.

The real beauty is that PCGS really doesn't have to do anything. For each set, all they have to do is sum and report the number of coins available which could improve the set. They could even keep their 1-10 weight rankings or any other complicated nonsense they want. Because, the bottom line is anybody could see who has the best set by seeing who has the fewest available upgrade coins.

CEO, great idea.

What do you think.

Greg

keithdagen

Greg,

How do you handle Type sets?

In Type, a collector could choose an XF date that doesn't have anything higher, where another date might have coins up to MS-65 or better (thinking series like $20 Libertys).

For series sets, it makes absolute sense to me. The argument against is that the populations may not be fleshed out for some clad issues, but the counter-argument is that the set automatically adjusts when the population soars.

Keith

Typetone

Hi Keith:

I meant it to apply to series sets. But, it could work for type. For each type, you simply add up the number of higher graded pieces available in any date mintmark. Again, lowest score wins.

For example, in Walkers the best grade available in an MS68 (which is available in several dates). Whoever buys a 68 gets the max credit for that type. Of course, it might be harder to get a 21S in MS65 then a 40 in MS67, and that might not seem fair to the buyer of the 21S. However, my understanding of type collecting is that you look for the highest grade you can even in a common date. It really is a condition rarity play.

What do you think?

Greg

braddick

The 1921-S in 65 is a much better coin than a common date in MS68 yet would not be rewarded. Isn't your idea kind of a twist on what PCGS is doing now anyway?

wondercoin

Greg: Makes little sense to me to rely on an UNRELIABLE POP REPORT. Like the 1964 SMS quarters where the Mint is estimated to have struck only 10 coins, but already PCGS has 22 graded in the pop report!! Could reach 50 or 100 in the pop report if I decide I want to continue to try my high end MS67 enough times!! And, how about that collector with the MS66 that watches his coin drop and drop and drop when no new coins really exist!! Think about it. There are myriad examples of this that I am aware of-the SMS example is just so clear. Wondercoin

Typetone

Braddick:

Of course, if you are doing an entire Walker series the 21S in MS65 gets almost all the points for that date since there is only one higher. I agree with you that a 21S in 65 is better than a 40 in 68. While I am not really a type guy, my understanding is that type collectors go for highest grade without worrying about date. If that is incorrect than I would only apply CEOs idea to series collecting.

Mitch:

Your point is well taken. However, I would point out that the buyer of the MS67 (whether there is 1 or 22) gets the max amount of credit for that date. The guy who owns the 66 won't drop any faster than anyone else who otherwise has the same pieces. Only the guy with the 67 will maintain, but he has the best piece anyway. In any event, an expert assessing rarity by date and grade will probably use the pop report anyway. He would be subject to the same clown resubmitting his MS67 (until it drops to a 66 and he gets canned).

Greg

Spooly

I like the 1 to 10 scale that PCGS is using................ but what concerns me is how often will the weighting be updated? I mean... the first POP 1 (say MS-67) coin will get a high weighting... then 6 months later the POP is 30/4 the weighting should drop. I think this idea solves the problem of always having to re-rank the system. (That task will be never ending under the current system)


I think we need a little more debate on this.

braddick

Greg, In general, your assumption is correct. Most Type Collectors want the finest graded. I do know some take on a theme with their collecting objectives. For example, one might be putting together a Type set with all first year of issues. Another may want to chase after the Keys to the different series. For these- in the minority- collectors this proposed weighing system would fail.

keithdagen

Speaking as a "theme" Type collector (only MS unless a specific proof is required), "theme" collectors know going in that their coins are not going to be able to get the maximum points that someone else can get.

Keith

DeepCoin

I like the idea in general, but for sets like the Mercury set you would have to differentiate between FB and non FB coins as they have different PCGS numbers and populations. I noticed it because if you look at my little collection there are not a ton of coins higher, but in the FB series I would be way behind (as my set should be to a FB set).

For example, I just bought a 28P in MS65 that only has 2 higher in the PCGS population (according to the population listed on the Heritage site, I dont have a copy of the population reports so I am relying on theirs until I get the coin in my set).

I am certain there are many, many more FB coins (again I lack to pop. report) in MS65 and above for the 28P. While I am very happy floating along in 21st place, I still want to be included in the Mercury registry and happily take my two point deduction on every coin I acquire.

khayse

Well I agree with everyone so far. I think it's a neat idea
and rates sets well (Greg).

I agree it is just a twist on what they're doing now (Braddick).

And I agree with Mitch that there could be inequities with
the system because of mistakes in the reported population
(though I don't worry about people resubmitting to try to
lower their opponents).

It is a fun way to analyze a set though. Again, thanks PCGS
for adding the two population columns.

-KeithH

keithdagen

Mitch,

NGC's system uses a "relative rarity." Doesn't population play a heavy part in this? I would think that using the population numbers is pretty well accepted, whether in determining pricing for modern coins, or for determining scarcity of high grade coins. If it means fixing the populations, then that can only be a benefit.

Keith

Typetone

Keith:

As far as I know NGC does use pop in assigning points. All I am saying is why rely on "experts" pontificating, or secret undisclosed formulas. The pop numbers while perhaps not perfect, are transparent, the system would be fair and simple, and everyone would play on the same terms with the info available to all. You would know exactly what you have to do to move up.

Deep Coin:

Of course adjustments would need to be made for designation coins. For example in Mercury Dimes if I registered an MS65 non-FB, the number graded above would have to include the 64FBs, the 65FBs, and all 66s and better. THe 63FBs would count as number in the same grade.

Greg

Spooly

PCGS is going to change all adjustments (Qualifiers) will be to add bonus points. So that is still in line with PCGS current policy.


Greg is right the POP's will still work even if the POP's aren't perfect.

I am not understanding the Type Set questions, I still don't see how this system won't work with the Type Sets. Someone want to expand on this?

I also think this system is in line with the NGC system..... but their has to be a something different in the NGC system to make the "one coin" set in the NGC Registry. This system is fair all the way around...... more points for low pop coins...... more points for complete sets..... and no re-ranking for pop changes all the time.

I think CEO and Greg are on to something here. Anyone talk to David Hall about this?

solid

I do like the simplicity of this idea for series sets, and Greg just pointed out how it could be set up to handle the series with FB, FBL, FS, FH, RD, etc (did I leave any out) designations.

As for type sets, well, I like this system for these too. That way we all have something to entertain us as those guys argue about whose set is REALLY the best!

The only failing I see (which is a symptom of the whole crackout/upgrade game) is that the guys that don't have finest-known coins will appear to be further behind than they really are. If MS67 is the top grade, there are always going to be more MS66 coins listed in the pop reports than actually exist. And this only gets worse as time goes on and more 66's are resubmitted over and over again. It's enough to make a person wonder if the smart long-term money might be in buying up 2nd-finest known coins. Maybe one day, these pop reports will get straightened out and those people will be sitting on a bunch of coins with pops that are much lower than was previously believed...

Ken

braddick

Keith- That "Themed" set may not receive the maximum points based soley on GRADE, but would well make up for it in a 'weighted' registry with its scarcity/rarity.
A number one set could be obtained with AU50 KEYS instead of MS65 commons I would think.

CEO

Wow! Some really great thoughts regarding my original post. As with any system, it has it's shortcomings, but at the end of the day, summing the "Pop Higher" column will answer the question "How many coins are better than the ones I already have?" As Wondercoin correctly points out, the less accurate the population report, the less accurate the ranking. However, even within the current grading system there are MS-68 Morgan dollars that really should be MS-67, etc., so we'll always have errors. Coin grading is currently an art, not a science.

BTW, I didn't mention how % complete would be handled, but I believe that for every coin missing, you simply calculate the "Pop Higher" as the total number of examples in all grades for the date/mint and/or type. That should work just fine in the end.

What do you guys think? Should we propose this to David Hall and see what he thinks?

Typetone

CEO:

Let's see what a few more guys think, and if there is enough support maybe a 1/2 dozen of us could send David an email. The beauty is they don't even have to drop the 1-10 weighting system. All they have to do is add an entry for each set summing up the total upgrade coins available. Then we could figure out ourselves which are the strongest sets.

Solid:

I agree with some of your points. It may be that a set composed of second finest pieces is the best investment. However the best set should still be the one with the finest grades. It might not be the best investment, but it still is the best set.

A guy with all second finest pieces could still get a very low number (high rank). Suppose we have a 30 coin set. Assume that the number of second finest for each date/mintmark averages 30 coins and the finest averages 2 pieces each. If you have the second finest for each entry your total score is 60. If you have the third finest for each your score would be 900. Suppose the best set has 1/2 second finest and 1/2 finest. That score would be 30. So, you can get close with all second finest. Knocking off the last few points would get harder and harder, and that's where the big guys would be competing. Seems like it should work.

Cheers

Greg

wondercoin

Greg: It is becoming more and more obvious, that you will do just about anything to try to catch Dennis!! Wondercoin.

supercoin

The simple and objective rules is certainly attractive to me, and I imagine would be so to David Hall too, especially after another 2 months of messing with weightings.

And if you think about it, which is crazier?

1. Relying on flawed pop reports to determine a coin's rarity.
2. Relying on a number on a label to determine which is a better coin.

If you can swallow #2, then #1 is nothing by comparison!

Certainly specific population numbers, and certainly some specific grades, will always be in error. But as general trends, both should be valid.

On the downside -- I don't think you can get it to work exactly right with designations. For example, there are Mercury dates that are common in MS67 but really hard in MS65FB, so that MS65FB won't get proper credit. Ditto with some DCAM coins. Or just about any designation.

Still, I'd trade simplicity for "perfection" any day. Especially since any "perfect" system is based on that highly suspect assumption #2 above.

CarlWohlforth

The number of "better" coins isn't quite right now. For example if I have a highest ranked cameo Jefferson with 0 higher there are really a few DCAM coins out there I would rather have and consider higher, but these are not showing up in the number of higher ranked coins.

All in all there are some good ideas in this thread. Using population reports is probably more accurate than guessing or trying to figure out changing market prices for low pop coins.

Typetone

Carl:

I agree there would have to be a few fixes for designation series. For example, if you have a proof Franklin in 67CAM, any 67DCAMs should be considered upgrade coins. If you have a PR67, any 66DCAMS and 67CAMS should be considered upgrades.

Mitch:

You're right I just want to get past Dennis, but I just can't figure out a way to do it.

Greg

CEO

Carl & Greg:

Yes, designations such as CAM, DCAM, FB, PL, DMPL, BN, RB, RD, et al would need to be factored into the existing "Pop Higher" calculation. From a database standpoint, this should not be much of an issue when tallying up the "Pop Higher" result.

At present, PCGS is not doing this, but I think they should do this regardless of the new weighting scheme we're talking about. For example, if you have a PR-68 Franklin, the "Pop Higher" would have to take into account 68CAM, 68DCAM, 69, 69CAM, 69DCAM, 70, 70CAM and 70DCAM. If they did this calculation plus provided the new weighting scheme, I think we'd be a long way toward a more mature registry ranking mechanism.

- Corey.

keithdagen

Greg,

This may sound like a dumb idea, but why not try buying an upgrade.

Keith

Typetone

Keith:

As far as IKEs go, I can't find one at a reasonable price, or for that matter at any price. Of the 19 pieces I could buy, as far as I know, they are all tucked away in collections. Have to wait for a dealer to make one, or get one. Even then, I may be down the list. Look at Dennis. He has been advertising a willingness to pay incredible prices for pieces he needs, but so far hasn't been able to buy any either. Looks like Jim Sego #3 did get the 72P in MS66. My guess he paid well over $5,000, but its just a guess.

Greg

keithdagen

Greg,

I feel your pain. I haven't been able to find a MS-66 of any date at a decent price lately, but at least was able to pick up one of the 76-P Type 1's in MS-65 on Teletrade last night without breaking the bank. Now only 13 purchases and 2 upgrades left to go for my set.

Keith

KoinKollector

So according to this weighting idea PCGS pop reports should effect the weights? IMO horrible idea. According to the pops a 1843-O is rarer than the 1871-cc, 72-cc, 73-cc & 74cc . dimes of course.

itsnotjustme

I was thinking this would work well for type sets using the variation of all eligible coins in higher grades...

...but (sorry) then I pulled out my $20 Saint and realized some coins have such huge populations slabbed, they will drive the scores.

Example:
1976-S Silver Kennedy
Total graded in type 439
No Coin, score=439
MS67 pop 167, ~$50, score=36
MS68 pop 36, ~$450, score=0

1924 $20 Saint
Total Graded in type 364,030
No coin, score=364,030
MS63 pop 128,614, ~$375, score=92,934
MS64 pop 71,445, ~$475, score=21,489
MS65 pop 18,031, ~$850, score=3,458
MS66 pop 3,279, ~$1,600, score=179
MS67 pop 177, ~$6,000, score=2
MS68 pop 2, ~$XXX,000, score=0

So, if you don't have a MS66 Saint, none of the lower total pop coins in your set matter. If you change the scoring to the percetage of eligible coins that are higher, thing are brought back into balance. All no-coins would get you 100 points. Any top pop coins earns 0 points. That MS67 76-s Kennedy would bring you (36/439*100) 8.2 points. An MS63 Saint would earn you 25.5 points. An MS65 Saint would earn you just .94 points. I'm sure there are weaknesses in this scheme as well, but it appears to overcome the downfall of some coins in a set that are far more frequently graded.