Proof 70 Silver Washingtons on eBay. What do you think?

MoneyLA

Since my registry set is now SOLD I can approach this topic completely objectively and with independent thought: what is a fair value for these coins.

The seller's ebay ID is Brookie715 and he has two pr70's on ebay now: a 1962 with a starting bid of $350 and a 1963 with a starting bid of $400.

Let me say first of all that I have done business with him: I sold him one pr70 about two years ago (I think it was a 1961) and he sold me a 1963. Let me also point out that he had two of the four known 1963 pr70 coins and Im sure that the one on ebay now is every bit as "perfect" as the fantastic 1963 pr70 he sold me sometime back.

Now the issue of the price?

I think that because PCGS has changed the registry rules, making brilliant pr70 coins "less" valuable in registry points, that the value of these coins has dropped -- and the change has made the 68dcam and 69dcam examples "more valuable."

Nonetheless I still believe the 1963 pr70 he has up for sale is worth every bit of the $400 minimum bid he has put the coin up for, and frankly Im tempted to buy this one even after selling off my registry set which included a date run of 1960 through 1964 pr70 coins.

your thoughts-- before I click my bid?

cheers, alan mendelson

lordmarcovan

<< <i>I think that because PCGS has changed the registry rules, making brilliant pr70 coins "less" valuable in registry points, that the value of these coins has dropped -- and the change has made the 68dcam and 69dcam examples "more valuable." >>


*Whew*. If that is the case, I got out just in time.
Of course, I don't think the rules have changed much yet in the Type department.

As to your question, I really don't know. You are probably much more qualified to answer that yourself.

supercoin

I can approach this topic completely objectively and with independent thought: what is a fair value for these coins.

Hmm... I'm not sure you're completely objective and independent yet, I suspect that PCGS label is still clouding your thinking if you think $350+ is a fair value for the coins.

But as far as PCGS label market value, you may be right, I'm sure you'd know better than me.

PS -- If you really just want the coin, here's a chance to get it free: Bid and win either coin, and crack it out. I'll bet your full bid price against it regrading PCGS PR70. You keep the coin either way.

wondercoin

Alan: IMHO, you are having a bit of seller's remorse.

You sold that set; never look back. Carry on with your next pursuit. Why do you think these coins are being sold now anyway? This is a selling opportunity before the sets are adjusted to reflect the "much smaller" value these coins really have in the scheme of the Proof Wash Quarter collection today.

I was happy to sell these same coins at $100-$200 in the past and have NEVER missed them. I have numerous raw pieces in flips of equal quality, but I am content to enjoy them in flips for now.

Now, the deep cameo counterparts of these dates is an entirely different story Wondercoin.

MoneyLA

Mitch, you just started to scratch the "meat" of the discussion I am hoping to have. You have indicated that the dcam counterparts of these coins are the ones gaining value and momentum and I am seeing the value of this argument.

In the discussion about the sale of my registry set, several have pointed out that the lack of dcam coins in my set limited the bidding. I also believe -- now as an outside observer -- that the pr70s up for auction on ebay might be overpriced at $350 and $400 each. And even if not overpriced they are not the coins that are in demand, and that pr68dcam and pr69dcam coins might be valued greater than the pr70s?

Has the new registry rules "killed" the pr70 brilliants?

Im on the fence...

cheers, alan

Mark

Alan:

Related to the topic of your posts, it has never been clear to me why PCGS assigned +2 for a DCAM and +1 for a CAM. The numbers seem completely arbitrary. Why not +3 or +4 or whatever for a DCAM and ditto for a CAM? Although it might have been suggested and dismissed before and although it would create a proliferation of registry sets, one might argue that brillant and CAM/DCAM coins are two separate creatures and each deserves a registry set. Thus there could be a registry set of brillant Washington quarters and another registry set of CAM/DCAM Washington quarters. Having two separate sets avoids the difficulty of valuing a brillant proof versus a CAM/DCAM proof of the same date and so avoids your issue of devaluing the very high grade brillant proofs.

Mark

MoneyLA

Hi Mark and thanks for your response. I note in particular your comment about a second division for registry sets. You wrote:

"although it would create a proliferation of registry sets, one might argue that brillant and CAM/DCAM coins are two separate creatures and each deserves a registry set. Thus there could be a registry set of brillant Washington quarters and another registry set of CAM/DCAM Washington quarters."

Indeed, this was the suggestion I made to David Hall a couple of weeks ago when he made his email survey, looking for comments about the Registry program.

As I said in my email to him, I found it difficult to understand how a pr68dcam or pr69dcam can be valued the same or higher than a pr70 coin when these would really be different types of coins for a collection.

Anyway, for me now, the issue is mute as my set and the pr70s are gone. My question now is if I should seek out new pr70s or dcam coins for another set?

I seem to have some cash burning a hole in my pocket!!

cheers, alan

dbldie55

Alan, which do you prefer? (Brilliant vs. CAM/DCAM) That is the answer to your question, unless you are wondering which may appreciate more. I love the look of a nice Cameo. Of course, the toned coins that everyone keeps showing on these boards look like they need dipped to me too, so my opinion is only mine.

Strat

Alan,

You sold your set at the right time, while the PF70 brilliants still had high value. If you want to buy them again, what's the harm in waiting awhile? Aren't they really only equivalent to PF68's now that the set has been weighted?

MoneyLA

Strat, you are correct about the "registry" value of pr68dcam coins equal to pr70 coins. But let's put the "registry points" aside for a minute. As collectors what do we value more, strike and perfection as in pr70s, or strike that results in cam/dcam coins?

This goes back to my original decision made several years ago: do I collect the highest grade brilliant proofs, or the cam/dcam proofs that might not have the highest grades?

there is only one pr70dcam silver Washington and there is no debate about that coin. unfortunately for the rest of the series you have to choose between the two classes or divisions.

cheers, alan

Strat

Alan,

You know I've been partial to the cam/dcams for some time now. I was originally attracted to them because they look much different than their brilliant counterparts, plus nice cameos (at least a few years ago) could still be cherrypicked for a song. So, I like their appearance (frost on brilliant surfaces) and I enjoy the challenge of finding the coins.

Regarding strike, if cameos originally were struck when the frost on the dies was new, wouldn't those new dies also have produced the best strikes at that time? If so, it should be the cameos that exhibit the better strikes. Of course, that means that fully struck brilliant coins would be tougher to find, and as a result, be more difficult to find in very high grades. (I'm of course not counting the cameos struck from repolished dies, the ones with the multiple criss cross polish lines). Your thoughts?

MoneyLA

Strat: my feeling is that cam/dcam coins are a separate animal from brilliant proofs -- and they should be judged and collected as separate animals. high grade brilliant coins are a combination of strike and planchet and preservation, while cam/dcam coins are also a combination of strike and planchet and preservation but its like comparing apples and oranges.

clearly to lump them together makes no sense UNLESS there is a series that has high grade cam/dcam examples -- such as the modern coins do. In the case of modern Washingtons having ONE proof set registry makes all the sense in the world. But in the case of the silver proofs (1936-1964) where dcam is not the norm, lumping brilliants and cam/dcam together in one competition is wrong.

I will always feel this way. Until you find me a 1963 pr70dcam Washington, I think the 1963 pr70 Wash with a pop of 4 will always be the #1 1963 proof to have, even above 1963 pr69dcam coins.

okay, go ahead, throw rocks.... cheers, alan

Strat

Nah, no rock throwing here. We're just exchanging ideas, after all. Maybe I'll chuck a few brilliant 1963 quarters your way, though.

I agree there should be only one modern set, since those coins are mostly cameos anyway. I don't recall ever seeing a fully brilliant one after 1975. I also wouldn't mind seeing PCGS have separate registry sets for cameo and brilliant quarters. I think that would be good for quarter collectors, and the hobby in general. Such a distinction would also put a greater emphasis on finding quality, which isn't a bad idea either. We would get better at what we enjoy doing.

I still prefer the look of the cameos, but perhaps we agree more than not, perhaps because we both enjoy collecting quarters. I can appreciate 'em brilliant, toned or camoed. They're all beautiful oranges to me, just with different skins.

MoneyLA

Strat: agreed. cheers, Alan