Weights for the Washington Quarters

Spooly · February 13, 2002 6:44AM

What does everyone think? I don't do quarters but from looking at the weighting..... looks good to me.

Opinion please!

keithdagen · February 13, 2002 7:00AM

Spooly,

Only one I'll speak for are the clad MS, and it doesn't look like there was a lot of effort there. I think that too many pieces received a one. The other sets look better from my limited knowledge.

Keith

clevegreg · February 13, 2002 7:01AM

I also don't have a registry set in Washingtons, but it looks like they did a nice job to me.

Greg

Bear · February 13, 2002 7:02AM

Generally I Agree with the weighting on the PR Kennedy Half Dollars but I would Give an added value of at least 3 to the DEEP CAMEO for the 1965 & 1966. Regards Bear

Bear · February 13, 2002 7:11AM

Correction on my reply I meant to refere to PR Wash Quarters not Kennedy half dollars, I also agree with Keith the weighting on the 65 & 66 should be at least a 3 and the weighting on the 67 should be at least a 2. Sorry for the slip up but I am a bit new to my new fangled computer. Regards Bear

CarlWohlforth · February 13, 2002 7:19AM

There is a DCAM bonus of 5 for proof quarters '50 to '53. Perhaps the DCAM bonus for the pre '50 proofs should also be 5? Or maybe the DCAM bonus should be less for '50 to '53?

Spooly · February 13, 2002 7:21AM

Keith & Bear did you guys e-mail David Hall?

Bear · February 13, 2002 7:28AM

Spooly - Rick Tomaska from R & I coins is one of the leading experts on proof modern coinage and it is his opinion that we could all use as well as David Hall. Regards Bear-

Spooly · February 13, 2002 7:36AM

Sorry Bear I don't understand your post. Is that a YES or NO.

Did Rick Tomaska work on the weighting?

One thing I have learned is that David Hall does listen to the collectors....... all you have to do is e-mail him.

Seems like PCGS got pretty close... the changes posted here are minor and can be easily looked at and changed if needed.

keithdagen · February 13, 2002 7:38AM

Spooly,

I'm not actively collecting the set, so I will let someone who is do the complaining on this. I'm saving my ammo for when we get to sets I really care about.

It is disappointing that it appears that little to no effort was put into the post-1964 set as compared to the others.

Keith

BNE · February 13, 2002 7:48AM

In my opinion, the pre-1950 deep cameo proofs (as well as pre-'50 cameos) should be entitled to more bonus points, due to their extreme rarity. I do not understand why the unusual and exceptional nature of these coins merits LESS of a bump than coins minted in years in which the cameo effect was striven for.

Bear · February 13, 2002 8:46AM

Spooly- In reponse to your question I have just E-Mailed David Hall with my expanded comments on the weighting and bonus points for Pr wash quarters. Basically my recommendations were to increase bonus points for 36-42 qarters to 3points for cameo and 5 points for DC. Increase DC points to 3 for the 57 & 58 quarters.Increase weighting for 65 & 66 to 3 points and 67 to 2 points. Also I would increase the bonus points for 65 &66 in cameo to 2 points with DC increased to 3 points. I would leave 67 as is. I did reflect the view that the care shown the Pr weighting did not seem to be as carefull that shown the MS sets. While not all of you may be interested in PR wash quarters the feed back will have an effect as other sets are reviewed and weighted by PCGS. In answer to your second question, I do not know if Rick Tomaska had any imput on the weighting and bonus points of the PR wash quarters but I left him a message to review this thread and let us know his opinion of events. Regards Bear

Spooly · February 13, 2002 9:10AM

Thanks Bear! You have some great points! This is what David Hall need to hear. PCGS has given us a way to provide feedback... we need to use it.

Bear · February 17, 2002 1:01PM

To ULTIMATE CAMEORick, if you are in thisforum tonight what do you think of the weighting and extra cam & DC values for the proof wash quarters. Regards Bear

Spooly · February 19, 2002 10:22PM

I see that some of the weighting have been changed. (I can't tell what?) Did you guys get what you wanted?

mansco · February 20, 2002 11:00AM

I like the new listing of Washington Quarters. It appears that most of us got we liked and more. There is some differentiation in the weightings between the basic and the variety sets. I'm close to my goal in the Basic set (top five), but have a renewed competitive spirit in the variety set.

pop1 · February 20, 2002 11:19PM

Looks good to me.

Spooly · February 22, 2002 10:02AM

Bear, please turn on your PM.

Bear · February 22, 2002 10:08AM

Spooley, I am having trouble with my PM reach me at bearsRnice@hotmail.com. While I do not seem to have convinced PCGS of the wisdom of my recommendations I can live with the results as shown in the marked increase in my JAY Ross Quarter Pr Collections. Regards Abe G

Datentype · February 22, 2002 10:23PM

In my opinion, the clad quarter weighting is way off the mark as are most of the weightings I have seen. The algorythm needed is much more complex compared to that simple incorrect attempt. It would not be tough to program a fluctuating system based on populations. Just my thought.

Mark

Weights for the Washington Quarters

Comments