MS State quarter weighting

tompkins

Maybe I didn't pay attention for a week or so, but they've redone the weightings for MS statehood quarters. All 99's are '2'; and everything else is a '1'. This brings up two questions:
1. is it the right weight for today? To me, it doesn't seem right, CT being the same weight as GA; 'd's in general, having the same weight as their far more populous cousins from Philadelphia. Are the weights based on the population of the coin, or the population of high grade examples?

and 2. as time goes on, how often should the weights be adjusted in this (or any other current) set? While I'm not sure all the 2000's and 2001's should be weighting equal (especially some of the'd's), is it too soon to tell? When you upgrade a set, at least some consideration is given to the weight. How often should these change? Should everything be a '1' for some amount of time (2 years? 3 year?, 5 years?) to allow a chance to see how many of the coin are actually out there in a high grade?

Any thought?

Pete

egsantos

Pete,

You are absolutely right.
The PCGS guys was changed the concept.
It's is like a invitation to not buy the 99's Stars (GA NJ) and buy 2 or 3 chipper 2001/2000 MS68.
Smells bad.

Eddy

Gerry

Sorry to disagree with you guys, but I think the simplified weighting system that David Hall has adopted makes sense on the theory that unless you clearly improve a ratings system do as little weighting as is possible.

I’ll reluctantly concede that if you have a top-pop 1999 quarter that is one grade higher than mine, you deserve two extra points (rather than one) in the calculation of a set rating because they are generally much tougher and much more expensive, at least at this stage of the game. But imho, in all other cases, one grade higher entitles you to only one extra point.

I wonder if this isn’t mostly an academic discussion anyway because any reasonable system will rate the main top sets the same way. That is, I doubt that anyone can show us a real pair of sets in existence that would be ranked differently if we adopted different reasonable weighting schemes.

Don't you guys have top ranked state quarter sets? Can you show me a different weighting scheme than the one PCGS has adopted that would cause you to change positions with another set in the rankings. If so, we can debate the merits of that system.

Also, I need to say that any debate on this issue would disappear if someone could come up with a good, objective definition of what a weight should represent. There are far more complicated sets than the state quarters and in those cases the lack of such a definition can cause problems, but I don't see it here.

As far as how often a set of weights should be reviewed, I would hope no more often than every year.

Eddy, I am going to private you about your comment.

wondercoin

Pete: Gerry has acknowledged privately that the only way to rank coins like these state quarters is by utilizing a top expert in the field who understands the series and ranks the coins by date and grade. Without that, you are left with the "baby step" you see here. Sure, this is better than every quarter being ranked "1"-right!!! At least the 1999 coins are ranked "2". But, the 1999(p) GA $1000+ coin is ranked the same as the 1999(d) CT $75 coin in MS67 and so on and so on.

IMHO, anyone who likes this ranking chart basically knows virtually nothing about state quarters, and that, with all due respect, covers most everyone out there, so I guess the chart gets the "thumbs up" from most everyone. I'm not critisizing PCGS here; they did the best job they could with their limited understanding of the state quarter "top end" market. Wondercoin.

braddick

Right now though, with the sets complete in the top spots, this unequaled ranking is "unfair" to EVERYONE. That being the case, no one really suffers.

dldallen

I agree Mitch. With only three years of the series available, I wonder if it even needs to be weighted yet. I think the grades carry enough weight by themselves to differentiate between the sets. If they need to be weighted, I prefer the prior chart which more accurately reflected the disparity between the coins. I didn't understand why they changed it - did anyone see a reason posted anywhere?

In any event, with only three years on the books (with many more of these awaiting grading), I think it is a tad early. Letting the coins stand on their own merits right now will tell the collector what he/she needs to pursue for the top spots. Weighting this early may confuse the issue and an unequitable weighting will skew both the results and direction of the collector. Dave

tompkins

I think dave summed up my feelings: if you're going to weight them, the prior chart (which silently --- at least to me --- disappeared) did a better job. The 99's have been around long enough that I think we KNOW that a Georgia D and and Connecticut P don't deserve the same weight (to use the extremes).

So I don't understand why the change. This was the one time that a mail to David Hall went un-answered (unless, and this is quite likely the last week, it was answered while my email was broken).

My feeling is that maybe nothing should be weighted (or, more accurately, everything should have a weight of 1), not just in this series but all coins that are less than, perhaps, five years old. By then (is five years enough time??) there is enough of an indication of populations in high grades that you can assign a meaningful weight

But if PCGS is going to weight them sooner (as they have in this case), then they should at least base the weights on infomration they have, and this scheme (all 99's are 2) doesn't do that.

Pete

Gerry

Pete: you say that a Georgia D and and Connecticut P don't deserve the same weight. I suppose you are comparing the two in ms67, and saying that the Georgia D should get a higher weight? I'll bet the guy who has the Connecticut P in ms68 wouldn't agree with you, would he? He thinks the Connecticut P should get the higher weight. How do you resolve that?

This leads me to a point Mitch keeps making over and over again and I strongly agree with it: the superior way of rating/ranking any set would be by date and grade, not only for state quarters but for all. I’m surprised that he didn’t jump up and down all over the screen because his two clients that bought the NY-P’s in ms69 wind up only getting weights of 1 on their coins, even though a weight of 1 may be proper for ms68s, ms67s, ms66 and whatever! Good restraint, wondercoin. Our hats are off to you.

But think what we will, PCGS is not going to go the route of weighting/valuing by date and grade, so we need to deal in their framework. And I vote for “the simpler the better,” especially since I don’t think it will matter in the vast majority of cases. That is, I believe that any reasonable weighting scheme will probably give just about the same ranking of state quarter sets so why bother to weight at all.

If you can, Pete, show us a weighting scheme (with some rationale) that would move you up or down a notch in the rankings and we can all critique it. That would get us off an abstract discussion on to something very concrete.

Spooly

("IMHO, anyone who likes this ranking chart basically knows virtually nothing about state quarters, and that, with all due respect, covers most everyone out there, so I guess the chart gets the "thumbs up" from most everyone. I'm not critisizing PCGS here; they did the best job they could with their limited understanding of the state quarter "top end" market. ")

Mitch did you submit a alterative weighting system? Did you express your concerns to PCGS?

tompkins

Gerry: Your points are good ones, and no matter how you do the weighting there are some inequities. Obviously, all the coins I have in 68 should have their weight raised, while the ones I have in 67 should have a weight of 1 -- but really, if, for example, the GA have their weight increased, it LOWERS my overall rating (along with the ratings of all four of the above-67 sets. So realistically ho wshould you set the weights? Obviously, there are hundreds of millions of each of these coins, so if you set the weight based on number minted they should all be the same (yes, there are some variances, but there are zillions of all of them). If you are looking for the "best of the best" then there is something to the weight based on grade scheme you mention (and Mitch has alluded to)---(Mitch: you've sold me a number of 68's--their weights should all go up, shouldn't they?) Or perhaps a scheme of weighting based on total number in grade and total number graded higher---perhaps a Georgia 67 (Pop 17/0) should be worth more than a Connecticut 67 (97/5); but that a CT 68 (5/0) should be weighted higher than either.

So there are all these possibilities (any of which add complexity), and any of which will result in wholesale changes in the weightings a few years from now as the pops stabilize. Simple is good---to which I come back to the comment I made before: maybe any coin (in any series) that is less than 5 years old should have a weight of 1. I would support this by saying that the weights on these coins are making almost no difference: of the seven visible sets in the top ten, six of them would have their rating increased between .09 and .12 and would stay in the exact same relative places, very close to the same distance in front of/behind their neighbors The number 9 set would actually go up by .15 and switch places with #8 (from .03 below to .03 above, so not much movement even here).

Frankly, I surmise that almost any weighting you come up with would be similar, especially since there is so little variance in the grades: all the top sets are 67's and 68's; with a smattrering of 66's, as you move down below to top 4. So my suggestion for the state quarters is to weight them all '1', with a guarantee that they'll stay that way until the set is complete in 2008.

Pete

wondercoin

"This leads me to a point Mitch keeps making over and over again and I strongly agree with it: the superior way of rating/ranking any set would be by date and grade, not only for state quarters but for all. I’m surprised that he didn’t jump up and down all over the screen because his two clients that bought the NY-P’s in ms69 wind up only getting weights of 1 on their coins, even though a weight of 1 may be proper for ms68s, ms67s, ms66 and whatever! Good restraint, wondercoin. Our hats are off to you. "


Gerry: First of all, no one I know buys or doesn't buy state quarters in PCGS-MS69 using PCGS' weights as a factor (yet at least). And, besides, the owners of those prize MS69 coins are getting equal treatment to every other registry set owner who has their key coins that are basically ignored in the PCGS registry. For example, I could "scream" about the PCGS-MS68 silver MS quarters as easily as the MS69 state quarters, etc., etc., etc.

Which brings me to Spooly's question to me of presenting better ideas to PCGS. Spooly asked about state quarters specifically, but why stop there? Every modern chart I've seen is flawed (as Gerry can explain to everyone). Spooly can ask me that question if I chose to comment on everything I've seen so far (anyone who understands clad quarters see what they did with those)! Spooly's question to me is akin to seeing someone ready to cross the Atlantic on a row boat in the dead of winter and asking me to build them a better vessel for the journey or not comment on what is being used Wondercoin.

egsantos

As always, Mitch is absolutely right.

The weighting system is a baby, crawling, but to the wrong side.

The question that I made to myself is how the guy that was paid $ 3.200 for a Georgia feels now that the weighting value of this coin is reduced in half? Looks fair in the middle of the game?

The last Georgia D was sold in Teletrade by $875, consequence of the new weighting or the new market reality?

In my set the change in the rules doesn’t make difference, I still with the same position and points, and eventually with the opportunity to buy my Georgia P MS67 in a very good price. But it’s not fair with the guys that invested hard in the 1999’s Stars, I’m sure that is not.

As my old man said when it changes the music, change your step on dancing. Mitch please informs me when you have some MS68 “D” that now should be worth the same price that a “P” with the triple of the population.


Eddy

Spooly

Wondercoin I think you mis-took my comments. ("build them a better vessel for the journey or not comment on what is being used") I wanted to heard more about your ideas on the weighting issues. Your are the top expert on the State Quarters, I guess I was surpised that you didn't like the weighting system. I would have figured that with your relationship with PCGS and Rick that you would have been consulted on the the State Quarters and had some input. I do agree that that PCGS has picked it's system.... and will not be changing it. So any discussion on this topic is pointless, about changing the basic system. But we have debated severel different weighting systems here and think everyone has learned alot about just how hard it is to put one together. I have seen your statements about the pops reports not being a good source for a weighting system. But you made some comments about the system should be by date & mint mark and grade rareties. I truely wanted to hear more about your ideas and get your insight on this topic.