Please expalain the set weighting...
KoinKollector
Posts: 388 ✭
How do they come up w/ their numbers?
Do they go to outside experts?
Do they use pop reports?
How do they come up w/ the weighting system???
Do they go to outside experts?
Do they use pop reports?
How do they come up w/ the weighting system???
Sean J
Re-elect Bush in 2004... Dont let the Socialists brainwash you.
Bush 2004
Jeb 2008
KK 2016
Re-elect Bush in 2004... Dont let the Socialists brainwash you.
Bush 2004
Jeb 2008
KK 2016
0
Comments
And using the pops is useless. According to the pops my 1845-O is rarer that ALL the carson cities...
Re-elect Bush in 2004... Dont let the Socialists brainwash you.
Bush 2004
Jeb 2008
KK 2016
They are throwing the populations out the windows in many cases, especially with moderns, because they do not believe that the modern pops are fleshed out enough to get a feel for rarity.
My understanding of the intent of the system was for PCGS to take a series and then try to weight it using readily attainable grades. In some cases, this does not put a premium on ultra-high grade pieces if the date is normally common. Example, in Washington quarters, a MS-68 piece can run $10K. The 1956 piece has a population of 535 in MS-66, 81 in MS-67, and a single MS-68 piece. Because the coin is easily attainable in MS-66 & 67, the date has a weight of 1. The 1932-D has a weight of 10 (single MS-66 example). This disparity causes the MS-68 in this date to have the same impact as a low grade circulated key date, cost around $100.
Keith
Don't think that Eliasberg had any Cameo MS Washingtons. The only ones they designate are the 1965-1967's unless they are proofs. But apparantly, it is always a possibility. The "Eliasberg exception."
Keith
There's a guy on E-Bay who sells proof coins with "lost cameo." Coins he thought that PCGS didn't do him right on and should have got the designation. If you ever sell those Trade Dollars, be sure and call them "lost cameo" and explain that somehow, PCGS considered them Cameo when they registered them for Eliasberg but not for you.
Keith