My general view of the way PCGS does weights is to compare pops of basic collectible grades, say MS66 for IKEs. I think it is much easier to find MS66 76S or 71S Ikes then 76D type 2 Ikes. So, I think the weights are fine for what they are trying to do. Do you see it otherwise?
I will not care about PCGS' screwed up weighting system... I will not care about PCGS' screwed up weighting system... I will not care about PCGS' screwed up weighting system...
Good point on the "collectible" grades, but the 76-D T2 is not that pricey as far as MS-66's go. Probably seems right in line with the 71-S, but the 76-S's in MS-67 typically go around $75. Maybe that issue needs to be bumped a point?
Tad,
Come on, you knew that one day they were going to weight one of "your" sets too. And Suzy is probably close in line.
In MS66 I think 76D Type 2s probably go for close to $100 now. In MS66 I think 76S probably go for less that $50. I agree with you view of MS67 prices, but that is a higher grade than for the 76D Type 2 pieces. If the 76S was bumped up a point it would have the same weight as the 71S, but I think the 71S is tougher grade for grade. So, I think they are fine as proposed. However, I certainly wouldn't scream if you proposed your change.
I don't care one way or another really. I guess that for the silver pieces, I consider MS-67 the common grade, except for the 71-S of course. And for clad, MS-66 collectible except for the 71, 72, and 76T1.
Well I guess what I am saying is that I don't think you should get as much credit for taking a 76s from 65 to 66 or 66 to 67 as you do from taking a 76D Type 2 from 65 to 66 or 66 to 67. I think when looking at weights one needs to look at a standard grade across the Board.
When will the Ike weighted GPA be started? Based on today's sets, you don't need weighted 66.00 GPA that you could be top 5 in the current finest list.
No weighting is ever totally fair so, having said that, I think PCGS did a very good job with the Circulating (Business) Strike Ikes. In my opinion, I would say an A-
My only full point adjustment would be the 73d perhaps being a 6 (that would get them closer to an A in my book).
Now, if there were .5 incremements, I would say the 71s as 2.5, 74p as 6.5, and the 76p T1 as 8.5. That would get them up to an almost A+ (almost A+ cause we can't get their heads too big you know).
fantasiize, but what do those weights mean? And what are their implications for "real" collections? Greg assumes an MS66 across the board, but of course serious registry collectors will have higher grades than that in the silver pieces.
For example, serious collectors are likely to have the 72-S, 73-S, and 74-S in the same grade, MS68.
They are all weighted as 1. Yet the 73-S and 74-S are twice as difficult to find as the 72-S in that grade.
Even worse, while it's easy for me to find weights that are "wrong", it's virtually impossible to "correct" them within the constraints of the half-baked system, even if you have tenth-point increments. The linear system of weighting simply doesn't model the real world well.
That's why I'd like to have the old no-brainer-simple version back, or go for the market-weighted system, with the attendant side-benefits. But, I've said that here, and to Mr. Hall, and been officially told (politely) to buzz-off, so...
Tad, I understand your logic, but answer me this: If the serious collector is bound to have all three silvers in MS68 (and you're right, of course) than what does it matter what the weight of each coin is? I understand the 74-S is tougher than the 72-S, but the serious collector owns all three in these high grades. Even with a change in the weights it would not effect the overall standing, right?
Even with a change in the weights it would not effect the overall standing, right?
Ah-hah! Right into my trap. Actually, this is a compelling argument for not weighting the sets at all.
Somebody on this forum quite some time ago, I can't remember who, posed the astute question as to whether anyone had EVER seen a set that was incorrectly ranked due to the fact that they weren't weighted.
As I recall, everyone had lots of theoretical examples, but no real-world set.
One thing that is wierd about Weighing sets in this manner is that it is very simplistic. To do it properly, they should weight each year in each grade. Why? Beause a 1972 isn't a tough coin in lower grades. Why should a 72-P get more points in MS63 or even MS61 then a 78-P? On the other hand, a 78-P is just as hard as a 72-P in MS68 (theoretically of course!). Are these points based on MS65/66 grades? What if far in the future, Ikes are collected in all grades from G-BU. 1972s will be just as easy in low grades as 77-P for example. Just for another quick example, a 1921 D Morgan gets a ranking of 3, but a 84-CC gets a 2, but a 84-CC is a "better" coin in MS64 and lower grades. The D is better in 65 and above. And certainly an 85-CC is better then a 21-P right? Not necessarily in MS67!
JJacks
Always buying music cards of artists I like! PSA or raw! Esp want PSA 10s 1991 Musicards Marx, Elton, Bryan Adams, etc. And 92/93 Country Gold AJ, Clint Black, Tim McGraw PSA 10s
I made that argument. I don't know if it is me you're remembering.
With Ikes it will make a difference in the current number five position. Some people have a 71P in 66 and some have a 76d-T2 in 67. The funny thing is these two coins have almost the same population but one of them gets a 9 weight and one gets 4. Bummer for the people with the 76d-T2.
I like ties. I would rather have a whole big glob of us tied at number 5, each with slightly different collections.
That's just me though, -Keith ps The 71P in 66 is now looking very attractive taking into account its price, it availability (population) and the points it gets.
It probably was you I was remembering -- ever get any takers on your challenge?
With regards to that #5 slot -- and all the registered collections for that matter -- would be interesting to see if the ranking changes in a way that clearly puts a more deserving set in front of another, or if it just swaps around equally impressive sets.
The 71P in 66 is now looking very attractive taking into account its price, it availability (population) and the points it gets.
How about the 71-P vs 76-P Type I. Why does one get weighted higher??? When I look at % graded MS65 they are the same, when I go one grade higher, the 76-P Type I gets tougher, so why does it have a lower rating??? Just because more coins have been submitted.
How about some bonus points for coins with Pop's under 25, or maybe pop's under 10. That would make some of these high end coins more valuable for the registry set and better reflect thier rarity.
We already know that the weights aren't about common date condition rarity. It's really more about population rarity of collectable grade pieces. Think of it like this, assume a set of MS65 IKEs. If you upgrade one piece, which should give you the most weight. Or, assume a set of 66s. Same question. The weights proposed seem to give a reasonable answer to this question. Having said that, I don't disagree with Segoya's comment that the 71P and 76P Type 1 weights should be reversed.
keithdagen
Posts: 2,025 ✭
Comments
I think the mint state weights are fine. I recommended increasing the weight of the 76S Silver proof to 2.
Greg
Do you think that the 76-D T2 might be overweighted relative to the 71-S and 76-S?
Keith
My general view of the way PCGS does weights is to compare pops of basic collectible grades, say MS66 for IKEs. I think it is much easier to find MS66 76S or 71S Ikes then 76D type 2 Ikes. So, I think the weights are fine for what they are trying to do. Do you see it otherwise?
Greg
I will not care about PCGS' screwed up weighting system...
I will not care about PCGS' screwed up weighting system...
I will not care about PCGS' screwed up weighting system...
Gets tougher to do when it hits closer to home.
Good point on the "collectible" grades, but the 76-D T2 is not that pricey as far as MS-66's go. Probably seems right in line with the 71-S, but the 76-S's in MS-67 typically go around $75. Maybe that issue needs to be bumped a point?
Tad,
Come on, you knew that one day they were going to weight one of "your" sets too. And Suzy is probably close in line.
Keith
In MS66 I think 76D Type 2s probably go for close to $100 now. In MS66 I think 76S probably go for less that $50. I agree with you view of MS67 prices, but that is a higher grade than for the 76D Type 2 pieces. If the 76S was bumped up a point it would have the same weight as the 71S, but I think the 71S is tougher grade for grade. So, I think they are fine as proposed. However, I certainly wouldn't scream if you proposed your change.
Greg
Keith
Well I guess what I am saying is that I don't think you should get as much credit for taking a 76s from 65 to 66 or 66 to 67 as you do from taking a 76D Type 2 from 65 to 66 or 66 to 67. I think when looking at weights one needs to look at a standard grade across the Board.
Greg
I'll concede that point. Of course, all we are doing is fueling Tad's fire that the system ought to be based on some kind of market value basis.
Keith
When will the Ike weighted GPA be started? Based on today's sets, you don't need weighted 66.00 GPA that you could be top 5 in the current finest list.
I think PCGS got it, "close enough" with these Ikes.
peacockcoins
A market-weighted system would be more complex, but as "fair" as possible, representing the combined monetary votes of all participants.
It's this in-between half-baked one that doesn't make sense.
Mantra, mantra, mantra...
My only full point adjustment would be the 73d perhaps being a 6 (that would get them closer to an A in my book).
Now, if there were .5 incremements, I would say the 71s as 2.5, 74p as 6.5, and the 76p T1 as 8.5. That would get them up to an almost A+ (almost A+ cause we can't get their heads too big you know).
I love Ike dollars and all other dollar series !!!
I also love Major Circulation Strike Type Sets, clad Washingtons ('65 to '98) and key date coins !!!!!
If ignorance is bliss, shouldn't we have more happy people ??
For example, serious collectors are likely to have the 72-S, 73-S, and 74-S in the same grade, MS68.
They are all weighted as 1. Yet the 73-S and 74-S are twice as difficult to find as the 72-S in that grade.
Even worse, while it's easy for me to find weights that are "wrong", it's virtually impossible to "correct" them within the constraints of the half-baked system, even if you have tenth-point increments. The linear system of weighting simply doesn't model the real world well.
That's why I'd like to have the old no-brainer-simple version back, or go for the market-weighted system, with the attendant side-benefits. But, I've said that here, and to Mr. Hall, and been officially told (politely) to buzz-off, so...
Buzzz....
peacockcoins
Greg
Ah-hah! Right into my trap.
Somebody on this forum quite some time ago, I can't remember who, posed the astute question as to whether anyone had EVER seen a set that was incorrectly ranked due to the fact that they weren't weighted.
As I recall, everyone had lots of theoretical examples, but no real-world set.
Sometimes, simpler is better.
One thing that is wierd about Weighing sets in this manner is that it is very simplistic. To do it properly, they should weight each year in each grade. Why? Beause a 1972 isn't a tough coin in lower grades. Why should a 72-P get more points in MS63 or even MS61 then a 78-P? On the other hand, a 78-P is just as hard as a 72-P in MS68 (theoretically of course!). Are these points based on MS65/66 grades? What if far in the future, Ikes are collected in all grades from G-BU. 1972s will be just as easy in low grades as 77-P for example. Just for another quick example, a 1921 D Morgan gets a ranking of 3, but a 84-CC gets a 2, but a 84-CC is a "better" coin in MS64 and lower grades. The D is better in 65 and above. And certainly an 85-CC is better then a 21-P right? Not necessarily in MS67!
JJacks
I made that argument. I don't know if it is me you're remembering.
With Ikes it will make a difference in the current number five
position. Some people have a 71P in 66 and some have a 76d-T2
in 67. The funny thing is these two coins have almost the same
population but one of them gets a 9 weight and one gets 4.
Bummer for the people with the 76d-T2.
I like ties. I would rather have a whole big glob of us tied at
number 5, each with slightly different collections.
That's just me though,
-Keith
ps The 71P in 66 is now looking very attractive taking into account
its price, it availability (population) and the points it gets.
With regards to that #5 slot -- and all the registered collections for that matter -- would be interesting to see if the ranking changes in a way that clearly puts a more deserving set in front of another, or if it just swaps around equally impressive sets.
The 71P in 66 is now looking very attractive taking into account its price, it availability (population) and the points it gets.
Aagh! Registry collectors!!
Boy, I wish I had gotten that roll ... 15 more to go ... I guess pop 35 by June ?!?!?
I love Ike dollars and all other dollar series !!!
I also love Major Circulation Strike Type Sets, clad Washingtons ('65 to '98) and key date coins !!!!!
If ignorance is bliss, shouldn't we have more happy people ??
You ever get another 71-P in 66 in stock and you can double the price since it is worth more points in the Registry rankings now.
Keith
How about some bonus points for coins with Pop's under 25, or maybe pop's under 10. That would make some of these high end coins more valuable for the registry set and better reflect thier rarity.
Just a thought!
Segoja
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
Greg