Options
A little research into the early dollar weights
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was reading Bowers' Encyclopedia the other day and noticed that the issues of 1795 seem to be quite a bit more common than I thought. So I decided to do a little research and see if that was a valid impression or not - and whether the weights are correct in the Set Registry.
First off I went to Coin Facts and recorded the number of surviving examples:
1794 150
1795 FH 10,000
1795 DB 3,900
1796 3,200
1797 3,350
1798 SE 1,350
1798 LE 6,000
1799 8,000
1800 4,500
1801 2,000
1802 2,250
1803 3,000
Translated to a weighting based on overall rarity:
1794 10
1795 FH 1
1795 DB 3
1796 4
1797 4
1798 SE 6
1798 LE 2
1799 1
1800 3
1801 5
1802 5
1803 4
Then I did the same for estimated number of uncirculated examples:
1794 10
1795 FH 65
1795 DB 60
1796 8
1797 10
1798 SE 6
1798 LE 60
1799 125
1800 50
1801 15
1802 70
1803 22
Translated to a weighting based on uncirculated rarity:
1794 6
1795 FH 2
1795 DB 2
1796 7
1797 6
1798 SE 8
1798 LE 2
1799 1
1800 3
1801 5
1802 2
1803 4
Then I tried to factor in 'popularity' by taking into account market value in average uncirculated. I did this because even though there are quite a few 1795 coins [for example], they are extremely popular and held in high regard so this needs to be accounted for in the weightings:
Translated to a weighting based on low unc prices [MS60]:
1794 $660k
1795 FH $60k
1795 DB $50k
1796 $50k
1797 $60k
1798 SE $150k
1798 LE $20k
1799 $20k
1800 $20k
1801 $25k
1802 $25k
1803 $30k
Translated to a weighting based on price and thus popularity and rarity:
1794 10
1795 FH 3
1795 DB 3
1796 3
1797 3
1798 SE 6
1798 LE 1
1799 1
1800 1
1801 1
1802 2
1803 2
And to come up with an overall ranking, I averaged all three weights: overall survivors, unc survivors and unc pricing:
Translated to a weighting based on overall rarity:
1794 10+6+10 = 26/3 = 8.67
1795 FH 1+2+3=6/3 = 2.00
1795 DB 3+2+3=8/3 = 2.67
1796 4+7+3=14/3 = 4.67
1797 4+6+3=13/3 = 4.33
1798 SE 6+8+6= 20/3 = 6.67
1798 LE 2+2+1 = 5/3 = 1.67
1799 1+1+1 = 3/3 = 1.00
1800 3+3+1 = 7/3 = 2.33
1801 5+5+1 = 11/3 = 3.67
1802 5+2+2 = 9/3 = 3.00
1803 4+4+2 = 10/3 = 3.33
Rounding leads us to this:
1794 9
1795 FH 2
1795 DB 3
1796 5
1797 4
1798 SE 7
1798 LE 2
1799 1
1800 2
1801 4
1802 3
1803 3
Thoughts and comments? It seems to me this might be a more accurate weighting than what currently exists
First off I went to Coin Facts and recorded the number of surviving examples:
1794 150
1795 FH 10,000
1795 DB 3,900
1796 3,200
1797 3,350
1798 SE 1,350
1798 LE 6,000
1799 8,000
1800 4,500
1801 2,000
1802 2,250
1803 3,000
Translated to a weighting based on overall rarity:
1794 10
1795 FH 1
1795 DB 3
1796 4
1797 4
1798 SE 6
1798 LE 2
1799 1
1800 3
1801 5
1802 5
1803 4
Then I did the same for estimated number of uncirculated examples:
1794 10
1795 FH 65
1795 DB 60
1796 8
1797 10
1798 SE 6
1798 LE 60
1799 125
1800 50
1801 15
1802 70
1803 22
Translated to a weighting based on uncirculated rarity:
1794 6
1795 FH 2
1795 DB 2
1796 7
1797 6
1798 SE 8
1798 LE 2
1799 1
1800 3
1801 5
1802 2
1803 4
Then I tried to factor in 'popularity' by taking into account market value in average uncirculated. I did this because even though there are quite a few 1795 coins [for example], they are extremely popular and held in high regard so this needs to be accounted for in the weightings:
Translated to a weighting based on low unc prices [MS60]:
1794 $660k
1795 FH $60k
1795 DB $50k
1796 $50k
1797 $60k
1798 SE $150k
1798 LE $20k
1799 $20k
1800 $20k
1801 $25k
1802 $25k
1803 $30k
Translated to a weighting based on price and thus popularity and rarity:
1794 10
1795 FH 3
1795 DB 3
1796 3
1797 3
1798 SE 6
1798 LE 1
1799 1
1800 1
1801 1
1802 2
1803 2
And to come up with an overall ranking, I averaged all three weights: overall survivors, unc survivors and unc pricing:
Translated to a weighting based on overall rarity:
1794 10+6+10 = 26/3 = 8.67
1795 FH 1+2+3=6/3 = 2.00
1795 DB 3+2+3=8/3 = 2.67
1796 4+7+3=14/3 = 4.67
1797 4+6+3=13/3 = 4.33
1798 SE 6+8+6= 20/3 = 6.67
1798 LE 2+2+1 = 5/3 = 1.67
1799 1+1+1 = 3/3 = 1.00
1800 3+3+1 = 7/3 = 2.33
1801 5+5+1 = 11/3 = 3.67
1802 5+2+2 = 9/3 = 3.00
1803 4+4+2 = 10/3 = 3.33
Rounding leads us to this:
1794 9
1795 FH 2
1795 DB 3
1796 5
1797 4
1798 SE 7
1798 LE 2
1799 1
1800 2
1801 4
1802 3
1803 3
Thoughts and comments? It seems to me this might be a more accurate weighting than what currently exists
0
Comments
Look at it by PCGS population -
All Grades/ Mint State
1794 - 90/5
1795 FH - 2081/35
1795 DB - 747/29
1796 - 750/5
1797 - 795/5
1798 SE - 301/3
1798 LE - 2056/35
1799 - 3298/89
1800 - 1401/29
1801 - 480/9
1802 - 856/35
1803 - 673/11
1795 FH - 2081/35.......R1/R5
1795 DB - 747/29.........R2/R6
1796 - 750/5................R2/R7
1797 - 795/5................R2/R7
1798 SE - 301/3...........R3/R8
1798 LE - 2056/35.......R1/R5
1799 - 3298/89............R1/R4
1800 - 1401/29............R1/R6
1801 - 480/9................R3/R7
1802 - 856/35..............R2/R5
1803 - 673/11..............R2/R7
<< <i>I often questioned the estimated survival rates in the B&B book.
Look at it by PCGS population -
All Grades/ Mint State
1794 - 90/5
1795 FH - 2081/35
1795 DB - 747/29
1796 - 750/5
1797 - 795/5
1798 SE - 301/3
1798 LE - 2056/35
1799 - 3298/89
1800 - 1401/29
1801 - 480/9
1802 - 856/35
1803 - 673/11 >>
Ok, let's use those and do the same analysis:
All Grades
1794 - 90
1795 FH - 2081
1795 DB - 747
1796 - 750
1797 - 795
1798 SE - 301
1798 LE - 2056
1799 - 3298
1800 - 1401
1801 - 480
1802 - 856
1803 - 673
1794 - 10
1795 FH - 2
1795 DB - 4
1796 - 4
1797 - 4
1798 SE - 6
1798 LE - 2
1799 - 1
1800 - 3
1801 - 5
1802 - 4
1803 - 4
Mint State
1794 - 5
1795 FH - 35
1795 DB - 29
1796 - 5
1797 - 5
1798 SE - 3
1798 LE - 35
1799 - 89
1800 - 29
1801 - 9
1802 - 35
1803 - 11
1794 - 8
1795 FH - 3
1795 DB - 3
1796 - 8
1797 - 8
1798 SE - 10
1798 LE - 3
1799 - 1
1800 - 3
1801 - 6
1802 - 3
1803 - 5
Translated to a weighting based on low unc prices [MS60]:
1794 $660k
1795 FH $60k
1795 DB $50k
1796 $50k
1797 $60k
1798 SE $150k
1798 LE $20k
1799 $20k
1800 $20k
1801 $25k
1802 $25k
1803 $30k
Translated to a weighting based on price and thus popularity and rarity:
1794 10
1795 FH 3
1795 DB 3
1796 3
1797 3
1798 SE 6
1798 LE 1
1799 1
1800 1
1801 1
1802 2
1803 2
And to come up with an overall ranking, I averaged all three weights: overall survivors, unc survivors and unc pricing:
Translated to a weighting based on overall rarity:
1794 10+8+10 = 28/3 = 9.33
1795 FH 2+3+3=8/3 = 2.67
1795 DB 4+3+3=10/3 = 3.33
1796 4+8+3=15/3 = 5.00
1797 4+8+3=15/3 = 5.00
1798 SE 6+10+6= 22/3 = 7.33
1798 LE 2+3+1 = 6/3 = 2.00
1799 1+1+1 = 3/3 = 1.00
1800 3+3+1 = 7/3 = 2.33
1801 5+6+1 = 12/3 = 4.00
1802 4+3+2 = 9/3 = 3.00
1803 4+5+2 = 11/3 = 3.67
Rounding leads us to this:
1794 9 vs 9
1795 FH 3 vs 2
1795 DB 3 vs 3
1796 5 vs 5
1797 5 vs 4
1798 SE 7 vs 7
1798 LE 2 vs 2
1799 1 vs 1
1800 2 vs 2
1801 4 vs 4
1802 3 vs 3
1803 4 vs 3
Minor differences using the PCGS figures instead of the estimated numbers, but still significantly different than the current numbers:
1794 6
1795 FH 4
1795 DB 3
1796 4
1797 4
1798 SE 5
1798 LE 1
1799 1
1800 1
1801 3
1802 1
1803 2
There's just too many '1's in the current weighting scheme and the 1795 FH is overweighted.