A case study, rarity vs. pop reports
jcping
Posts: 2,649 ✭✭✭
For years, we heard a coin's rarity is R7 and we have no idea who called it as R7 and any proof that it is an R7. We even did not see any update that it is still an R7 after new pieces were discovered.
In this study, I am using a mature series coin, California fractional gold (aka CSDG, california small denomination gold) as a case study to see the coin rarity listed in BG (Breen-Gillio) book published in March 2003 and Nov 20, 2015 PCGS+NGC pop reports.
Why did I use CSDG as the example of this study. In the two TPGs, there are 33750 coins were a-ssigned grades and generally believe that there were 40000 to 50000 CSDG were struck (period one and period two) and about 1/4 to 1/3 were holed, damaged, bent, and cleaned.
In this case, I believe majority of CSDG were holder-ed and pop reports gave me a certain degree of confidence that this study could make some sense. Of course, among 33750 graded CSDG, some were re-submission and some were crossover-ed that inserts did not return to correct pop reports.
Nevertheless, I wish this study still could give you some idea between rarity vs. pop reports vs. book's estimation.
R2: (501-1250), there are 3 in this category, average pop is 551.67
R3: (201-500), there are 36 in this category, average pop is 261.44
LR4: (151-200), there are 33 in this category, average pop is 151.36
R4: (101-150), there are 47 in this category, average pop is 110.79
HR4: (76-100), there are 42 in this category, average pop is 77.88
LR5: (61-75), there are 38 in this category, average pop is 57.05
R5: (46-60), there are 42 in this category, average pop is 45.29
HR5: (31-45), there are 49 in this category, average pop is 34.53
LR6: (25-30), there are 28 in this category, average pop is 28.54
R6: (19-24), there are 29 in this category, average pop is 25.17
HR6: (13-18), there are 53 in this category, average pop is 15.62
LR7: (10-12), there are 37 in this category, average pop is 11.46
R7: (7-9), there are 37 in this category, average pop is 8.46
HR7: (4-6), there are 43 in this category, average pop is 5.70
R8: (2-3), there are 36 in this category, average pop is 2.08
Unique (1), there are 25 in this category, average pop is 0.94
For unique, there shouldn't be 25 varieties in this category since many pieces were found after 2003 (even on period one unique-s). In other words, many 2003 unique-s are R7/R8 now. I wish a new book can be published to give us up-to-date info.
Can you comment what info you can extract from these numbers?
In this study, I am using a mature series coin, California fractional gold (aka CSDG, california small denomination gold) as a case study to see the coin rarity listed in BG (Breen-Gillio) book published in March 2003 and Nov 20, 2015 PCGS+NGC pop reports.
Why did I use CSDG as the example of this study. In the two TPGs, there are 33750 coins were a-ssigned grades and generally believe that there were 40000 to 50000 CSDG were struck (period one and period two) and about 1/4 to 1/3 were holed, damaged, bent, and cleaned.
In this case, I believe majority of CSDG were holder-ed and pop reports gave me a certain degree of confidence that this study could make some sense. Of course, among 33750 graded CSDG, some were re-submission and some were crossover-ed that inserts did not return to correct pop reports.
Nevertheless, I wish this study still could give you some idea between rarity vs. pop reports vs. book's estimation.
R2: (501-1250), there are 3 in this category, average pop is 551.67
R3: (201-500), there are 36 in this category, average pop is 261.44
LR4: (151-200), there are 33 in this category, average pop is 151.36
R4: (101-150), there are 47 in this category, average pop is 110.79
HR4: (76-100), there are 42 in this category, average pop is 77.88
LR5: (61-75), there are 38 in this category, average pop is 57.05
R5: (46-60), there are 42 in this category, average pop is 45.29
HR5: (31-45), there are 49 in this category, average pop is 34.53
LR6: (25-30), there are 28 in this category, average pop is 28.54
R6: (19-24), there are 29 in this category, average pop is 25.17
HR6: (13-18), there are 53 in this category, average pop is 15.62
LR7: (10-12), there are 37 in this category, average pop is 11.46
R7: (7-9), there are 37 in this category, average pop is 8.46
HR7: (4-6), there are 43 in this category, average pop is 5.70
R8: (2-3), there are 36 in this category, average pop is 2.08
Unique (1), there are 25 in this category, average pop is 0.94
For unique, there shouldn't be 25 varieties in this category since many pieces were found after 2003 (even on period one unique-s). In other words, many 2003 unique-s are R7/R8 now. I wish a new book can be published to give us up-to-date info.
Can you comment what info you can extract from these numbers?
an SLQ and Ike dollars lover
0
Comments
Questions comes to mind; what %, more or less, of extant Cal Fractionals have been submitted to PCGS or ATS? Are a significant % clearly not gradable? What % exhibit very noticeable wear?
Different dealers and different collectors would give you different answers. The best way to get first hand info is to talk to the dealers who are dealing with raw calfracs and/or the researchers who examined many of raw calfracs coins. Nonetheless, did you see one dealer carries a lot of raw calfracs in FUN this year? When was the last time you saw dealers who had over 100 raw calfracs in his inventory
I believe most (my guess is over 80% or 90%) problem-free Cal fractional gold coins have been submitted at least once in the last 30 years (again, when was the last time you saw problem-free raw R7 or rarer calfracs in any major coin auction?) Also, many not-grade-able rare calfracs (LR7 or rarer) were in TPG holders now because collectors want TPG to authenticate them first.
> Are a significant % clearly not gradable?
Generally speaking, we estimated about 25% to 30% calfracs (period one and period 2) were holed. Due to mis-handling, some (my guess is 10%) are bent in the last 150 years. Of course, some were used as jewelry and some were improperly cleaned. I would estimate grade-able and not-grade-able percentage is between 55%-45% and 50%-50%.
> What % exhibit very noticeable wear?
I don't have a good answer now. But I can tell you that noticeable wear calfracs can always be found in a few BG coins. For example, BG-505 is very common on EF to low AU grade thought pop report did not support this statement. This is pure from many of us experience.
The average pops you list in your first post follow the rarity ordering pretty much exactly. What about the non-average values? Could you list some of the outliers where the slabbed population is significantly higher/lower than the rarity values would indicate? Can we learn anything from those outliers?
I have a super hard time believing that the majority of _anything_ has been holdered unless the total mintage was so low that you could get a majority with handful of pieces. Do any of the CSDG have known mintages that could be used to test your assumption that most have been holdered? What do the populations look like for something that does have known mintages in a similar range, for example 19th century proofs?
Based on your total numbers (34K assigned grades, believed 40K-50K struck with ~1/3 damaged), that sounds like you are assuming that pretty much the total mintage has survived and is in collectors' hands. I can't imagine that's accurate. I would assume (perhaps naively) that 90-95% of the mintage has since been melted or lost outright. These were intended for circulation, right? How could they not have been lost through normal attrition?
When I was 15 or 16 I traded a Cal. Fractional to a friend of mine for some silver dollars. The 1st thing he did after the trade was bite the dang thing and bend it! I asked him...."Why did you do that?" He said " I wanted to make sure it was really gold!"
The PCGS pop report shows nearly 16,000 1909-S VDB cents graded and close to 2000 1910 cents graded. Clearly this is not a random sample and there are not 8 times as many 1909-S VDB cents than 1910 cents.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Any accurate rarity assessment for R-6 or more rare (Sheldon scale) should use an exact count of confirmed examples, rather than an "estimate." This can only be done with research of auction catalogs, price lists, and census records of collectors, with pictorial proof of examples. In Steve Tompkins new book on early US half dollars, he gives a complete pictorial account for R-7 and R-8, along with pedigrees/auction lot#, and also gives a top ten accounting for R-6.
How many of these coins were submitted multiple times? The pop reports have to be taken with a big grain of salt.
No one truly know how many calfracs got submitted multiple times. Nonetheless, Calfracs is the series that I saw most inside OGH holders. In other words, many of them did not get re-submitted after 98-99. This is not the best argument that calfracs had limited re-submission but it is an indication that pop reports on Calfracs might have less bias than many other coin series pop reports.
As mentioned, there are issues with using TPG pop reports to accurately estimate rarity including resubmissions, problem coins not submitted, low value coins not submitted, and coins held in old collections.
Any accurate rarity assessment for R-6 or more rare (Sheldon scale) should use an exact count of confirmed examples, rather than an "estimate." This can only be done with research of auction catalogs, price lists, and census records of collectors, with pictorial proof of examples. In Steve Tompkins new book on early US half dollars, he gives a complete pictorial account for R-7 and R-8, along with pedigrees/auction lot#, and also gives a top ten accounting for R-6.
NY Soto, the BG-2 book documented every Calfracs rarities that is LR7 (12 known pieces existed including all problem ones) or rarer as Steve Tompkins did on early US half dollars. For Calfracs, researchers used the auction catalogs from 1870s to 2003 and one collector's notes who documented every calfracs that he saw in his life time to estimate each rarity level.
Since the BG-2 book was published in 2003. In the last 15-16 years, many pieces surfaced and were identified which were rated as unique or R8 or HR7 previously. In other words, many BG numbers that were listed as unique aren't unique anymore. Some R8s are HR7 or R7 today. I wish someone can update the book so that we can have up-to-date info since auction houses are still using old info to mis-lead collectors.
In the Federal series, resubmissions are strongly driven by a robust Registry collector base. It makes a huge difference financially to get the next-higher grade. My impression is that the prices for calfracs are driven mostly by rarity. Sure, higher grades help, but not so drastically that it's worth someone's time to chase regrades.
FWIW, I make the same assumption for exonumia, which is what I'm more familiar with.
I'm totally ok with assuming a low resubmission rate for calfracs. Some resubmissions are inevitable, from holders that get damaged or from collectors who simply want their holders to match. With a total population of over 30K, the effect of "cosmetic resubmissions" should be minimal.
In the Federal series, resubmissions are strongly driven by a robust Registry collector base. It makes a huge difference financially to get the next-higher grade. My impression is that the prices for calfracs are driven mostly by rarity. Sure, higher grades help, but not so drastically that it's worth someone's time to chase regrades.
FWIW, I make the same assumption for exonumia, which is what I'm more familiar with.
Jonathan, I am 100% agree with your above statements. Since calfracs period one has 134 coins (identified by set registry) and 563 coins for period 1 and period 2. Many are collecting them for completeness with higher grades in mind. You can always check PCGS "Auction Prices Realized" page that many calfracs prices did not jump that much when their rarities are R6 or higher.