Who determines the rarity multipliers for Registry sets?
amwldcoin
Posts: 11,269 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was just looking over the multiplier for the Everyman Barber Quarters. I find it funny the 1901-S has a rating of 7.0 compared to the 1896-S, 1909-O, and 1913-S which have a multiplier of 6.0. While I haven't done the math, I'm pretty sure the 1901-S carries at least 1/2 the value of the entire set...if not it's close.
This certainly doesn't reward those who spend the big bucks to add the 1901-S to their set. Doesn't this seem a bit odd?
1
Comments
I have not looked at the point structure for PCGS but have on occasion through NGC sets.
The one thing that sticks out is point values for ultra high grade post 1998 US moderns. Totally disproportionate to the scarcity or from my limited knowledge, value.
I find this entirely predictable, since the purpose of registry sets is to drive submissions.
Can't answer who, but this is what PCGS says about how ....
"What are weights?
Within a set, not all coins have the same value and rarity. Sets in the PCGS Set Registry are weighted on a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being the rarest coin and 1 being the most common. While it may be in true in some instances that a coin may be many times over 10 as rare as the most common coin in the set, the Registry keeps the scale simple so that all levels of collectors can compete.
The Registry weighting is done by taking three things into account:
~ The overall rarity of the coin, i.e. the rarity in all grades
~ The rarity in the highest 2 or 3 grades
~ The price (because this is an indication of demand and importance to collectors)"
Source
Well...I was expecting the 01-S to have a rating of 10!
The higher relative price clearly implies a higher relative "weight". That said, I do not know the specifics of the PCGS "weight" calculation. For example, how much consideration is assigned to the price input versus the two rarity inputs.
Consider the first rarity element: "overall rarity of the coin". For discussion purposes, let's assume that PCGS quantifies this using 'POP REPORT' data.
Source
There are nearly 60% more 1901-S coins. This makes it less rare than the 1909-O, and, consequently, reduces its relative "weight".
My Point - 'the devil is in the details', and, as far as I know, we do not know all of the "weight" details. So, it is inevitable that we are going to encounter outputs that do not meet our expectations.
I think I have come up with some understanding. It's not just the coins ranking within the Barber Quarter set, but the entire US series. I still think the 1901-S should carry more weight against the others than it does.
@metroD There is an easy explanation for your example, there are tons of 09-O's that have not been graded compared to 01-S's. Maybe not so much so in the higher grades, but certainly in the lower grades.
Recently I sent an email to our host on the weights for the seated dollar series. There is a clear consensus among experts that the current weights need to be modified. Let's hope that our host is willing to invest a little time to improve the accuracy of this rating system. I provided detailed suggestions to help with the process and await their response. Perhaps if other registry members raise this concern our host might be more inclined to investigate and address this problem.
Thanks for the response.
Can't, and am not attempting to, dispute your position.
Just trying to understand the existing process better.
Highly probable. There were 712,000 1909-O minted versus 72,664 1901-S minted. Reference
Still think that any potential improvement is 'in the details'. This is the case as the output, or "weight", is going to be heavily influenced by:
~ the 'actual/underlying' data used. For example, is "overall rarity" measured by PCGS population, or total mintage?
~ how the data is scored. For example, does a coin that represents 50% of the set value get a 5 (proportional), or a higher value for the pricing component?
~ how the three underlying components are combined. For example, is it 1/3(overall rarity) + 1/3(high grade rarity) + 1/3(price), or 1/4(overall rarity) + 1/4(high grade rarity) + 1/2(price)?
Per @shish, you are not the only stakeholder with 'questions/concerns' about the current "weights". Hopefully, PCGS will consider revisiting this important registry feature as a continuous improvement activity.
Thanks again for the interaction. I am learning a great deal.
I questioned them several years ago about the rating of the 1792 Half Disme. They have it as a 7 and a Wreath Cent as a 8! The 1792 Half Disme is the rarest coin in the Type Set and should be a 10 like the 1796-1797 Half Dollar.
So, another stakeholder with a specific concern within their area of expertise.
By my count, we are up to three (i.e., Barber Quarters, Seated Dollar, and Half Disme).
@shish - You suggested that registry members should consider contacting PCGS about this 'opportunity for improvement'. Would you mind sharing the e-mail address you used to convey your message?
My pleasure, her name is Paulina Cooley.
PCooley@collectors.com
Thanks for sharing this contact information. I appreciate it.
Hopefully, some of the forum members that read this thread will be inclined to contact Paulina with specific examples of suspect "weights".