Sorry but I can already see that this will be a little long .
I see a couple comments on not including GC in the pcgs auction and/or price results. This is also true for Greysheet. However, this comment I believe should be directed towards GC as they do Not release their auction records in bulk to anyone. Therefore, as I understand it, to use the data would require going to GC website and pulling individual results and not being able to necessarily link to the auction result information. Heritage and Stacks and others do allow their results to be 'bulk' used and therefore are seen in the auction records of other sites like pcgs and greysheet/CDN.
@winesteven Now look what you did. j/k
Many of the CDN values now (emphasis on now) do not agree with the numbers you quoted above. Why? Well an example is below. These are the wholesale CAC.
$2000 change to $2200 on 11/25/25 and then change on 11/28/25 (today for this post) to $5500. with a CAC CPG $6250.
It appears many others other than the ones you mentioned were also updated.
@winesteven Yes, your post on the greysheet or CDN versus CPG is correct. This is for both the CAC and non-CAC.
Greysheet defines their CPG to be a proprietary formula (or factor) based off of their greysheet (wholesale) value to generate a CPG (retail) number. Typically this value ranges from around 1.35 times the greysheet (wholesale) for lower value coins to about 1.20 times the greysheet (wholesale) value for higher priced coins. As CDN states when the greysheet (wholesale) value is changed the CPG (retail) value will change with it. This is done independently for CAC and then non-CAC coins.
Next perhaps another question to ask is why should different price guides agree? One answer might be when they represent the same thing. But then how the prices are determined could also generate differences.
Looking at what the pcgs and greysheet represent:
PCGS states that their price guide represents:
"The prices listed in the PCGS Price Guide are average dealer asking prices for PCGS-graded coins."
From: https://www.pcgs.com/prices
This does Not distinguish between pcgs non-cac and pcgs cac. In some cases this difference could be small at 10% or less. But in other cases it could be much larger at 50% or 100% (twice as much) or maybe even more on select cases. Also the average dealer asking prices in some cases could be somewhat iffy.
CDN - greysheet does distinguish between non-cac and cac approved coins where such coins are available. However, CDN does not distinguish between NGC and PCGS for cac approved or not cac approved. Similar to the pcgs non-cac versus pcgs cac, the difference between an NGC and PCGS or NGC cac and PCGS cac can be small at 10% or less. But again sometimes the difference can be much larger (50% or 100% twice as much) and this for similar coins not some special toned coin or similar.
I will also note that, as I recall, John F has stated somewhere in a video as I recall, that CDN will typically error on the side of a lower price guide value when data is limited or there is a divergence of the data.
So from this, these two price guides might not be representing the same thing.
@EastonCollection
You mentioned/asked why did pcgs lower the price on the 10c 1827 MS66.
Perhaps another question to ask is why did CDN also lower the price? Here is the information on that and these are CAC greysheet (wholesale).
Oct 2019 $24,000.
Oct 2020 $20,000.
June 25, 2025 $27,500.
Nov 25, 2025 $16250. (with CPG $19500) ********* price reduced
Nov 28, 2025 $17,380. with CPG $21,000.
Like winesteven's above the value was updated today (as of this post) to a slightly higher value compared to the OP.
So why did both price guides reduce the value?
I don't know but could a bid have been pulled or something similar?
The most recent auction record I see is for a non-cac NGC from SB 8/13/24 at $12,000. which CDN could use for their non-cac valuation. Could this impact the perceived CDN cac approved value? I don't know.
@TrickleCharge
Yes, the pcgs auction prices realized has not done well in recent years. It is more than just the sorting. Since about 2023 pcgs auction prices realized has been generally slow to post auction results and they are also not posting as many auction results as in years past. Currently the last Heritage auction results are from July 2025 and Stacks Sept 2025 (and if one tracks eBay those are Aug 2025). Don't know if anything has changed for access to Goldbergs, Scottsman and DLRC but those have not been included since 2023. Additionally the number of auctions included from particularly Heritage but also Stacks has gone down. It is now mainly the more significant auctions whereas previously the included some of the weekly auctions or specialty auctions.
Price guides are pretty close to accurate on the highest volume sales coins; for example Morgan and Peace dollars, Moderns where you could back up a semi trailer to a major show and fill it.
@lilolme said:
Sorry but I can already see that this will be a little long .
I see a couple comments on not including GC in the pcgs auction and/or price results. This is also true for Greysheet. However, this comment I believe should be directed towards GC as they do Not release their auction records in bulk to anyone. Therefore, as I understand it, to use the data would require going to GC website and pulling individual results and not being able to necessarily link to the auction result information. Heritage and Stacks and others do allow their results to be 'bulk' used and therefore are seen in the auction records of other sites like pcgs and greysheet/CDN.
@winesteven Now look what you did. j/k
Many of the CDN values now (emphasis on now) do not agree with the numbers you quoted above. Why? Well an example is below. These are the wholesale CAC.
$2000 change to $2200 on 11/25/25 and then change on 11/28/25 (today for this post) to $5500. with a CAC CPG $6250.
It appears many others other than the ones you mentioned were also updated.
@winesteven Yes, your post on the greysheet or CDN versus CPG is correct. This is for both the CAC and non-CAC.
Greysheet defines their CPG to be a proprietary formula (or factor) based off of their greysheet (wholesale) value to generate a CPG (retail) number. Typically this value ranges from around 1.35 times the greysheet (wholesale) for lower value coins to about 1.20 times the greysheet (wholesale) value for higher priced coins. As CDN states when the greysheet (wholesale) value is changed the CPG (retail) value will change with it. This is done independently for CAC and then non-CAC coins.
Next perhaps another question to ask is why should different price guides agree? One answer might be when they represent the same thing. But then how the prices are determined could also generate differences.
Looking at what the pcgs and greysheet represent:
PCGS states that their price guide represents:
"The prices listed in the PCGS Price Guide are average dealer asking prices for PCGS-graded coins."
From: https://www.pcgs.com/prices
This does Not distinguish between pcgs non-cac and pcgs cac. In some cases this difference could be small at 10% or less. But in other cases it could be much larger at 50% or 100% (twice as much) or maybe even more on select cases. Also the average dealer asking prices in some cases could be somewhat iffy.
CDN - greysheet does distinguish between non-cac and cac approved coins where such coins are available. However, CDN does not distinguish between NGC and PCGS for cac approved or not cac approved. Similar to the pcgs non-cac versus pcgs cac, the difference between an NGC and PCGS or NGC cac and PCGS cac can be small at 10% or less. But again sometimes the difference can be much larger (50% or 100% twice as much) and this for similar coins not some special toned coin or similar.
I will also note that, as I recall, John F has stated somewhere in a video as I recall, that CDN will typically error on the side of a lower price guide value when data is limited or there is a divergence of the data.
So from this, these two price guides might not be representing the same thing.
@EastonCollection
You mentioned/asked why did pcgs lower the price on the 10c 1827 MS66.
Perhaps another question to ask is why did CDN also lower the price? Here is the information on that and these are CAC greysheet (wholesale).
Oct 2019 $24,000.
Oct 2020 $20,000.
June 25, 2025 $27,500.
Nov 25, 2025 $16250. (with CPG $19500) ********* price reduced
Nov 28, 2025 $17,380. with CPG $21,000.
Like winesteven's above the value was updated today (as of this post) to a slightly higher value compared to the OP.
So why did both price guides reduce the value?
I don't know but could a bid have been pulled or something similar?
The most recent auction record I see is for a non-cac NGC from SB 8/13/24 at $12,000. which CDN could use for their non-cac valuation. Could this impact the perceived CDN cac approved value? I don't know.
@TrickleCharge
Yes, the pcgs auction prices realized has not done well in recent years. It is more than just the sorting. Since about 2023 pcgs auction prices realized has been generally slow to post auction results and they are also not posting as many auction results as in years past. Currently the last Heritage auction results are from July 2025 and Stacks Sept 2025 (and if one tracks eBay those are Aug 2025). Don't know if anything has changed for access to Goldbergs, Scottsman and DLRC but those have not been included since 2023. Additionally the number of auctions included from particularly Heritage but also Stacks has gone down. It is now mainly the more significant auctions whereas previously the included some of the weekly auctions or specialty auctions.
Please don’t apologize for your thorough and informative post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's quite a paradox, guides are used every day but how can they be "accurate" in a business model where prices change everyday based on supply and demand and many other factors.. I think one must get as much information availalbe before buying or selling and join the game!
Now if "insiders" (strategy moves or non movements if the case may be) are changing the rules, that's a different game, Some will play some won't..
Guides do work on lower end stuff, how do I know that a 1916 D merc. dime in a PCGS good 04 holder is worth a grand and the same coin in a PCGS AG03 holder is worth $750
@winesteven Now look what you did. j/k
Many of the CDN values now (emphasis on now) do not agree with the numbers you quoted above. Why? Well an example is below. These are the wholesale CAC.
$2000 change to $2200 on 11/25/25 and then change on 11/28/25 (today for this post) to $5500. with a CAC CPG $6250.
It appears many others other than the ones you mentioned were also updated.
Thanks for your analysis. Yes, figures do change regularly. The figures i showed for the Proof Barber Dimes were taken just very early this morning from the CAC price Report. Are you instead referring to my example in a lower post showing actual figures for a MS64 coin I'm watching that is not a Proof Barber Dime? Perhaps the actual CAC Price Report (based on Greysheet figures) doesn't incorporate those changes as often as the raw numbers are updated? Am I misinterpreting what you stated? If not, then the problem described by the OP stands, since the CAC Price Report is online, and therefore should be updated at the same time and frequency as the raw Greysheet data that it's based on? If not, that's not good, as the OP and I indicate.
Please clarify.
Thanks.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
GC is not figured in because GC doesn't want to be figured in. They own their own data and aren't interested in sharing it. Complain to Ian
I should have stated my comment better. I'm aware that GC chooses not to provide their data. And I'm not really complaining. Just makes it a little more time consuming in researching data to come up with my own idea on a particular coins worth.
I really appreciated reading through this thread @EastonCollection and glad you started it. Still trying to catch up with some of the one's I missed while I was off and away in NZ.
One of my pet peeves with the PCGS price guide (in particular) SHOULD be an easy fix, but it never seems to happen. It involves Capped Bust Halves that have been attributed on the holder. There are multiple cases where the "Base Price" exceeds the "Attributed Pricing".
As an example (see below), the "Base Price" shows the 1818 as $550. (EF40) / $2000. (AU55) / $4000. (MS60) coin, but in almost every case, if the coin is in an attributed holder (showing the Overton #), the coin will show up priced for less (typically $400/1250/3000).
Which leads to the question of what exactly is the point? just more confusion on pricing. Anyone who enters the cert # on one of the attributed coins will be shown prices that are less than the supposed "Most Common", or "Base Price" coin without attribution.
Believe me, as of right now, 1818 is NOT the only year suffering from this transgression.
From a very basic coding standpoint, IF basegradeprice > attrgradeprice, then set attrgradeprice = basegradeprice
That at least gives all EF40 graded CBH's of that year a minimum of the price shown for the unattributed examples.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
I haven’t read through all the comments, but here’s a thought.
We’re not really dealing with an aspect of coin collecting, we’re dealing with statistics deviation. Anytime something shows up on the market with regularity you’re going to have more reliable data than you will if it shows up infrequently. Any coin that lands solidly within the standard distribution will be (usually) easier to quantify because you have more data points. Any coin that falls in the top or bottom of the measured data will have fewer data points, therefore less reliability.
Most very high end coin collectors understand this principle either intuitively or intellectually.
Even if a grading company does is very very best and spends an inordinate amount of time and effort on their price guide is going to miss on the infrequent things, it would normally happen in any statistical measurement, regardless of what it is.
What you’re saying is that a coin that shows up on the market every ten ten years or so doesn’t have a reliable data set. You’re right, it doesn’t. It can’t reliably have one. Price guides in that range must, by definition, just be an idea of what might be expected if one did come to the market, not a measurement of what the market will actually support.
@tradedollarnut said:
Are they wrong? I paid $57k to buy this coin in an NGC 68* holder
I just downgrade crossed it to PCGS 67+ Cameo. Price guide $57,500
But it does beg the question of which came first - the chicken or the egg? Did it realize $57,600 because everyone thought it was a 67+Cam and that was what the Pcgs price guide said? Or is it that’s the current true market value for said coin and the price guide just happened to be correct this time. Hmmm.
How often do you read, right here on this message board, that someone is buried in a coin because the amount of his winning bid was $$$ more than what's in the price guide? Or a seller is mocked because the price marked on a coin he's selling is $$$ more than the price guide?
@winesteven Now look what you did. j/k
Many of the CDN values now (emphasis on now) do not agree with the numbers you quoted above. Why? Well an example is below. These are the wholesale CAC.
$2000 change to $2200 on 11/25/25 and then change on 11/28/25 (today for this post) to $5500. with a CAC CPG $6250.
It appears many others other than the ones you mentioned were also updated.
Thanks for your analysis. Yes, figures do change regularly. The figures i showed for the Proof Barber Dimes were taken just very early this morning from the CAC price Report. Are you instead referring to my example in a lower post showing actual figures for a MS64 coin I'm watching that is not a Proof Barber Dime? Perhaps the actual CAC Price Report (based on Greysheet figures) doesn't incorporate those changes as often as the raw numbers are updated? Am I misinterpreting what you stated? If not, then the problem described by the OP stands, since the CAC Price Report is online, and therefore should be updated at the same time and frequency as the raw Greysheet data that it's based on? If not, that's not good, as the OP and I indicate.
Please clarify.
Thanks.
Steve
I see I left out a key part of the information. I was referring to the 1901 10c PR67 CAM CAC.
It was at $2000. (wholesale).
It was changed to S2200. (wholesale) on 11/25/25 (although their price history chart indicates this was back in 2021)
Note: this was probably the $2750. (retail) that you quoted in your post from the CAC website (CDN factor would have been 2750/2200 = 1.25 for CDN wholesale to retail)
On the CDN webpage and app I now (11/28/2025) see a greysheet of $5000. (wholesale) or $6250. (retail).
So I was joking (although I kind of suspect that it might be actually why) that you caused this price jump with your reporting of what you paid in the post. That was the "Now look at what you did. j/k "
Note: It does still show $2750. on the CAC website but that is not what the CDN webpage is showing so there is apparently some delay. Should be coming soon to a theater near to you.
@tradedollarnut said:
Are they wrong? I paid $57k to buy this coin in an NGC 68* holder
But it does beg the question of which came first - the chicken or the egg? Did it realize $57,600 because everyone thought it was a 67+Cam and that was what the Pcgs price guide said? Or is it that’s the current true market value for said coin and the price guide just happened to be correct this time. Hmmm.
The current NGC price guide places the value of a PR67 at $25,000 and a PR68 at $60,000. If those were the values at the time of the auction and you were aware of both the PCGS and NGC values, that $120,000 PR68 valuation at PCGS must have made your bid a very tempting conservative gamble. The downside is that it could have come back as a PCGS PF67 @ $35,000!
@tradedollarnut said:
Are they wrong? I paid $57k to buy this coin in an NGC 68* holder
But it does beg the question of which came first - the chicken or the egg? Did it realize $57,600 because everyone thought it was a 67+Cam and that was what the Pcgs price guide said? Or is it that’s the current true market value for said coin and the price guide just happened to be correct this time. Hmmm.
The current NGC price guide places the value of a PR67 at $25,000 and a PR68 at $60,000. If those were the values at the time of the auction and you were aware of both the PCGS and NGC values, that $120,000 PR68 valuation at PCGS must have made your bid a very tempting conservative gamble. The downside is that it could have come back as a PCGS PF67 @ $35,000!
Who says that @tradedollarnut was willing to cross the coin as a PCGS PR67 and accept the downside of that grade?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@tradedollarnut said:
Are they wrong? I paid $57k to buy this coin in an NGC 68* holder
But it does beg the question of which came first - the chicken or the egg? Did it realize $57,600 because everyone thought it was a 67+Cam and that was what the Pcgs price guide said? Or is it that’s the current true market value for said coin and the price guide just happened to be correct this time. Hmmm.
The current NGC price guide places the value of a PR67 at $25,000 and a PR68 at $60,000. If those were the values at the time of the auction and you were aware of both the PCGS and NGC values, that $120,000 PR68 valuation at PCGS must have made your bid a very tempting conservative gamble. The downside is that it could have come back as a PCGS PF67 @ $35,000!
Who says that @tradedollarnut was willing to cross the coin as a PCGS PR67 and accept the downside of that grade?
As a matter of fact my minimum grade was 67+ Cam. That was the accurate grade in my opinion. And I’ve seen a LOT of high grade trade dollars
Maybe the price, high or low, isn't wrong but rather the actual attempt to price it. With such limited info, taking a stab at value is an error in and of itself.
There should be defined parameters with respect to data points for establishing value. The more data points, the tighter the price range. The less data points, the broader the range. Limited or no relevant data, no attempt at pricing.
@Peasantry said:
Maybe the price, high or low, isn't wrong but rather the actual attempt to price it. With such limited info, taking a stab at value is an error in and of itself.
There should be defined parameters with respect to data points for establishing value. The more data points, the tighter the price range. The less data points, the broader the range. Limited or no relevant data, no attempt at pricing.
This should be software not guess work.
If guess work was eliminated there might be more complaints about all of the coins without listed values than there are now about inaccurate ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree with your concerns. I certainly would offer more than the $32,500 new pricing for the 1827 P/C-66 if I am currently pursuing it but right now I am pursuing gold coins at the moment. The market is very fixated on gold coins.
I suspect PCGS is setting up the 1827 dimes up for a “future price rise” when there is a future perception of a strong market in these dimes. Right now, the coin hobby is not even looking at the capped bust dimes (just like me) so a price decline is not even noticed by the coin hobby because gold is so strong.
I also think that PCGS is possibly observing a weakness in MS-63 capped bust dimes so PCGS is dropping prices in MS-64 through MS-66 dimes even though there has been no activity in the upper mint state ones.
I still have my
1834 PCGS/CAC OGH MS-67 Lovejoy dime and very content to hang onto it. Since no one is looking to sell their MS-66 or 67 dimes I am not pushing any bids to drive the market up. These dimes are lower in PCGS than they were 10 years ago,
@scubafuel said:
I think an interesting pricing model would be based on a “wiki”.
Let anyone with a PCGS membership enter prices for any coin/grade in the PCGS database, and take the weighted average with a limit for outliers.
I bet this would end up being more accurate over time than the current pricing database.
Meaningless, ignorant guesses don't average out to valid numbers. The data is iony meaningful if those numbers entered are offers to buy or sell. And even then you run the risk of bargain hunters or aspirational selling destroying the validity of the numbers.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Price guides should show a range for each grade, e.g ($32,000 - $40,000). That takes into account low quality and high quality, slight changes in demand, overall coin market health, and other factors.
Comments
Sorry but I can already see that this will be a little long .
I see a couple comments on not including GC in the pcgs auction and/or price results. This is also true for Greysheet. However, this comment I believe should be directed towards GC as they do Not release their auction records in bulk to anyone. Therefore, as I understand it, to use the data would require going to GC website and pulling individual results and not being able to necessarily link to the auction result information. Heritage and Stacks and others do allow their results to be 'bulk' used and therefore are seen in the auction records of other sites like pcgs and greysheet/CDN.
@winesteven Now look what you did. j/k
Many of the CDN values now (emphasis on now) do not agree with the numbers you quoted above. Why? Well an example is below. These are the wholesale CAC.
$2000 change to $2200 on 11/25/25 and then change on 11/28/25 (today for this post) to $5500. with a CAC CPG $6250.
It appears many others other than the ones you mentioned were also updated.
@winesteven Yes, your post on the greysheet or CDN versus CPG is correct. This is for both the CAC and non-CAC.
Greysheet defines their CPG to be a proprietary formula (or factor) based off of their greysheet (wholesale) value to generate a CPG (retail) number. Typically this value ranges from around 1.35 times the greysheet (wholesale) for lower value coins to about 1.20 times the greysheet (wholesale) value for higher priced coins. As CDN states when the greysheet (wholesale) value is changed the CPG (retail) value will change with it. This is done independently for CAC and then non-CAC coins.
Next perhaps another question to ask is why should different price guides agree? One answer might be when they represent the same thing. But then how the prices are determined could also generate differences.
Looking at what the pcgs and greysheet represent:
PCGS states that their price guide represents:
"The prices listed in the PCGS Price Guide are average dealer asking prices for PCGS-graded coins."
From: https://www.pcgs.com/prices
This does Not distinguish between pcgs non-cac and pcgs cac. In some cases this difference could be small at 10% or less. But in other cases it could be much larger at 50% or 100% (twice as much) or maybe even more on select cases. Also the average dealer asking prices in some cases could be somewhat iffy.
CDN - greysheet does distinguish between non-cac and cac approved coins where such coins are available. However, CDN does not distinguish between NGC and PCGS for cac approved or not cac approved. Similar to the pcgs non-cac versus pcgs cac, the difference between an NGC and PCGS or NGC cac and PCGS cac can be small at 10% or less. But again sometimes the difference can be much larger (50% or 100% twice as much) and this for similar coins not some special toned coin or similar.
I will also note that, as I recall, John F has stated somewhere in a video as I recall, that CDN will typically error on the side of a lower price guide value when data is limited or there is a divergence of the data.
So from this, these two price guides might not be representing the same thing.
@EastonCollection
You mentioned/asked why did pcgs lower the price on the 10c 1827 MS66.
Perhaps another question to ask is why did CDN also lower the price? Here is the information on that and these are CAC greysheet (wholesale).
Oct 2019 $24,000.
Oct 2020 $20,000.
June 25, 2025 $27,500.
Nov 25, 2025 $16250. (with CPG $19500) ********* price reduced
Nov 28, 2025 $17,380. with CPG $21,000.
Like winesteven's above the value was updated today (as of this post) to a slightly higher value compared to the OP.
So why did both price guides reduce the value?
I don't know but could a bid have been pulled or something similar?
The most recent auction record I see is for a non-cac NGC from SB 8/13/24 at $12,000. which CDN could use for their non-cac valuation. Could this impact the perceived CDN cac approved value? I don't know.
@TrickleCharge
Yes, the pcgs auction prices realized has not done well in recent years. It is more than just the sorting. Since about 2023 pcgs auction prices realized has been generally slow to post auction results and they are also not posting as many auction results as in years past. Currently the last Heritage auction results are from July 2025 and Stacks Sept 2025 (and if one tracks eBay those are Aug 2025). Don't know if anything has changed for access to Goldbergs, Scottsman and DLRC but those have not been included since 2023. Additionally the number of auctions included from particularly Heritage but also Stacks has gone down. It is now mainly the more significant auctions whereas previously the included some of the weekly auctions or specialty auctions.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hYCRaWPlTIE Sophie Lloyd, guitar shred cover of Panama (Van Halen)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dOV1VrDuUm4 Ted Nugent, Hibernation, Live 1976
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Price guides are pretty close to accurate on the highest volume sales coins; for example Morgan and Peace dollars, Moderns where you could back up a semi trailer to a major show and fill it.
Please don’t apologize for your thorough and informative post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's quite a paradox, guides are used every day but how can they be "accurate" in a business model where prices change everyday based on supply and demand and many other factors.. I think one must get as much information availalbe before buying or selling and join the game!
Now if "insiders" (strategy moves or non movements if the case may be) are changing the rules, that's a different game, Some will play some won't..
Guides do work on lower end stuff, how do I know that a 1916 D merc. dime in a PCGS good 04 holder is worth a grand and the same coin in a PCGS AG03 holder is worth $750
Thanks for your analysis. Yes, figures do change regularly. The figures i showed for the Proof Barber Dimes were taken just very early this morning from the CAC price Report. Are you instead referring to my example in a lower post showing actual figures for a MS64 coin I'm watching that is not a Proof Barber Dime? Perhaps the actual CAC Price Report (based on Greysheet figures) doesn't incorporate those changes as often as the raw numbers are updated? Am I misinterpreting what you stated? If not, then the problem described by the OP stands, since the CAC Price Report is online, and therefore should be updated at the same time and frequency as the raw Greysheet data that it's based on? If not, that's not good, as the OP and I indicate.
Please clarify.
Thanks.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I should have stated my comment better. I'm aware that GC chooses not to provide their data. And I'm not really complaining. Just makes it a little more time consuming in researching data to come up with my own idea on a particular coins worth.
Are they wrong? I paid $57k to buy this coin in an NGC 68* holder
I just downgrade crossed it to PCGS 67+ Cameo. Price guide $57,500
I really appreciated reading through this thread @EastonCollection and glad you started it. Still trying to catch up with some of the one's I missed while I was off and away in NZ.
One of my pet peeves with the PCGS price guide (in particular) SHOULD be an easy fix, but it never seems to happen. It involves Capped Bust Halves that have been attributed on the holder. There are multiple cases where the "Base Price" exceeds the "Attributed Pricing".
As an example (see below), the "Base Price" shows the 1818 as $550. (EF40) / $2000. (AU55) / $4000. (MS60) coin, but in almost every case, if the coin is in an attributed holder (showing the Overton #), the coin will show up priced for less (typically $400/1250/3000).
Which leads to the question of what exactly is the point? just more confusion on pricing. Anyone who enters the cert # on one of the attributed coins will be shown prices that are less than the supposed "Most Common", or "Base Price" coin without attribution.
Believe me, as of right now, 1818 is NOT the only year suffering from this transgression.
From a very basic coding standpoint, IF basegradeprice > attrgradeprice, then set attrgradeprice = basegradeprice
That at least gives all EF40 graded CBH's of that year a minimum of the price shown for the unattributed examples.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
I haven’t read through all the comments, but here’s a thought.
We’re not really dealing with an aspect of coin collecting, we’re dealing with statistics deviation. Anytime something shows up on the market with regularity you’re going to have more reliable data than you will if it shows up infrequently. Any coin that lands solidly within the standard distribution will be (usually) easier to quantify because you have more data points. Any coin that falls in the top or bottom of the measured data will have fewer data points, therefore less reliability.
Most very high end coin collectors understand this principle either intuitively or intellectually.
Even if a grading company does is very very best and spends an inordinate amount of time and effort on their price guide is going to miss on the infrequent things, it would normally happen in any statistical measurement, regardless of what it is.
What you’re saying is that a coin that shows up on the market every ten ten years or so doesn’t have a reliable data set. You’re right, it doesn’t. It can’t reliably have one. Price guides in that range must, by definition, just be an idea of what might be expected if one did come to the market, not a measurement of what the market will actually support.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
But it does beg the question of which came first - the chicken or the egg? Did it realize $57,600 because everyone thought it was a 67+Cam and that was what the Pcgs price guide said? Or is it that’s the current true market value for said coin and the price guide just happened to be correct this time. Hmmm.
TPG price guides have always been a joke IMO. Never anywhere close to reality. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
How often do you read, right here on this message board, that someone is buried in a coin because the amount of his winning bid was $$$ more than what's in the price guide? Or a seller is mocked because the price marked on a coin he's selling is $$$ more than the price guide?
Some people take price guides seriously.
I see I left out a key part of the information. I was referring to the 1901 10c PR67 CAM CAC.
It was at $2000. (wholesale).
It was changed to S2200. (wholesale) on 11/25/25 (although their price history chart indicates this was back in 2021)
Note: this was probably the $2750. (retail) that you quoted in your post from the CAC website (CDN factor would have been 2750/2200 = 1.25 for CDN wholesale to retail)
On the CDN webpage and app I now (11/28/2025) see a greysheet of $5000. (wholesale) or $6250. (retail).
"
So I was joking (although I kind of suspect that it might be actually why) that you caused this price jump with your reporting of what you paid in the post. That was the "Now look at what you did. j/k
Note: It does still show $2750. on the CAC website but that is not what the CDN webpage is showing so there is apparently some delay. Should be coming soon to a theater near to you.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hYCRaWPlTIE Sophie Lloyd, guitar shred cover of Panama (Van Halen)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dOV1VrDuUm4 Ted Nugent, Hibernation, Live 1976
RLJ 1958 - 2023
The current NGC price guide places the value of a PR67 at $25,000 and a PR68 at $60,000. If those were the values at the time of the auction and you were aware of both the PCGS and NGC values, that $120,000 PR68 valuation at PCGS must have made your bid a very tempting conservative gamble. The downside is that it could have come back as a PCGS PF67 @ $35,000!
Who says that @tradedollarnut was willing to cross the coin as a PCGS PR67 and accept the downside of that grade?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think an interesting pricing model would be based on a “wiki”.
Let anyone with a PCGS membership enter prices for any coin/grade in the PCGS database, and take the weighted average with a limit for outliers.
I bet this would end up being more accurate over time than the current pricing database.
As a matter of fact my minimum grade was 67+ Cam. That was the accurate grade in my opinion. And I’ve seen a LOT of high grade trade dollars
Maybe the price, high or low, isn't wrong but rather the actual attempt to price it. With such limited info, taking a stab at value is an error in and of itself.
There should be defined parameters with respect to data points for establishing value. The more data points, the tighter the price range. The less data points, the broader the range. Limited or no relevant data, no attempt at pricing.
This should be software not guess work.
If guess work was eliminated there might be more complaints about all of the coins without listed values than there are now about inaccurate ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@EastonCollection:
I agree with your concerns. I certainly would offer more than the $32,500 new pricing for the 1827 P/C-66 if I am currently pursuing it but right now I am pursuing gold coins at the moment. The market is very fixated on gold coins.
I suspect PCGS is setting up the 1827 dimes up for a “future price rise” when there is a future perception of a strong market in these dimes. Right now, the coin hobby is not even looking at the capped bust dimes (just like me) so a price decline is not even noticed by the coin hobby because gold is so strong.
I also think that PCGS is possibly observing a weakness in MS-63 capped bust dimes so PCGS is dropping prices in MS-64 through MS-66 dimes even though there has been no activity in the upper mint state ones.
I still have my
1834 PCGS/CAC OGH MS-67 Lovejoy dime and very content to hang onto it. Since no one is looking to sell their MS-66 or 67 dimes I am not pushing any bids to drive the market up. These dimes are lower in PCGS than they were 10 years ago,
Meaningless, ignorant guesses don't average out to valid numbers. The data is iony meaningful if those numbers entered are offers to buy or sell. And even then you run the risk of bargain hunters or aspirational selling destroying the validity of the numbers.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Price guides should show a range for each grade, e.g ($32,000 - $40,000). That takes into account low quality and high quality, slight changes in demand, overall coin market health, and other factors.
He who knows he has enough is rich.