Options
Proposed Detailed Weighting System
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,159 ✭✭✭✭✭
The idea of weighting the individual coins in the registry sets is a good one. The problem is that the current system is just too simplified to be even close to accurate. I agree with others that the individual coins should be weighted by grade. It's a lot more work, but a whole lot more accurate. For example, the business strike trade dollar series would look like:
Date XF & Below All AU MS60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
73 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 6 8 10 10
CC 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 10 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 6 7 9 10 10
74 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 7 9 10 10
CC 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 6 7 9 10 10
75 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 10
CC 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 7 9 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 10
S/CC 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 8 10 10 10 10
76 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 10
CC 1 1 3 4 5 6 8 10 10 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 7 9 10 10
77 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 7 9 10 10
CC 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 9 10 10
78
CC 2 3 4 5 5 6 8 10 10 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 10
Date XF & Below All AU MS60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
73 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 6 8 10 10
CC 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 10 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 6 7 9 10 10
74 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 7 9 10 10
CC 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 6 7 9 10 10
75 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 10
CC 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 7 9 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 10
S/CC 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 8 10 10 10 10
76 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 10
CC 1 1 3 4 5 6 8 10 10 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 7 9 10 10
77 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 7 9 10 10
CC 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 9 10 10
78
CC 2 3 4 5 5 6 8 10 10 10 10 10
S 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 10
0
Comments
Thanks for posting a refreshing, interesting topic, not dealing with state quarters
1875-S MS68 - The Amon Carter coin, purchase for appx $90,000. One of only two MS68 trade dollars ever graded by either service.
Contribution to set rating: 1/87 X 68 = .78 points
1876-CC AU58 - a fairly common beast, probably multiple dozens out there with dozens higher, value about $1500.
Contribution to set rating: 10/87 X 58 = 6.67 points
Now what is wrong with this picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then what happens when "new" coins show up and coins "loose" their importance?
Looks like a never ending battle
No Weighting for dimes please
But I still understand where you are going with this. Only bad part is it will just cost a $hit load more to get a high rank
My Merc Dimes
Are you saying stick with a demonstratively flawed system because it's too much trouble to fix it? Say it isn't so!
I bet every series would have a collector/volunteer who would put together a ratings system for PCGS review. So all they'd have to do is keep it up to date. The ratings are based on relative price, which does change but much less often than population, so the task of keeping the weightings up to date is not overwhelming.
This is quite different from the FB coins. Obviously, more FB coins are made as they are more desirable to virtually everyone. However, it does cause a problem.
How would you deal with this situation? FYI, I am happy with any solution as I will never challenge for the top of my set as I give away 2 points on every coin and getting the keys in decent grades will be a challenge financially.
While it looks good in theory, it doesn't work well in practice. What you and Mitch propose is what NGC does. We have found examples of real problems there.
Here is another. The top proof Franklin set is composed of one 1951 in NGC PR67 UC (yes, maybe a $10,000+ coin), but that's it. Set two is way behind at about 40%. Yet the number two set has 9 coins a 50 in PCGS 66CAM (say $7,500 or more), a 51 in PCGS 66DCAM (say $7,500 or more), a 53 in PCGS 66DCAM (say $6,000), a 54 in PCGS 67DCAM (say $3,500), a 55 in NGC 68UCAM (say $2,500), a 56 in PCGS 69DCAM (say $4000), a 57 in PCGS 67DCAM (say $1,000), a 60 in NGC 68UCAM (say $500), and a 61 in PCGS 68DCAM (say $1,500). The total value of set two is realisticaly at least $34,000.
Which is the superior set. Well, I would certainly take set two especially with that 50 sitting there in PCGS 66CAM. In fact I would probably take that single piece over the single 51 in NGC 67UCAM. But, then add all those others including the 51 in PCGS 66DCAM, and there is not a real debate. And, I don't think any Franklin proof guy would pass up the 50 and 51 in set two to get the NGC graded 51 alone. Certainly, no way the second set is only 40% of the first.
So, the theory is good, but in practice, it's just too hard to set the weights correctly. And, I know they had an expert working on the weights.
So, the PCGS system with its presumed flaws seems better. In any event I haven't heard any complaints from anyone saying their set ranking is wrong.
Tad's market value idea might be OK. But while the theoy is good, practice would also be hard. Price guides are not really accurate for the highest graded coins, and that's where the competition is intense. If you don't believe it, look at the CU or Numismedia prices for 67CN IKEs. They are just too low.
There it is
I think that some NGC sets are weighted very well. The one that immediately comes to mind is MS Ikes, of which you are the current beneficiary. The #2 set has a long way to go to make it to your sets composition, and the rankings reflect it. Other sets don't fare as well, but with time, I think that NGC's system will be tweaked and weightings will be modified to correct the kinks in the system.
Keith
Part of my proposal is fixing the price guide, appointing an expert for each series to keep it reasonable. There are perhaps some (and at least one confirmed) dealers who don't want that to happen, but I believe there are others who would be happy to take their place. And as I've mentioned, it's much easier for all concerned to "police" market values as opposed to an obscure (or worse, hidden) weighting system.
I also am compelled to note that once again market values are being used as justification as to why the current weighting system is inaccurate.
My proposal simply does away with the middleman -- don't use market values to come up with a rating system, just use the market values.
I one thing that price doesn't account for is value. For example a higher priced piece may be less rare than a lower priced piece. But, for whatever reason, the more common piece costs more. For example, compare a 1912S Liberty Nickel in 65 to an 84 in 65. The 12S is more common and much easier to find, yet costs three times. Or compare the 40S Walker in 66 to the 41S in 66. The 41S is perhaps more common yet costs double. So, do we reward clones who pay alot without thinking, or intelligent collectors who know what is going on.
At the end of the day, the current PCGS system really isn't that bad. How many specific complaints have you heard?
Greg
$10,000????? Dream on
To which I say, "value" in whose opinion? It is not (apparently) the opinion of the majority of collectors. The collectors have voted with their wallets -- can't ask for a more sincere vote than that! -- as to which is the most desirable piece.
So, if the registry is to showcase the "finest" collections -- by definition put together by collectors -- the registry should respect their majority, not your (or my) opinion.
----
Regarding who gets to be the price guide police, in my "official" proposal to David Hall, I suggested that one person by designated for each series. That person would be required to visit the forum (maybe a special pricing forum) on a regular basis to take input, and explain or defend the current prices. With a pack of very interested registry collectors on his or her heels, you can be sure that designee is going to be kept on the straght-n-narrow!
My motivation behind the proposal is this: We already have plenty of numbers in this hobby. There is a tremendous amount of expertise and energy found among registry collectors and enthusiasts. Why squander that energy in creating an arcane group of weighting numbers useful only to registry collectors?
I think my proposal channels that same energy much more effectively -- providing a similar benefit to registry collectors as the weighting scheme does, but with a huge bonus that benefits all collectors: A price guide of unprecedented timeliness and accuracy.
My comment was meant to address exactly that situation. If a set is comprised of mostly Pop 1/0 coins, it will have a very low sum for the "Pop Higher" column and therefore will receive the higher rank.
- Corey.
Perhaps I should change my login name to morgandollarnut?
If that is the case, where does that leave us? Someone can spend tens of thousands for one point, yet that point could be purchased more inexpensively in other years. It is like playing poker and using money managment. It lets the folks with far more shallow pockets compete up to a point and doesnt let someone get ahead on the basis of a single coin.
Ultimately the rare coin in Pop 1/0 will carry the day, but first you must do the same in the less expensive years. I have no problem with this, but I admit to my bias.
Greg: Could i indulge you to please answer one question for me, before I answer your question:
What would you rather have Greg, a 50 in NGC 66CAM and a 51 in NGC 66DCAM or a single 51 in PCGS 67DCAM?
Awaiting your honest answer
In my opinion, a set that is not complete (or the most complete) cannot be considered finest. An extremely rare coin that may take years to locate is at least as important as a 5-figure coin that I can buy from inventory today. And a simple weighting system is better than no weighting. This Registry thing is a game - no one should ever expect it to be able to identify who has the most valuable or important set. Tradedollarnut, if you own the Amon Carter coin you're a rich and fortunate man - isn't that good enough?
I agree that your hypothetical case is closer since my view is that the PCGS standard is somewhat tighter for proof Franklins. However, if I were collecting a mixed set, say for the NGC registry, I will still slightly prefer the 50 and 51 compared to the better grade 51. That view is based on my perception of the difficulty of finding 50 in 66CAM. When I have seen them offered, they have been well over $10,000. In any event I don't think the two coins have only 40% of the worth of the 1 coin, and that doesn't even count other fine pieces in the 2 ranked set.
By the way, let's say they were randomly mixed up. Two PCGS coins, one NGC, or even 1 PCGS and 2 NGC, but you don't know which are which. Then again I would go for the two.
By the way which would you take. A 32S Washington in PCGS MS65 and a 32S Washington in PCGS MS65, or a single 32S Washington in NGC66?
Greg
However, why assign weights that are then multiplied by the grade? Why not assign a value to each grade for any issue rather than go through the arithmetic.
Weights for your first entry (73) in top grade are 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 10 – when multiplied by the respective grades (64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69) one gets 192, 325, 396, 536, 680, 690 as values that contribute to the ranking of a set. The question is: if you were to determine these “values” directly, are these the numbers that you would assign?
Whether they are in this case, or not, I submit that in general it is better to think about the end result directly and bypass the two-stage process of obtaining weights and multiplying them by PCGS grades. I believe you will get more meaningful results by the direct approach.
Note I’ve stayed away from the question as to what these “values” represent. Are they market values or something else. I have my own opinion, but ask supercoin and wondercoin, who have debated this is other threads. Whatever they are, I’m simply suggesting it is better to focus on them directly, rather then letting them be arithmetic results.
Unfortunately, I think all of this is academic. PCGS and David Hall are going in a different direction, and after all, it is their ball game.
Beats me! That's why I have a problem with expertly-determined arbitrary weightings. It's really difficult to figure out the right numbers, or to understand those put together by someone else.
My point is that we are agonizing over how to discern fairly small differences when most collectors are working towards completion at this point.
Now perhaps this is different for moderns, I havent checked the stats on completed sets by series, but these grade differences seem to affect collectors of certain series much more.
I guess I am saying that I listen to the opinions and follow the logic, but to me as perhaps many, it really doesnt affect my collecting, just my observations of beautiful complete sets. Whatever PCGS does about ranking is fine with me, as long as they keep showing the populations, as that is a real bonus as I view things.