Updated scoring of Roosevelt Dime Mint State sets
0

54 posts in this topic

0 posts
Guest Joiseygirl

We have updated the scoring for the Roosevelt Dime Mint State series. Please feel free to comment on these changes.

 

We plan to re-evaluate other series in the near future.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,031 posts

I think the clad series was done quite well. Finally, these modern rarities get what they deserve. Good job!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165 posts

Interesting changes to say the least.

 

Perhaps it would be a good time to add a new set to this series that would not weight the set by the FT designation, but strictly on the grade and the * designation.

 

Lablover definitely took a major hit on his set because it seems his choice is to focus on premium eye appeal based on * designations being the primary criteria over the FT designation as focused on by Paul's set.

 

Both sets are extremely admirable for what they are; if in a pinch and having to choose one over the other would be a decision I personally would not want to make.

 

What say you other Roosevelt collectors and NGC. Can we / should we have another set added to the series?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409 posts

on my honest comment,on both sides.Every coin took some kind of hit.Lablover has better eye appeal.I want exremely high grade full torches.The scores kind of reflect the average price it would cost to buy these coins.to but these.A ms68* in lablovers should be in the 1200-2000 point range each.Now on the 68*FT need to all be above 3500 points.A ms68 FT needs to be minimum 2500-3300..Ms68's needs to re-evaluated...67's are hard,but 68 is a whole different animal

Edited by Paul Kiraly 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96 posts

 

Silvers.

2 sets took hits, Lablover and Rainbowroosie. All other sets made out. I have no problem with the favoritism towards the FT. But...Paul hit the nail on the head when he said the 68's need to be re-evaluated. Check the pops NGC. 68*'s in

most cases are far more rarer then 67FT's.

 

The 2 sets that took the hits are the 2 most eye appealing sets on the registry.

Go figure...

 

 

Clads.

The clads look good and most of the focus should be on high grade, rarity and FT as was done.

 

Good job NGC on the clads. Not so on the silvers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
237 posts

Agreed with respect to the MS68's and MS68*'s. These got killed and it makes no sense what NGC did with these. I'll agree to some extent the FT's deserved a look. However, as Onlyroosies stated "check the pops".

 

I submit it is tougher to find or make the MS67* or an MS68* than it is MS67FT. Again, choose a date, check the pops and see which one is harder to get.

 

Here's another example of what makes no sense:

 

1947-D...compare the point difference of the MS67 and MS67* vs the MS68 and MS68*. The MS67* you get a point bump of 410 points for having the star, a 191% increase. However, if it's the MS68* you get a bump of a whopping 45 points, or 2.9 % increase. Tell me how that works.

 

You'll find this throughout all dates.

 

Another example: 1946-S MS67*FTPL This is a POP 1 coin. In fact, it's the ONLY coin of this date in ANY grade that is Proof Like. I'd say that's a RARITY!!!

 

This coin gets 200 more points than a MS67FT. Please, explain that. This coin is worth at least the same points as any MS68*FT. Just try to find another one of these.

 

I bet I'll find even more examples to share later.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409 posts

Pop in not an issue....Rarity is the issue...I can't tell you how many dimes are not full torches in the series. I will go through hundreds of dimes to find just 1 full torch.Then grade is the next hard factor. Just because it is a ms67* it is the same as a ms67..The only difference is it has a little eye appeal...It is still a ms67 with toning..It should deserve 100-200 more points than a ms67...When I go through dimes,the first thing I do is turn it over.No full torch,I consider it garbage.Even if it would make a 68. Strike is a major issue. A lot of collectors are looking just for full torches and not many are left out there.Pop means nothing.I can go to a show and find a load of MS67's toned and not toned.Find a load of 67 full torches and then we will talk. In all honesty I believe this is how the roosevelt point system should fair like this MS67,MS67*,MS67FT,MS67*FT AND MS68,MS68*,MS68ft,MS68*FT...This system is fair,and from easy to hard across the board....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96 posts

 

Paul, I agree with your assessment and like your order of rarity. I agree that in most cases a 68FT should garner more points then a 68*. The only exception would be in the most common of dates that generally come with split bands. i.e.

1950D & 1959D. The point spread between the 67's and the 68's is not large enough. As you said in your first post..."a 68 is a whole different animal". The points for the 67's either need to be lowered or the 68's raised. I also agree that almost all the 68*FT's should be well over 3000 points each. How is it that your

46D 68*FT only gets 1979 points while your 46S 68*FT gets a whopping 3664 points. There should not be more then 100 points between those 2 coins.

 

Over the weekend I'm going to put together what I think the points should be and e-mail it to Paul and Jim for their input. if anyone else would like to participate e-mail me at.... cascio@cox.net

 

Nick Cascio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165 posts

I would like to be included also, if you would Nick.

 

Overall, my set score increased by about 12000 + points. However, three of mine actually decreased which are my primary concern. My 50-S MS68FT dropped as well as 2 MS67*FT coins.

 

After reading the posts here, I am starting to think that anything with the FT and/or FT* designated coins should not drop at all. Rather as you and Paul seem to point out that if anything, the higher "premium" coins should have a significant increase.

 

Lonnie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,700 posts

a little perspective in relation to other series..and how skewed the * percentage is...

 

 

1945 Mercury dimes in MS67 and also in MS67* and Rosie 1946 MS67 and 67*

 

1945 P MS67 255 points MS67* 360 points 40% point bonus POP 2

D MS67 135 MS67* 201 points 50% POP 7

S MS67 237 MS67* 336 points 41% bonus POP 9

 

and the Rosies ???

 

1946 P MS67 437 points MS67* 1094 points 240% bonus !! POP 16

D MS67 351 points MS67* 813 points 232% bonus !! POP 4

S MS67 366 points MS67* 1121 points 300% bonus !! POP 49

 

Conclusion ? the lower POP, rarer coins are worth far less points !! It seems obvious that the squeaky wheel gets the grease...isn't this the third time that the rosies have been given more points in the last 6 months?

 

I really would like a response...and please, save your angry retorts Rosie collectors, I don't begrudge you your registry points...I am a huge registry fan and member for many many years..I'd just like to see an equitable balance...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409 posts

Jackson,I know the stars are different to some collectors...Pop means nothing especially on stars.I have a 1947-D NGC AU58...POP1.Pretty coin,but it is the grade,not the pop that is important. A star coin is the same coin as the others,just a little more colorful.Lablover has the prettest colorful collection ever,but the strike is the most hardest to accomplish. I am a heavy collector of rooses and mercurys. Everyone but 2 people lost on the new registry point system. Everyone who went up,was buying full torches.I will be glad to look at nicks point chart and give my input. I hope nick and I can come to a conclusion,where the roosevelts from 1946-64 never need to be re -evaluated again,If NGC allows our input.On some of my Full torches,the points need to be lower.I will not base any points added to my set,just to be #1.I will be fair across the board.Some other collectors will lose points,but so will I.Nick and I know how hard full torches are,and I really think it is time a final roosevelt point system needs to be done.Ngc recieves the coins for grade,but they dont go to shows to go through the hundreds of coins to find the full torches.They see the coins sent in,but dont really know the diffucult from the other side. I think nick need to do ms67-ms69

this is my evauation of ms66 roosevelts.Easy to obtain.These are fair numbers across the board. I believe it is fair and leaves a room for competition for other collectors.

Ms 66's should be 50 points each.

Ms66 stars 110 each

Ms66 Full torches 200 points each

Ms66* Full torches 350 points

Ms66*Full Torch Proof like 420 each

MS67 are more difficult and need to be scrutinize more and needs to be evaluated with care.

Let me know what you think so far !

Edited by Paul Kiraly 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,725 posts

Jackson64, I like how you have done a comparative study of the merc and the Rosie. The only logical conclusion I can make is that the mercs will be next in line for a "do over" in points. Time will tell :wishluck:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,700 posts

thanks rons...yes, I also hope for some point adjustment to the mercury dime series to at least make it closer....

 

 

a little more perspective....and again, this is in no way a slight toward the exceptional MS67FT* coins or 68FT coins which really are condition rarities and take years and a great deal of effort to find and acquire..

 

just perspective on coins that cost ( if points aren't assigned because of rarity or POP then it must be cost, right?) similar amounts..

http://teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=2644&lot=1441

 

that's a 30,000+ point set...I have single coins which cost more and are worth less than 2000 points..

 

All I ask is some consistency....maybe make a * worth a 70% bonus across the board regardless of series....

 

Also, I have no idea of how to resolve the unequal opportunity that exists because of FBL, FT, FSB, FH, FS...those series get nice built-in bonuses for strike quality...yet people pay premiums for full strikes in other series also, there just aren't any extra points for those series....( full seperate thumb Walkers, detailed hair on Morgans, breast feathers on Peace $'s..etc..)

 

The strike bonus may be unsolvable, however a standard % for a * coin seems only sensible..

 

 

 

Edited by jackson64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
65 posts

Jackson64,

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but when NGC initally started giving * grades, weren't they all assigned a 25% premium over a coin with the same technical grade? Whatever happened to that plan?

 

Walt Ughes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0 posts
Guest Joiseygirl

Thank you all for your comments.

 

We certainly welcome your input and scores can be adjusted accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 posts

I'm probably too late to the party for anyone to see this, but in case they do I'm going to paste part of an e-mail I just sent Nick Cascio which I've revised a bit for this forum:

 

I generally agree with the comments I saw on the message board. The most egregious hits were to the MS68's, both with and without FT and stars. That said, I only had time to look at a handful of changes, so I picked 1952s as a random, presumably representative coin. I found some very puzzling anomalies, to say the least. For example, 1952s MS68 gets more points than 1952s MS68FT! I assume that’s because the population without FT is lower than with, but that makes about as much sense as giving 5000 points to a 1963 XF40 without bands because there's only one of them. There is simply nothing as desirable or valuable about a coin without FT as an otherwise identical one with FT, so there's no reason it should get as many or more points.

 

Here's another anomaly with the same coin: There are 2 1952s MS68FT's and 5 1948s MS68FT's. The 1948s's got more points than the 1952s's, even though, not just at MS68, but at every level, 1952s FT is scarcer and more expensive than 1948s FT. In this case, I'm guessing someone combined the FT and non-FT populations to allocate points between the different dates. So, since 1952s without FT is more common than 1948s without FT, all the 1952s's got penalized, including those with FT. But again, that makes no sense.. Many dates are common without FT (e.g., 1956, '57, '58) but scarce and valuable with.

 

On the positive side, I did notice correction of many point allocations that used to be way out of whack, some too high, like 1946s 67FT, and others too low, like 1963 67FT.

 

 

I'd also like to add something about the fairness of these changes. To the extent they corrected old mistakes, like a 1946s MS67FT getting more points than, say, a 1964 MS67FT, that's great. No one thinks the '46s deserves more points. But changing the whole set of assumptions used to allocate points is another matter. When people have invested a lot of time and money putting their sets together on the assumption that an MS68 is generally worth some multiple of an MS67, it's simply unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game. And it's not just unfair. It could be a real financial hit to someone who invested significantly in the registry value of their coins.

 

For the record, my sets seem to have benefited from these changes relative to the sets around me, so I'm not complaining on my own behalf. But if I benefited unfairly, then others must have suffered unfairly. For example, Lablover really got (excuse the expression) screwed. Sorry Paul, but you know it's true. I'm sure others got screwed too, though not with as much at stake as Lablover.

 

I'd encourage NGC to re-consider these changes, not to put everyone back where they were before -- like I said, many of the changes were just corrections that were long overdue -- but to avoid a wholesale revision of the grading system that penalizes some NGC collectors who couldn't have known the rug would be pulled out from under them. Based on the commitment I've seen from folks like Scott Schechter to making NGC the best service possible, I'm confident this will be fixed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96 posts

May has been a busy month for me and I just now finished with what I believe to be a fair point system for the Roosies. I e-mailed it to Lablover, Rainbowroosie, Paul K. and a couple others for there feedback. I'll e-mail one over to you Ed as soon as I finish this post. Lonny, I need your e-mail address if you want to see one. Anyone else who wants to see it e-mail me at cascio@cox.net. Paul K. sent me back his revised points system and we are pretty close but I just can't get his and mine put together. I will be looking to contact NGC next week to discuss considering my point system. Those of you that have seen it and agree on what I have done I would appreciate your support with an e-mail to NGC or maybe a reply here. I know it's not perfect, But, IMHO it would be acceptable with the majority.

 

Nick Cascio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,031 posts

After reviewing Nick's spread sheet, I agree with the suggestions he has made for scoring revisions with the Roosevelts from 1946-1964. I hope that NGC will give the silver series a little more consideration and perhaps revise the scoring again. I am sure that the other collectors that you sent it to will come to a similar conclusion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165 posts

After reviewing the spreadsheet forwarded to me by Nick, I have to agree with him completely. The scores that are shown on the spreadsheet make much more sense.

 

I would also like to give Nick a great big THANK YOU! I know this was a lot effort and I for one, greatly appreciate it.

 

Lonnie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 posts
I'll e-mail one over to you Ed as soon as I finish this post.

 

Nick Cascio

 

Hi Nick,

 

I'm going to cross-post this e-mail at NGC to give anyone who's interested a chance to point out where I've gone wrong.

 

Great work on the chart. Though I think it could still be improved a bit, if NGC did nothing but implement it as is, that would solve most of the problems created by their recent revisions, and certainly the most important ones. That said, and I've only had a chance to take a quick look at the numbers, I have one general comment and one that's a little more specific. The more specific one first:

 

Using MS67FT as a benchmark, there are still coins with point values that seem to carry over outdated notions of their scarcity and market value. One that jumps out is the 1959, which I think of as being closer to a 1962d than a 1964d, but it has the point value of a '64d, almost twice that of the '62d. Likewise, 1947d and 1960 have always been roughly comparable in market value, and they currently have identical NGC populations, but the '60 is worth almost twice as many points. The 1954, which I'm sure you recall for a long time was one of the scarcest 67FT's, still has a lower population and probably higher market value than the '60, but it gets fewer points. Some coins have had a relative surge in population, but retain semi-key point values, e.g., 1960d, 1961d and to a lesser extent 1963d. Some of these relative point values would be more accurate for the same coins at PCGS, where for example, the ’63d in MS67FB is still a rarity, but this is NGC. Maybe more important, the cost to buy these coins in NGC holders is more related to their NGC populations than the PCGS pops. Anyway, I digress.

 

My other comment is about the lower, neglected end of the scale. I'd give the star coins in the MS63-65 range a much bigger premium. The reality is that except for a few key dates, a non-star MS65 is barely worth the cost of postage, and a 66 is only worth the cost of NGC certification on a good day. On the other hand, star coins of any grade always have a market. I'd say a common date MS63-65* is typically worth at least as much as a common date MS67 (not FT), and let's face it, they're a lot scarcer. I'm not saying a 63* should get the same points as a 67, but it should certainly get at least as many as a 65, maybe a 66. This may be academic, since I haven't looked at any of the Registry Collections below the top tier to see what they contain, but I assume there are avid collectors, whether or not they’re on the registry, who can only afford the lower graded coins, and for them I'd think a star coin of any grade would be a prize, while a garden variety 65 might just be a place holder.

 

OK, those are my comments for now. If I have time to go through the chart in more detail, I'll let you know. But either way, like I said, even if there were no changes to what you've already done, I'd encourage NGC to use it. And I'd add a "good job" and thanks for putting in the time to get this right.

 

Best,

 

Ed

(Dennis Edwards)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96 posts

Hi Ed,

 

Great comments. I did not use the NGC pop report at all when determining the NGC points. I have seen thousands of

Roosies in both NGC and PCGS holders and have built or help build multiple number 1 sets on both sides of the street.

With that said I used my knowledge of rarity for the date in FT/FB. To decide points and true rarity you have to look at both NGC and

PCGS. I agree that the 59P in FT/FB is fairly common in MS66 and below. In MS67 and above it is considered a semi

key date as is the 64D. The 62D is not a semi key date though tougher then a 59D. The 61P in 67FB is considered

a key date and that has to be taken into consideration as I agree on it's key date status. To address your first comment I used my experience in dealing

with Roosies in both NGC and PCGS holders to determine rarity and assignment of points. I also agree it is not perfect

and I am open to consider any other revisions before I submit it to NGC.

 

I went back and checked the points and agreed with your assessment on the 59 and 63D and lowered them down a bit. The others looked OK to me.

 

Thanks for the great comments Ed. They are greatly appreciated

 

Nick

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 posts

I thought Nick's point chart was excellent before. With the latest tweaks it's only more so. I hope NGC takes it in the constructive spirit intended, recognizes the expertise that went into it, and adopts it for everyone's benefit, NGC's and ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 posts

Great effort by Nick and others to sort this out...that said, if you really want to compare roosies, tell me and bring your set to FUN...we can lay the sets out side by side and see which set looks best. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 posts
Great effort by Nick and others to sort this out...that said, if you really want to compare roosies, tell me and bring your set to FUN...we can lay the sets out side by side and see which set looks best. :)

I think you'd win hands down, but to be fair, that's only because Nick's and Michael Bianco's sets are scattered to the winds. I'm not saying you wouldn't have beaten their sets too in an eye appeal contest. It's just not a forgone conclusion you would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409 posts

My issue is on a whole bunch of these numbers.You have on some,a ms67* is more points than a full torch.That is insane.It is a ms67 with toning,is not better than a full torch.A lot of ms67*ft were more points than a ms68...You can buy a ms67*ft for 300.00-700.00...you are not going to buy a ms68 for less than 900.00,unless your lucky.So now you have to buy lower graded coins to get more points.Ok 1949-P ms68*ft worth 5585 points wow ...talk about a monster point killer..Way too many points. Your system is the same one NGC scraped,because it wasnt fairly graded.All you did was change numbers around.

 

 

Grade Points on average

67 200-400

67* 450-600

67FT 750-1400

67*FT 1500-1800

68 2000-2300

68* 2400-2700

68FT 3000-3400

68*FT 3600 4000

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96 posts

Paul,

 

You are being generic. There is no way you would be able to buy any of the key date's in 67*FT for the price range you listed. Any of the key dates in 67*FT are worth far more then an MS68. I don't know about you but I (and I believe many other collectors) would much rather own a 1957 MS67*FT over an MS68 or MS68*.

many other dates fall into this scenario. There are key dates and I awarded higher points for such coins. Silver Roosevelt Dimes are not a generic across the board series.

 

I did agree with you that an MS67FT should be worth more then an MS67*. I revised my finale draft and submitted it to Amy at NGC today.

Edited by onlyroosies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0