Prooflikes

[physics-fan3.14]

Could you guys take a look at the points Prooflikes get? I'm not talking Morgan prooflikes, I'm talking 1940's era prooflikes, especially my Mercury and Franklin. These coins are exceedingly rare, and yet they get only a handful more points than their normal counterparts. Anything you guys can do?

[CHABSENTIA]

I dont understand it either even on the Morgans. If you look up the Price of an

1880 CC GSA Morgan Dollar in say MS64 Then you get a certain Price. If you then look up this same 1880CC GSA Morgan Dollar in MS64 with the High/Low seven which is either a Vam 5 or a Vam 6 then the price is not only lower but the registry points are also lower for the VAM.

[RareSov]

Time for that points revamp.. with VALUE being the primary factor in points.

[CHABSENTIA]

I have written Numismedia about this situation and they replied that a Vam is always more valuable then a non vam in the same grade etc.. When I gave the above situations Numismedia then replied that NGC needed a value and that they supplied one and that in the Future this situation would be evaluated. If a Coin is worth less then most likely the points would be worth less, I dont care about the points.

 

If I was going to buy a Morgan and didnt want to pay anymore then the Numismedia price then chances are I wouldnt but the one in the same grade with the Vam. Conversely if I had the Morgan with the Vam that wasnt attributed then why would I send it to NGC so that its retail value became less?So what do points and value have to do with it?

[RareSov]

I don't see how you could take a coin, the same coin and put a VAM on it and be worth less. Unless its bloody ugly because of a gigantic clash, its a better and rarer coin and will always be worth more ?!

[CHABSENTIA]

Which was my point. Look up the Price of an 1880 CC GSA Horde MS64 and then look up the Price of an 1880 cc GSA Horde MS64 with a high seven or low seven which is a Vam 5 or a Vam six.

[BillJones]

Time for that points revamp.. with VALUE being the primary factor in points.

 

If that were the criterion, my early coins would have me a lot higher in the standings. You don't get much bang for the buck when it comes to registry points and early U.S. coins.

[physics-fan3.14]

Time for that points revamp.. with VALUE being the primary factor in points.

 

If that were the criterion, my early coins would have me a lot higher in the standings. You don't get much bang for the buck when it comes to registry points and early U.S. coins.

 

I have told NGC this, and they said that the CBH's would be on the list for point overhaul. No idea when that will happen though.

[physics-fan3.14]

Further attention needed with regards to Prooflikes - PL's are not eligible for Type Sets in many instances. Why is this? Can you please fix it? I'd really like to be able to add PL's to a Basic US Type set.

[Bugmann1974]

Are you considering a type set of prooflikes Jason? I like that idea!

[physics-fan3.14]

I'm kinda sorta considering tossing it around perhaps maybe. Not entirely sure yet. The later types are going to be easy, but anything silver is gonna get pricey, very fast. This might be a back-burner set, but the problem right now is that I can't add the couple of prooflikes that I do have to a type set. NGC needs to fix this.

[coinman23885-migration]

Time for that points revamp.. with VALUE being the primary factor in points.

 

If that were the criterion, my early coins would have me a lot higher in the standings. You don't get much bang for the buck when it comes to registry points and early U.S. coins.

 

That is truly lamentable. I still don't understand how an otherwise common date MS67 Eisenhower dollar can be weighted higher than some of the nice original bust coinage.

[TomB]

Time for that points revamp.. with VALUE being the primary factor in points.

 

If that were the criterion, my early coins would have me a lot higher in the standings. You don't get much bang for the buck when it comes to registry points and early U.S. coins.

 

That is truly lamentable. I still don't understand how an otherwise common date MS67 Eisenhower dollar can be weighted higher than some of the nice original bust coinage.

The above is very easy to understand. The reason why a common date coin can be weighted higher than early coinage is marketing. NGC wants folks to use their registry and in order to do so they believe that they should give as many folks as possible some reason to feel good about their collection or to believe they might be able to compete in a meaningful way within the registry. If coins were given points in a manner proportional to value then NGC would drive away those registry users who might want to compete somewhere in the middle of the pack, but who do not have the desire or ability to pay relatively large sums for coinage.

 

Therefore, my 1796 Draped Bust quarter in F12 is worth 4472 points in the registry, which is a point total roughly equal to the combination of an MS67 1971-S 40% Ike plus an MS64 1921 Peace dollar plus an MS66 1881-S Morgan dollar plus an MS66FBL 1958-D Franklin half plus an MS65FH 1917 Type I SLQ (total is 4409 points). My 1796 Draped Bust quarter in F12 has a Greysheet bid of $21,000 and it might take more like $25,000 to actually buy such a coin on the bourse whereas the other group is worth significantly less, but is much easier to find and is more likely to appear in more collections than the 1796.

[coinman23885-migration]

If that were the criterion, my early coins would have me a lot higher in the standings. You don't get much bang for the buck when it comes to registry points and early U.S. coins.

 

That is truly lamentable. I still don't understand how an otherwise common date MS67 Eisenhower dollar can be weighted higher than some of the nice original bust coinage.

 

The above is very easy to understand. The reason why a common date coin can be weighted higher than early coinage is marketing. NGC wants folks to use their registry and in order to do so they believe that they should give as many folks as possible some reason to feel good about their collection or to believe they might be able to compete in a meaningful way within the registry. If coins were given points in a manner proportional to value then NGC would drive away those registry users who might want to compete somewhere in the middle of the pack, but who do not have the desire or ability to pay relatively large sums for coinage.

 

Therefore, my 1796 Draped Bust quarter in F12 is worth 4472 points in the registry, which is a point total roughly equal to the combination of an MS67 1971-S 40% Ike plus an MS64 1921 Peace dollar plus an MS66 1881-S Morgan dollar plus an MS66FBL 1958-D Franklin half plus an MS65FH 1917 Type I SLQ (total is 4409 points). My 1796 Draped Bust quarter in F12 has a Greysheet bid of $21,000 and it might take more like $25,000 to actually buy such a coin on the bourse whereas the other group is worth significantly less, but is much easier to find and is more likely to appear in more collections than the 1796.

 

That's an interesting perspective; however, I still don't think that it is fair even though it is certainly true. I would much rather have your 1796 Draped Bust quarter any day. I guess my instinct is that the modern "condition rarities" may be 1 fed box away from being relegated to second class status. Your 1796 Draped Bust quarter will never be considered "second class". P.S. If you ever decide to sell it in the future,especially within the next 5-6 years (after I've graduated law school or medical school), please let me know.

 

[cladking]

I'm of the opinion PL's should get more points and more notice. While to a large degree pointys should be based primarily on rarity beauty should play a role as well. PL's can be simply spectacular especially when they are also very high grade so most of the extra points they get should be concentrated on the coins in the highest grades and especially where they are rare.

 

Perhaps a PL set might even be devised.

[physics-fan3.14]

 

Perhaps a PL set might even be devised.

 

Its going to be slow going, but that's exactly what I think I'm going to do - a prooflike type set, as much as possible. You can see what I have so far here: