| Author |
 Replies: 265 / Views: 17,278 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5629 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
As many of us have wondered about this are rating system, I have come to second think the whole concept.... Zee posted something wonderful... And because of it, I really had to think about this whole concept...... And I think its just that, That the Rarity ratings are just that, A concept of the entire possibles for the given year... AND NOT THE DIE PAIR.. AS Zee pointed out.. there are no die pairs which have tens of thousands of clashing......but for the year total production there could be, I'm not going to buy and count them.....but from what can be seen today, MANY ARE TRUELY COMMON.. HOW EVER...as vamming has developed, KNOWING as Dave has pointed out, that for any given die pair, there was probably as Dave noted a max of 200,000 coins produced(in a good die) and many dies were used to produce the total number needed for the years production numbers..... SO it is today, 30-40 years after vaming has started, that the "die is the die" theory can be reverted to production numbers....EXPOSING........the discrepancy of the RARIETY system. and that is due to the fact, that many die pairs often times before there expected life times, failed and the numbers of assumed varieties and not CORRECT........ As I have regularly visited and listened to R5 coins with few known...the fact of today's knowledge out weighs fact's of yesterday's knowledge....the true numbers for some coins are known...... and some don't want those numbers known......For most..it matters not..at this present time.. BUT FOR US WHO wonder about today.... There is a truthful revision that need to be revised...one of the RARITY ratings, that honestly reflects, the rarity of the die pair of any given year.......... THIS MUCH IS TRUE...But that is something that will take some time... and as many who talk of if. revert to the founder to make the change. Its enough for me to realize. What it truly is This RARITY system is of the overall not the individual, which we all encounter, and this is why ........ There is this question....Of Rarity...for any given VAM......I hope this....... MY INTERPRETATION... will give some insight..some review of this process, so we can find an understanding |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5629 Posts |
SuperDave states, " The average Morgan pieces struck per die pair are(strictly mathematical): Philly - 217,679; New Orleans - 151,208; San Fran - 121,930; Carson City - 62,441. With this in mind, I don't think that R-7 for a Philly coin and a Carson City coin should be the same number, much less making it a blanket statement regarding all Morgans at once."
I would like to address this very astute, keen, and factual concept, I believe he has a very valid point for the numbers given per mint, per coin there is no way we as a group of knowledgeable numismatists could we ever let this concept fly,without first knowing the actual different mints numbers, and weighing the rarity factor into this equation fairly, not a general across the board figure to represent the stated coins rarity, without this crucial part of the equation being introduced as factually, and realistic as possible. I believe the mere fact the mints had a varying degree of coins from year to year and from mint to mint, would dictate that at least this being considered for that rarity scale to be able to hold any practical weight.Excellent point Dave.......
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Quote:
this very astute, keen, and factual concept Mike, What is it that you find astute, keen, or factual about any of that? The figures given are 'grossly' oversimplified averages based on dividing exactly in half the number of individual dies produced per the Annual Mint Director's Reports. This would imply that there would be no individual die substitutions in die pairing, and that 'all' dies were actually used. Neither was the case. All this serves to do is to confuse coin production and die usage. Perhaps I am still misunderstanding, but are you saying that each mint should have its own rarity scale? Take into further consideration that over half of the Morgans produced were later melted, I haven't found any information as of yet as to exactly which ones those were. I do think, that there are a whole lot of variables (beyond those mentioned), that would make even a guess at extant rarity nothing more than what Remmy said that it was. I too am a human, and 'my' guess is that there were no die pairs that produced 'tens of millions' of coins, regardless of mint. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5629 Posts |
ZeeWool, I would like to clarify my previous post, I think it is obvious that to have a rarity scale, there needs to be many factors included in that equation, 1 being you had mentioned the amount melted due to the Pittman Act, I was just pointing out the need for things like this to be included in coming up with a rarity factor, I also thought Dave was stateing the mintages of the different mints and stateing he did not feel that one coin from the Philly mint should carry the same R-factor as say a coin, as he states, from the CC mint.
I was just pointing out that this is NOT an obvious and practable way for the Rarity Factor to be of any accurate use for anyone......Which leads me to wonder how the RF was developed, what factors were taken into consideration in bringing this "scale" to the present table of understanding.....I thought Daves opinion was a reality outlook....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Yes Mike, evidently, we 'all' have the same outlook, only ' I ' was the last one to realize that something is wrong with it. (That makes me feel pretty special, if you know what I mean).  |
|
Valued Member
United States
380 Posts |
Yes, we all stop short of calling it a sham, but it is only a guess of rarity. Nothing more. All the explanations and everything else... is it hype? is it improper wording? At the end of the day... It IS confusing.
A smart buyer (there are plenty smart and dumb buyers alike) will NOT take the are factor into account on their purchase. If I EVER bring up the are factor, it is almost always being sarcastic. Like "My latest R7 pick" thread when I picked an 1878-cc VAM-7a. Well it is one of the more rare CC's but I do not even consider the are factor in my view of the coin, its condition or implied rarity. I use ANACS population reports and other methods to determine the real rarity as I can guess just like anyone else. But I try to get additional information prior to making my judgement. Leroy does not have the ability to do so because he assigns the are factor to the discovery piece. He does his best to guess based on the information provided.
As far as I am concerned, the whole tens, hundreds, thousands, etc can be thrown out the window. It was unnecessary to define the are factor other than R1 is common and R8 is unique. Thats my opinion anyway. It is my baseball card approach. LOL (before the days of graded baseball cards)
|
|
Valued Member
United States
380 Posts |
there it goes replacing my "R" with are again!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
You hit the nail squarely on the head with that post Mike. I would not have picked up on that "My latest R7 pick" as being sarcasm though, I would have thought that you were just naive. An awful lot of new folks do trust this rarity scale to be fairly accurate though, and do not realize that it is not the same Sheldon scale that they are accustomed to. You probably already know that 'I' won't stop short of calling it a sham, because that is exactly what I see it as.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
380 Posts |
Its hard to hear sarcasm in my typed words. (sometimes)
I never really took to the "R" factor even as a noob. I made a list and went after them. Today it is used as selling hype. (like many other hyping tools used to bump up prices of coins) it is rampant in all communities of coin collecting. (like "first strike" and others) Anytime a coin other than a key date sells for more than list... there is some hype that made sell for more than list.
So my new saying to compound the "Buy the coin not the slab" is "buy the coin, buy not into the hype". Look at beanie babies. Prime example!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1551 Posts |
Hey Mike.... I Still Have My Pet Rock!! And I Know it is rarer then the 1 You Have "Mine is Differant!" Sooo It has too be worth more!!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5629 Posts |
Guys while I appreciate ALL of your posts and knowledge, and thank you for the input you guys always give, I would ask, in your own opinions, with the Pittman Act, ALL the melted Anna's from which mints and years, as stated prior, how could any entity come up with any plausible rationale for the basis of the rarity factor as we know it, with any degree of factual foundation.??  I admit I look and search for the clashes, the Cuds, rotated dies, gouges, transferred letters etc, not for the r-factor, but to actually have a better grasp on the entire process, simply put, I am very inquisitive and while I can, I intend to absorb as much knowledge as I can, ......  |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
I think that you already know what I think about it Mike.
I will give you a bit more of info to think on though: The government melted silver dollars each and every year from 1883 through 1964. These included Flowing Hair, Draped Bust, Seated Liberty, Trade, Morgans and Peace. They were melted without regard to type, much less mint mark or variety, but 'probably' most were Morgans.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1551 Posts |
It has been said that when the US sold off Silver too England it was just the folks pulling the bags out. I think that they figure that the 1904's would be in the forward area of the storage and as you got deeper into the area the dates go older! As far as how rare a Cud is or a die break is. I am to understand that it is a SWAG based on the size of the damage and the ware on the die as seen in the coin. Leroy has a method, and most of the time it as been right. On the 1882 CC VAM 3d it is off as you can find many of them on the Bay, but the surviving coins in that case is more the fact that the Treasury had millions of CC coins that came out in the 60's and 70's that had never seen circulation. So the reference point becomes scudded |
| |
Replies: 265 / Views: 17,278 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 09/21/2010 12:00 am
