Understanding 'Value' Definition On Coinfacts

I keep running into the term 'value' being used from different perspectives. This is an elementary question, but just confusing
enough to be annoying.

For example:

The 1860-S Liberty Seated dime has a mintage (estimated survival). (rarity) of 140,000(400)(6.2)and PCGS Certified values for VF30/EF40/AU50/MS60 of $500, 600,1250, and $2500.

The 1861-S Dime has a mintage of 172,000 (250)(6.6) with
30/40/50/60 PCGS values of $550, 800, 1050 and $4000.

So the 1861-S has a higher mintage but is considered rarer. For some reason it's AU50-55 values lag behind the less rare 1860-S, but that may be external to my question. Which is:

Ron Guth states in his comments on the CoinFacts Details page for the 1860-S:

"The 1860-S dime compares favorably with the 1861-S in terms of mintage and value, though more of the former have been graded by PCGS than the latter."

Clearly he is considering the lower mintage of the 1860-S to be 'favorable', i.e.,that owning one would be preferable to most higher mintage dates of the series.
But saying that the value is favorable seems inverted to me. Apart from that AU50-55 range, the higher rarity of the 1861-S means that an EF40 is worth $200 more than its SF mint predecessor for that grade, and $1500 more for an MS60 example. So would it not be considered more valuable?
Guth's comment must be from the buyer's perspective, noting that in most grades the 1860-S can be had for less. Maybe he means to say 'in terms of mintage and price'?