How much is my coin worth?

[ray_parkhurst]

I don't know if we have to: CPG, CONECA even CC list the URS scale and some the Liquidity factor as well. I would think that most new collectors miss these attributes altogether.

Nice discussion.

With all due respect to you and to the folks who put the effort into the URS reporting, I have no trust in those numbers. I think a different perspective is needed, though exactly how to do that is a $64k question...

[seal006]

Are we still on BV, or have we moved on to MV?

[seal006]

I don't know if we have to: CPG, CONECA even CC list the URS scale and some the Liquidity factor as well. I would think that most new collectors miss these attributes altogether.

Nice discussion.

Where do you see URS on CC? I have never noticed.

[coppercoins]

URS reporting is rather worthless because it notes only the number of coins seen by any one source.

The better way of attacking this problem (although more work) is to figure out how many are likely out there based on a calculation considering the following:

- mintage of the base issue
- typical attrition for the issue
- number of coins struck based on the latest die state specimen examined.

These three together, if recorded carefully, will give you a general approximation of the total number of coins available.

[jallengomez]

And Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

ΔX * ΔP ≥ h / (4π)
Also, ΔE * Δt ≥ h / (4π)

• X = position, ΔX = uncertainty in core value
• P = momentum, ΔP = uncertainty in market value
• E = energy, ΔE = uncertainty in CPG listing
• t = time, Δt = uncertainty in time
• h = Plancks' constant

[coppercoins]

Where do you see URS on CC? I have never noticed.

I have never listed the URS of die varieties. The URS listed on my site is on date/mintmark issues only and is based strictly on mintage and attrition...and that part is out of date too.

[ray_parkhurst]

For varieties (or errors treated like varieties) specifically, certainly the level of covetousness and its relationship to availability is at play do to many of the factors stated by others. (i.e., supply and demand.)

Covetouness:
...
Availability:
...

A feast of factors to consider! Let me put some notes by each one below:

Covetousness
CPG
- MV factor
Redbook
- MV factor, plus could be used for all or part of base value determination
Other notable numismatic publications (specialty books, CoinWorld etc.)
- MV factor, plus could be used for all or part of base value determination
Inclusion into registry sets (PCGS, NGC)
- MV factor
Back story on the variety (1969-S DDO-001 as an example)
- MV factor I'd call "famousness"
Inclusion into various variety files (CONECA, Wexler, Coppercoins, Crawford, Potter, VAMs, etc.)
- MV factor
Perceived rarity
- MV factor
Nicknames (low leaf quarters, 3-legged buffalo)
- Another aspect of "famousness"
On a top 10/100 list (CONECA Top 100 RPMs, LCR top variety lists etc.)
- MV factor
Personal lists (logical ones such as having all of the 9 classic 1972 DDOs making DDO-004 sparkle)
- I don't fully understand this but any personal considerations are part of what I called "individual factors" and are tough to quantify
How dramatic the variety is compared to other examples of similar varieties
- CV factor...how should this be measured?
How many varieties for that denomination and year are listed (1¢ 1973 DDO-001 vs the myriad 1962 DDOs)
- MV factor
Was the coin authenticated or certified by a variety specialist (one would have a die stage/state)
- MV factor
Plate coins (being used in any publication or website)
- Another aspect of "famousness"

Availability
Ease of identification (naked eye, and low power magnification make it easier to spot)
- CV, may be folded-in to how dramatic the variety
How many people know about it and are looking for it (1995 DDO-001 USA today article sends the public into a DDO frenzy)
- more famousness
How long did it take until it was found? (1955 DDO-001 vs 1917 DDO-001)
- MV since it likely affects both famousness as well as number identified versus number potentially available
Frequency of any given variety found in different grades
- CV factor
Life of the die (was it pulled early or left in use for longer than normal)
- CV factor
Identification in LDS (some varieties are nearly impossible to see past MDS)
- CV factor
Key markers used for identification (die chips on 1909 DDO-002)
- Somehow this is a CV factor but I'm not sure your thinking on how it affects availability
The need for buying slabbed examples (TPG certification)
- MV factor
Is the variety counterfeited?Ease of identification (naked eye, and low power magnification make it easier to spot)
- Another MV aspect of famousness that I'd expect would affect the value placed on certification

Good list and brings in a lot of factors that modify either core value or market value.

Is that all? I am sure there are a few more core value factors out there. Let's see if anyone has more to suggest before we go further...

[ray_parkhurst]

URS reporting is rather worthless because it notes only the number of coins seen by any one source.

The better way of attacking this problem (although more work) is to figure out how many are likely out there based on a calculation considering the following:

- mintage of the base issue
- typical attrition for the issue
- number of coins struck based on the latest die state specimen examined.

These three together, if recorded carefully, will give you a general approximation of the total number of coins available.

Exactly. Additionally, include the factor of survivability vs grade (Jason). Layer-in details of the mintage versus die state and/or die stage and you have the basis of a good estimator of how many of a particular issue in a particular grade of a particular die state are available.

[ray_parkhurst]

Are we still on BV, or have we moved on to MV?

I think we have many of the factors for both CV and MV identified, though there may still be some important ones left. I assume by BV you mean base value, which as discussed would be some reference value for the non-variety. Personally, I like the Red Book for that but others may not agree.

[seal006]

But see this was what I was referring to when I said if you ask 1000 people you will get 1000 answers, because now you are adding in human element. The way I suggested uses only figures record of actual sale prices. I think you have too many variables to come up with a conclusion. I think a more streamlined approach would yield good results with smaller effort.

[jallengomez]

I'm with Sean. I might be subconsciously integrating many of these factors into my decision, but I make my decision simply by a quick glance at the auction records at the venue I'm planning on using to auction it off. Toss out the fluke prices and I can quickly get a good idea of what I can expect.

[ray_parkhurst]

But see this was what I was referring to when I said if you ask 1000 people you will get 1000 answers, because now you are adding in human element. The way I suggested uses only figures record of actual sale prices. I think you have too many variables to come up with a conclusion. I think a more streamlined approach would yield good results with smaller effort.

To sum up my understanding of the argument here, you are advocating a top-down approach, with actual sales results used with some sort of algorithm to remove the outliers in order to come up with the MV. I assume you would then propose an algorithm to remove the MV factors (such as certification, specific market factors for each auction and lot, etc) to remove in order to get to, for instance, a raw eBay MV or a ICG B&M MV, correct?

I am advocating a bottoms-up approach, using fundamental factors and a logical algorithm to come up with the CV and MV results.

I have multiple issues with the top-down approach:
- the results are not based on fundamentals, but extremely volatile individual factors
- most results are from sales to non-specialists who only pay attention to MV factors and have little understanding of CV
- each result is unique and would need to be analyzed in order to understand impact of its particular CV and MV factors
- many important CV factors are not known when a coin is sold at auction or even on a specialist website or at a B&M, so it's not even possible to quantify their effect.

[seal006]

To sum up my understanding of the argument here, you are advocating a top-down approach, with actual sales results used with some sort of algorithm to remove the outliers in order to come up with the MV. I assume you would then propose an algorithm to remove the MV factors (such as certification, specific market factors for each auction and lot, etc) to remove in order to get to, for instance, a raw eBay MV or a ICG B&M MV, correct?

I am advocating a bottoms-up approach, using fundamental factors and a logical algorithm to come up with the CV and MV results.

I have multiple issues with the top-down approach:
- the results are not based on fundamentals, but extremely volatile individual factors
- most results are from sales to non-specialists who only pay attention to MV factors and have little understanding of CV
- each result is unique and would need to be analyzed in order to understand impact of its particular CV and MV factors
- many important CV factors are not known when a coin is sold at auction or even on a specialist website or at a B&M, so it's not even possible to quantify their effect.

I think you effectively see the difference. The thing is there is more data using my method than there is in yours. Most recorded sales data that can easily be attained from a vast number of sources are coins in slabs. There is too little info for the sale of raw coins, especially varieties. The best source for raw would be eBay, and I think we have all seen how crazy that can be. Slabs have changed everything about our niche. Just as they did with baseball cards. 20 years ago a Cal Ripken rookie card sold for $150 in just a top loader protective sleeve. Now that same card will fetch $75 if you are lucky, unless it is PSA graded at 9 or 10, then you can expect the $150 a raw card got 20 years earlier.

[ray_parkhurst]

I think you effectively see the difference. The thing is there is more data using my method than there is in yours. Most recorded sales data that can easily be attained from a vast number of sources are coins in slabs. There is too little info for the sale of raw coins, especially varieties. The best source for raw would be eBay, and I think we have all seen how crazy that can be. Slabs have changed everything about our niche. Just as they did with baseball cards. 20 years ago a Cal Ripken rookie card sold for $150 in just a top loader protective sleeve. Now that same card will fetch $75 if you are lucky, unless it is PSA graded at 9 or 10, then you can expect the $150 a raw card got 20 years earlier.

The amount of data is actually the same, since I am not opposed to using actual auction results as a factor for MV, just not as the primary factor. With the bottoms-up approach, actual results can be included in the algorithm to skew the final MV. In the top-down approach, all that matters is the auction results.

I think your admission that there is little data for raw varieties and that using eBay listings is the best source really speaks for itself as to the value of the top-down approach.

[seal006]

I think your admission that there is little data for raw varieties and that using eBay listings is the best source really speaks for itself as to the value of the top-down approach.

Where else would you get your data? Price guides? I think this discussion is because price guides are so unreliable in the minds of many.