How much is my coin worth?

[ray_parkhurst]

We keep going back and forth on this, but let me say it again...

base value (BV) would be determined by reference to non-variety raw coin price guide(s), the Red Book for example

core value (CV) of the variety would be determined with an algorithm including the various CV factors we've been brainstorming

market value (MV) has a further algorithm that includes the various MV factors we've been brainstorming

The CV algorithm could be adjusted such that the CV (which is really also the MV for the great majority of raw varieties) would "make sense" versus actual raw coin sales by varying the contributions from the various factors. Similarly, the MV algorithm could be adjusted such that the resulting MV "makes sense" versus, for example, auction sales of popular certified varieties.

[jallengomez]

To me, establishing a "Base Value" on a non-variety coin begs the same question that you're trying to answer for the variety version. While sales of non-variety models might be less volatile than variety versions, the lack of reliability in the price guides still holds true for the non-variety coins, so it seems like we would be back to square one on even determining the BV.

[seal006]

base value (BV) would be determined by reference to non-variety raw coin price guide(s), the Red Book for example

And I keep trying to point out that this is where your method goes awry. You cannot base what you consider BV on something like Red Book. It too is very arbitrary. For your "theory" to work BV must be 1 cent + what ever algorithm you come up for rarity based on mintage figures.

[Coinflip]

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

I used to miss this altogether, in the CPG its right in the first few lines in bold Under the PUP

These tell me right off the bat if Im going to pull my hair out looking for it OR if its more along the lines of master hub doubled hub bub bubbly blub

Pardon me, but looking now, CC lists the overall URS for the year, not specifically by die.

[seal006]

I used to miss this altogether, in the CPG its right in the first few lines in bold Under the PUP

On CC its in the left column by the mintage stats

These tell me right off the bat if Im going to pull my hair out looking for it OR if its more along the lines of master hub doubled hub bub bubbly blub

Right under the PUP on CC are photos of the variety and the markers. There is no URS number anywhere.

[coppercoins]

Coinflip - Those URS values are for the issue as a whole. They have nothing to do with any particular die variety.

[coppercoins]

Seal - coppercoins.com -> departments -> Lincoln cent -> Date guide.

But again, the URS numbers are based on the mintage of the entire issue.

[seal006]

Thanks Chuck. I thought I was losing my mind. I spend so much time on CC looking at the various listings, memorizing PUP. I knew I had never seen any URS numbers on a listing before.

[ray_parkhurst]

And I keep trying to point out that this is where your method goes awry. You cannot base what you consider BV on something like Red Book. It too is very arbitrary. For your "theory" to work BV must be 1 cent + what ever algorithm you come up for rarity based on mintage figures.

Curious that you find the Red Book, a 68-year continuous record of the retail value of US coins, arbitrary. I do agree that it might not be perfectly accurate, but absolute accuracy is not extremely important, let alone possible to achieve. Would you prefer Coin Prices magazine? That would bring in a more regularly updated base value. Both show the relative values between raw coins fairly well.

That said, I have no issue with using a "base valuation" algorithm that will set the non-variety, raw coin price rather than using a price guide as reference. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it! The reason is that all the existing references include not only raw-CV factors but also incorporate raw-MV factors that I'd prefer to keep out the variety-CV, and might be double-counted in the variety-MV valuation. The justification for using a price guide at all is to ensure the base variety price is at least as high as the raw non-variety price.

So if we take a step farther back, what base value factors should we consider in the base value algorithm?

[seal006]

Curious that you find the Red Book, a 68-year continuous record of the retail value of US coins, arbitrary. I do agree that it might not be perfectly accurate, but absolute accuracy is not extremely important, let alone possible to achieve. Would you prefer Coin Prices magazine? That would bring in a more regularly updated base value. Both show the relative values between raw coins fairly well.

Because at the end of the day it is still just someone's opinion. If you want an untainted starting point, I think the only way you could achieve it is by having each one start at face value + an algorithm set towards assign value to rarity based on the mintage numbers. Look at Red Book, mine is a few years old, but you will get the drift:

1983P 7,752,355,000 = .30
1983D 6,467,199,428 = .30
1984P 8,151,079,000 = .30
1984D 5,569,238,906 = .60
1985P 5,648,489,887 = .25
1985D 5,287,339,926 = .25

Those assigned values in the Red Book have been skewed by something. What? It certainly is not from market availability. If each one was taken at face value, and altered by the only known factor that is not humanly influenced, the 1985D should be the highest out of the 6 listed, and 1984P should be the lowest valued. Does that make sense now. Now here in lies the rub, yet again, for your "bottom to top" method. There is absolutely no way to know exactly how many examples of any given variety exist. You would have to take into account if the die was pulled before a full run, how many coins was a die expected to mint, what if the anomaly was polished away?

With my top to bottom method, you can use the laws of statistics to figure out what the average going rate for a MS65 PCGS slabbed 1972 DDO #1, and use the laws of statistics again to figure how that amount translates to a raw example in any grade.

I love your enthusiasm. I do not want to squash it. I just feel the method I suggest will make more sense to more people without over complicating it. This has been a great discussion and I feel it is an important aspect to varying degrees for everyone that collects.

[ray_parkhurst]

Because at the end of the day it is still just someone's opinion. If you want an untainted starting point, I think the only way you could achieve it is by having each one start at face value + an algorithm set towards assign value to rarity based on the mintage numbers. Look at Red Book, mine is a few years old, but you will get the drift:

1983P 7,752,355,000 = .30
1983D 6,467,199,428 = .30
1984P 8,151,079,000 = .30
1984D 5,569,238,906 = .60
1985P 5,648,489,887 = .25
1985D 5,287,339,926 = .25

Those assigned values in the Red Book have been skewed by something. What? It certainly is not from market availability. If each one was taken at face value, and altered by the only known factor that is not humanly influenced, the 1985D should be the highest out of the 6 listed, and 1984P should be the lowest valued. Does that make sense now. Now here in lies the rub, yet again, for your "bottom to top" method. There is absolutely no way to know exactly how many examples of any given variety exist. You would have to take into account if the die was pulled before a full run, how many coins was a die expected to mint, what if the anomaly was polished away?

With my top to bottom method, you can use the laws of statistics to figure out what the average going rate for a MS65 PCGS slabbed 1972 DDO #1, and use the laws of statistics again to figure how that amount translates to a raw example in any grade.

I love your enthusiasm. I do not want to squash it. I just feel the method I suggest will make more sense to more people without over complicating it. This has been a great discussion and I feel it is an important aspect to varying degrees for everyone that collects.

I agree that it might make more sense to more people, but that does not make it the best method. It makes sense because that's probably what a lot of folks do, ie just look at auction results and assume their coin is worth as much or more than the one previously sold. Let's say 1954-S RPM#1 in MS66RD sells at auction for $175. Now, if that were the true value of the coin I would be a very happy man because I have literally rolls of them in 66. They are very common in 66! So it is absolutely ludicrous to use that result to set value of the coin. You say you would remove the outliers. Well, what if over a series of 3 auctions in one month, the high bidders for the same coin were at $175, followed by $190, and then $205. The coin is obviously in hot demand, rare and desirable, and appreciating at a very high rate. We all need to buy in! In your scheme those values would all be valid, since they are not outliers, and the top level value of the coin would be set perhaps at $190. Tell me, is a 1954-S RPM#1 in MS66 worth $190? Is that really a good way to judge value of a variety, or any coin for that matter?

[Coinflip]

Im a big fan of the KISS method. Hopefully my perspective on this will help shade a new light here.

Whenever I am looking into the value of a variety, most of what is taken into consideration are prior realized pricing, and how fast they sold indicating affordable demand. This sets the tone.... If you had another example in hand, what could you turn it for quickly according to documented factual statistics. (A)

Also consider what you could squeeze out of it if no rush and consigned to the proper avenue or let sit on ebay for a month or so. (B).

Then meet somewhere in the middle or make your decision according to how quickly you are looking to turn it (+,-) sell fees =(C) your price.

Im all for the perspectives and reasoning here, I appreciate the discussion , but with anything I resell I mainly go off of recent market values and auctions like ebay, Teletrade, HA, craigslist, because all said and done...one could BELIEVE or prove a coin is worth $1000 + , but its really worth what people pay for it.

I.E. The 1990-ddo 003 Wddo004 isn't worth much to me unless I could turn it at a huge profit, at least from a business standpoint, all hobby ,passion filled nerdy ,emotional and interesting points set aside. Some may consider it 1000+, but Id never pay that unless I could sell it for $1000+ easily tomorrow. If it was incredibly hard to find a buyer or sell it quickly , I really don't want to mess with it. Unless, of course, it has major investment potential OR I have so much money that I simply do not care.


Personally, the die is just a penny to me , would I like to have one YES, but that is created by simple supply and demand, simple variables of establishing worth , in the end this would all be influenced by many factors but statistical histories of the varieties seem to set this pace for a variety or anything for that matter.

[seal006]

You would have to incorporate a wider time period than just say the last three auction. Certainly not just the last one that sold. I am talking about combing data from at least five or six sources with sales over the past 12 months. The rolls you have are raw not slabbed like the ones that sold at auction. Like I said you still need an algorithm that will break down a slabbed auction price to a raw example. I find no data supporting your $175 for a 1954-S MS66. I do find two in MS64 over on Heritage. One sold for $11 the other for $14.

[seal006]

Here is an analogy. I am not saying that this formula is not flawed. I did not get as many prices as I wanted to, but that was only because of time issues. Let's look at a 1956-D RPM #1 in MS65 condition. Teletrade has sold 4 in the past 12 months all in PCGS slabs. They sold for:
$109
$65
$75
$110
Year to date average = $89.75

Heritage sold 5:
$126
$69
$45
$55
$54
Average price = $69.80

Already you can tell that PCGS adds more value than ANACS for the exact same variety and grade. Now how much does that slab add to the raw coin's value. If I did an in depth study and came up with say 200% added value for being in a PCGS slab. That 200% is from consumer confidence, registry sets, and so on. All that considered, take that 200% away from the coin and the raw coin value would be $30. Now look at CPG and CC for that variety. Their stated value in MS65. Both state $30 in MS65 Both hit the mark exactly.

[ray_parkhurst]

Here is an analogy. I am not saying that this formula is not flawed. I did not get as many prices as I wanted to, but that was only because of time issues. Let's look at a 1956-D RPM #1 in MS65 condition. Teletrade has sold 4 in the past 12 months all in PCGS slabs. They sold for:
$109
$65
$75
$110
Year to date average = $89.75

Heritage sold 5:
$126
$69
$45
$55
$54
Average price = $69.80

Already you can tell that PCGS adds more value than ANACS for the exact same variety and grade. Now how much does that slab add to the raw coin's value. If I did an in depth study and came up with say 200% added value for being in a PCGS slab. That 200% is from consumer confidence, registry sets, and so on. All that considered, take that 200% away from the coin and the raw coin value would be $30. Now look at CPG and CC for that variety. Their stated value in MS65. Both state $30 in MS65 Both hit the mark exactly.

How about that same exercise for 55-D RPM #9? 58-D RPM #13?