Home U.S. Coin Forum

What do you think these will grade??

keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited July 16, 2019 12:16PM in U.S. Coin Forum






Al H.

Comments

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,427 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The first one has the interesting blue color, but it's cloudy, and I don't like cloudy Proofs. I would not give it any more than PR-63 DCAM, but I know everyone else will be higher.

    The next two look like PR-67 DCAMS to me. They might be better (one more point), but we are grading from photos.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • GaCoinGuyGaCoinGuy Posts: 2,714 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 16, 2019 2:31PM

    I think about PR64DCAM for the top one....needs a quick bath in EZest/distilled water followed by a rinse in acetone.

    The Frankie, PR67DCAM, the bottom Kennedy PR66DCAM

    Nice coins.

    imageimage

  • thisistheshowthisistheshow Posts: 9,386 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Regardless of how it grades, that blue Kennedy is really nice.

  • mannie graymannie gray Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 16, 2019 1:44PM

    First one needs a bath.
    As is they will likely hammer it.
    Frankie 66+/67 CAM.
    Last coin, 68CAM.

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    the bottom Lincoln.......................

    c'mon, man, how can I take a grade assessment seriously when you can't even correctly ID the coin!! :p

  • GaCoinGuyGaCoinGuy Posts: 2,714 ✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    the bottom Lincoln.......................

    c'mon, man, how can I take a grade assessment seriously when you can't even correctly ID the coin!! :p

    LOL.......Thats what I get for looking at Lincolns while posting.....

    imageimage

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 22,990 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I love your blue Kennedy and hope you would consider me a strong buyer when it comes back from PCGS. I'd love to add that to my collection of interesting and cool Kennedy halves.
    On topic: Certainly, all are GEM PROOFS. I'd think PR67 CAMS or even PR68 DCAMS (especially on that Franklin and last Kennedy.
    Beautiful grouping for sure!

    peacockcoins

  • ModCrewmanModCrewman Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 16, 2019 3:40PM

    Not that I agree...but my grading attempts in the current market are:

    1. Blue toned Kennedy - PR66...these aren't even getting CAM in the current environment.
    2. 1962 - PR66 CAM
    3. Kennedy - PR67 CAM

    My grades, what I think the right grades are:

    1. Blue Kennedy - PR66 CAM
    2. Franklin 67-68 CAM
    3. Kennedy 67 DCAM

    You don't even want to get me started on the PCGS modern proof grading for the last 24 months. I could give you TrueViews of 20+ coins I think they missed on.

    Edit to add: Though my set is all in PCGS, I've been submitting far more to NGC for the last 8 months. Though I have 36 coins at PCGS at the moment, I'm holding onto another 80 coins that I'd like to send to PCGS, but I believe I'd be wasting my money in this environment. I have about 160 coins that will be going to NGC in the next few weeks.

  • ChrisH821ChrisH821 Posts: 6,292 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Hard to say, the first one really needs an application of MS70 to de-hazeify it.
    I'll give my 2c. First one, no idea what's behind the haze so 65, maybe cam, can't tell with the reverse so hazy. The '62, probably 67cam, but '62 Frankies are easy to find in cam. The last one, 67Cam, can't tell if that's a little hairline by the chin or something on the coin, this is the nicest looking of the bunch IMO.

    Collector, occasional seller

  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think the top Kennedy is cool looking the way it is. I won't guess the grades since it is so hard to grade proofs from pics.

  • SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,660 ✭✭✭✭✭

    1 - Maybe a PF65 or 66, no CAM due to the haze (I love the look of this coin and have a similar one that has pearlescent white toning on it);

    2 - PF66 CAM; and

    3 - PF67 CAM (with a bath it may clean up to where a 68DCAM is possible)

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    you guys are really tough!!! nothing done at all to the pictures, just taken and uploaded. the Franklin and Kennedy are no-doubt Deep Cameos with watery fields and even, heavy frost. strangely, the top coin doesn't actually have the contrast that it appears to have but the color is very pretty.

  • GRANDAMGRANDAM Posts: 8,353 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't like hazy proof coins but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I LIKE that blue Kennedy.

    Don't dip it.

    GrandAm :)
  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,060 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You can't really see potential hairlines in the images. I will say that a bath in MS70 or a light dip might help that hazy Kennedy grade higher.

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    with a bath it may clean up to where a 68DCAM is possible

    what do you see that a "bath" would help??

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like the last two halves...... only because I collect in a 'tarnish free zone'.... :D Nice coins Al....Cheers, RickO

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,060 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 17, 2019 2:32PM

    Oops. Wrong coin.

  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 23,898 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sell the blue Kennedy as is without spending any more money worrying about a slab grade. There are apparently interested buyers her on the forum.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • lkeneficlkenefic Posts: 7,738 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I guess I'm not a huge fan of the blue toning either, but I think a short dip should take care of the haze and the "line" to the right of the eagle's wing on the reverse.

    The other two pieces I like at PR67DCAM... I especially like that Frankie! ...maybe 68?

    Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;

    Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
  • SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,660 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Keets.

    It may just be the photographs of the untoned Kennedy (and not present on the coin), but it appears to me that there is some disturbances in the obverse fields at 4, 7 and 11 o'clock; and some disturbances in the reverse fields at 1, 5, 7, 10 and 11 o'clock. If such disturbances are present on the coin [and not simply on the photos and/or in my mind :o] then I could see the coin being graded down. If the disturbances are not present I could see a 68DCAM grade.

    What does this coin look like in hand?

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 18, 2019 4:27PM

    Kevin, on the obverse you are seeing some dust and light exaggerating the flow lines, nothing more. I suppose I could have manipulated the lighting or flooded the coin with light and they would vanish. do you not see the overall watery-ness of the fields on both sides?? this phenomenon is shown on the reverse even better. the spots you mention are where glare is seen, just like on the Franklin.

    if you doubt this explanation, simply look at the obverses of all three coins where it shows up best --- there is glare at approximately 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock on each coin.

    the flaws everyone is nit-picking are the photographer, me, not the coins, but everyone sees and judges what they see. that's why these type of threads are good.

    --- I should add that nothing was done to the coins or the pictures. they came out of sets were photographed and then the pictures were downloaded to my hard-drive and uploaded here. to that end, I have no idea why the one picture is larger than the rest. :#

  • ModCrewmanModCrewman Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I suspect you won't mind if I piggy back on your post do you Keets? Since it's on topic, here are a few I have out on the West Coast awaiting grades in the next couple of weeks. Thoughts? (Apologies on photo quality, they're just quick cell phone pictures.)




  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Don, I see in your pictures that same "artifacts" that Kevin sees as flaws on my coins. would you care to comment on that??

    BTW, I like them both. :)

  • ModCrewmanModCrewman Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    Don, I see in your pictures that same "artifacts" that Kevin sees as flaws on my coins. would you care to comment on that??

    BTW, I like them both. :)

    I count 3 coins, but I suppose you can leave us to guess which 2 of the 3 you like.

    The Kennedy is a hands down no questions asked DCAM, if it is not...I truly give up. I also believe the 1958 to be a DCAM. The 59 has to be considered for DCAM, but I don't have much hope since it's such a tough date in CAM. 1959 is so tough in fact that I've yet to make a 1959 cameo half from a raw purchase. I cracked an NGC 68 CAM that came back 66 CAM from PCGS, but that's the best I've been able to do.

    My luck of late has been such that it wouldn't surprise me to see 2 cameos and one non-CAM come back out of this group.

  • ModCrewmanModCrewman Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I guess you may have been asking about my opinions on Kevin's evaluation of your Kennedy. It think it looks like a hands down DCAM, I agree with you that what Kevin is noting is likely just an exaggeration due to the position of the lights for your photo.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file