1942 Proof Nickel- Cameo? *UPDATED*
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,505 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hello all! I'm a new YN member to these boards but not so new to collecting, I have been in the hobby since I was around seven. It has been quite a few years since then and I have since expanded my horizons in that last three years to include mainly 1936-42 proofs. I had purchased this silver 1942 proof nickel and it really confuses me. It has a lot of unattractive brown haze in the fields and I think it is really holding the mirrors back. I think that with some careful conservation I could get rid of it, but I've never tried to do that so any tips would be appreciated. The coin is currently in a non CAM PF66 ANACS holder, but I am really considering cracking it out to send to PCGS to try and get the CAM. The reverse is a guaranteed CAM in my opinion but the obverse is close. I think I see some brilliance at the top of Jefferson's neck so I would really appreciate all input. I have some images here that I am going to try to attach but since it's my first time doing this let me know if they don't come up. One last thing about the images- it was really hard to get the mirrors to show how they do in hand. They are a much darker black in hand and nicely contrast the frost. I would best describe the mirror color to what shows at the left obverse field above the T in TRUST and what appears directly behind Jefferson's head. Thanks
Coin Photographer.
Comments
From the photo it doesn't appear to be frosty enough for a Cameo designation.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
.
No need to crack it out. Instead, do an ANACS-to-PCGS crossover: https://www.pcgs.com/crossover
You can specify a minimum grade you'll accept. If it doesn't make the grade, PCGS returns your coin in its ANACS holder.
Not sure if you can specify CAMEO as part of the grade. Maybe someone who knows for sure will comment.
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
it COULD benefit. the brown stuff isn't always so easy to remove but usually is.
best piece of advice, leave it as-is until you have practiced and/or been taught proper procedures to handle ANY type of coin chemical. they can be absorbed through the skin, into your eyes and lungs and will harm you FAR more than us old geezers. proper ventilation with a fan is recommended. don't practice on quality pieces. wait.
please if you must, do it with a knowledgable adult supervising. use tongs with rubber tips as well.
that said, welcome to the boards and we look forward to your contributions and are happy to share our opinions. nice images and presentation btw
edited to add: send the coin IF you do off with others so as to reduce the per-coin cost of expenses/fees and if you haven't sent coins off previously, pcgs has a page with the proper procedures that will protect your order and prevent delays.
I like the steps on it and wouldn't quite call it a cameo,jmo
It looks to me as if too much of the obverse portrait has inadequate frost and I don’t think removal of haze would change that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My experience is that in general, frost gets accentuated beyond reality in most photos by virtue of how coins get illuminated. To me the mirrors don’t look deep enough and in general the frost not strong enough (with some weaker areas noted, too) to garner a cameo. Considering the enormous jump in value, I also imagine the grading companies would want a coin that’s really all there before giving out the designation to a liner coin. So all told, I don’t think it’s worth sending in.
I agree with the others. With that said, it would be easy enough to take it out of the holder and try conserving it yourself with supervision from a parent and preferably an experienced numismatist. I would first try a conditioner known as MS70 followed by a rinse with distilled water. If that doesn't work a dip may be in order. I'd try to get a local dealer to help with that or an experienced adult collector.
Some good points raised here. I do think that those saying that the frost isn't quite there are probably right. I think for the time being I will leave it where it is, thanks all for the advice. Also thanks to those with recommendations on conservation, I may reconsider as time goes on, but nonetheless all will certainly be done with a parent at the minimum. Has anyone had any luck with acetone on a coin like this? I would wonder if a rinse in acetone would be a good first step before a stronger dip solution like MS70. I would definitely try it first with some low value stuff before doing it on this coin if I do decide to go that route, but that's a decision for another day at this point. Thanks!
Coin Photographer.
Ms 70 isn’t considered a dip. It consists of a strong base (basically lye - the same stuff that is in Drano and that was used years ago to make soap) and surfactant. Dipping involves use of an acidic substance like EZest. I’ve had some success removing haze using MS70 but many coins do require a dip. You can try pure acetone but I don’t think it is going to take off the haze.
Good decision... Leave as is... One other consideration is to send it to PCGS for restoration. Yes, there is a fee... However, they are highly competent, and will also advise before action if they think it will not help. They are professionals. Good luck... Cheers, RickO
MS70 has saved many coins. But... you have to be aware that you might find some hairlines that have been hiding under the haze, a fairly high probability on these early proofs.
Collector, occasional seller
True but hazy proofs are tough to sell.
I’m surprised no one said anything about acetone!
@cameonut2011 did mention that acetone would likely not be strong enough, and I do think it may be worth a shot if I go that route before going to MS70. However, to the concerns about hairlines popping up after conservation, I am aware of that and it is also a risk I am willing to take because any sort of contrast on these proofs warrants a premium, and I think that a coin with contrast like this one would command a significant premium at the least over a brilliant counterpart, so the numerical grade can take a point or two hit imo. I really just want the contrast to be as clear as the coin can allow, and getting rid of the haze seems to be the best option to do that. Thanks all again!
Coin Photographer.
Update on this coin - I was able to remove the haze, MS70 first at @cameonut2011's and @ChrisH821's suggestion, but that did not effect the haze at all, but thanks for the suggestion! I then went to the same method that was able to remove the haze from my 1959 half. That worked, with mixed results.
It seems that the haze had been eating at the surface of the coin, so the haze is still kind of there and the ANACS holder had been hiding a rim chew that was barely evident in the pictures that started this thread. The mirrors not being quite as deep as I had hoped led this to be a bust as far as the conservation for a CAM goes. It is good in the sense that the haze, if it was affecting the surface of the coin, is no longer doing so. I no longer think that the coin will have a shot at CAM, but I think I will still send it in to make 8 in my voucher submission. The forums will find out how this goes together I guess! I now grade the coin a 64, but I had graded it a 65 to start for the record.
Pics are below:
@LanceNewmanOCC
Coin Photographer.
Good learning experience
Your attempt to remove the haze from the proof nickel may have not turned out well, however you have gained valuable insight and experience.
I have had similar results over the years trying to remove haze and improve the appearance of proof, SMS and even MS circulation strike coins.
My failures and the education I received from same has been valuable.
I have a much better feel for this type of endeavor now than I did 20+ years ago. I now am better able to reduce mistakes.
It is funny that I remember some of my failures much more than I remember some of my successes.
Your negative results with the nickel are eclipsed by your success with the 1959 proof half you posted about.