Disappointed in this grade!
Che_Grapes
Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭✭✭
One of several coming back. This one is very disappointing to me - I can’t find one blemish or flaw on the surface - and no cameo?? It’s not a rare coin at all but it was so nice I just thought it might grade really high ... I’ve seen worse grade PR67 so was just hoping — but, not much luck this time!
Tagged:
2
Comments
There appear to be noticeable areas of missing frost on each side, so the non-cameo assessment seems justified.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I feel your pain. The difference in value between a PR64, 65, 66 are negligible, but the CAMEO designation is important, and I would have guessed a lock CAM designation on your coin. We have all been there, done that, so we do empathize with you.
Did get the cameo on this one, at least
You almost got a radar cert # on the Franklin
Nice coin, but proofs are held to a pretty high standard.
I'm think weak strike may have held it back from a higher grade. There doesn't appear to be any detail in hair in the upper portion of the head.
Wow Mark, based on the image I would grade this cameo every time. You're getting brutal in your old age!
It is a freakishly weak strike - that was one of the things I liked about it - it just looked cool, but you’re right, it is not a desirable characteristic in terms of numismatics.
Those frankies are usually always held back from cameo on the reverse. I like the Comm tho'. Looks nice.
My Original Song Written to my late wife-"Plus other original music by me"
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A11CC8CC6093D80
https://n1m.com/bobbysmith1
I've looked at thousands of proof Franklin's over the years and I've never seen one that would be held back because of a weak strike. With proof coins it's gonna come down to surface. At a 65 you're going to have a lot of hairlines, or a dink somewhere in the coin. A milk spot will also hold the coin to a 65-66. If you're not in a dark room with a grading lamp it can be extremely difficult to see the hairlines/marks.
Nice coin but…
Here is a 69 from CoinFacts, notice the detail in the hair whereas your coin is mush in the hair with virtually no details. Is that scratch behind Franklin on the slab? Also a lot of chatter on the reverse.
Sorry if that sounds harsh. One of my duties at work is firing people so it comes naturally
The mush you're referencing may well be because of the photograph taken. You're comparing a true view to a phone camera with lighting that's not helping.
I’m sure that’s probably some of it but look closer at the ear and the hair that goes over it.
If the coin looks better than the pic then the first thing I’d be trying to find would a hairline scratch I missed.
The scratch on the slab might have been Che grapes throwing it across the room
I mean it could be the one in 10,001 haha! But I'm telling you I've never seen it... they grade proofs much different that business strikes. Obviously eye appeal can help a coin bump a grade, and a lustrous coin can add eye appeal... But as far as the strike of a proof franklin, I've never seen it effect the grade... In fact I've never looked at a proof franklin and thought "That has a weak strike"... I believe that has to do with the way they were minted.
And the more frost the less the details will be visible (It seems). So maybe the chatter on the reverse was the reason. I had one that graded 67 or 8 cam. But have since sold it and it was before I started trueviewing every coin.
Proofs are mainly graded off of hairlines in the fields that rarely ever show up in the photos.
This is why CoinFacts is useless for comparing proofs. You can’t grade them based off of photos, especially in the 67-68 range. There are no marks then, just hairlines.
Milk spots are also killer, but strike almost never plays a role in a proof’s grade. The OP proof is well struck and has full detail, so strike almost definitely didn’t play a role.
It’s also unfair to compare a DCAM to a non-CAM as detail levels due to die wear differ. This coin has weak mirrors and frost on the reverse, and all of the 60s dates need more frost to get the designations than the other dates. Just my opinion from what I’ve seen.
Coin Photographer.
From "A Guide Book of Franklin & Kennedy Half Dollars" on what impacts the grading of proof Franklin Halfs"
A Proof not fully struck
Heavy toning due to improper storage
Bagmarks on SMS coinage
Proof surface damaged by abrasion
Not being snotty, but both of those coins are obviously poor candidates for submission. The grading fees eat up the entire value of the coin.
Only one coin shown but I agree with you at PR65 but I was hoping for a PR67 or higher. Again, I cannot find any blemish or hairlines on it whatsoever- although I accept that I’m not set up to see them clearly either. I would not have sent it in otherwise. (Except that it also has some sentimental value) but I fully agree with you.
Oh I did show a second coin, I forgot - So the IKE commemorative came from my father and I wanted it slabbed just so I can store it with the other slabbed Ikes - agree this had nothing to do with value or investments, etc. both coins are not rare and common specimens - and both lost money by grading but I did it for other reasons and again, I thought I might have had something unique with the Franklin in terms of grade - but was not the case!
I'm not surprised to see it didn't get a CAM designation. 1963's come with monster thick frost, so the standard is going to be a bit more stringent. The frost on both sides appears to be less than thick, and you can almost see reflective areas on the bell. It also appears from your image that the reverse fields lack depth, and as Mark indicated, the frost doesn't appear to be real thick on yours. For the 1960's it's not enough for frost to be present at just the right angle, it has to be present at almost every angle.
Also as Mark Feld told me when I was posting my own pictures of proofs very early in my collecting journey, "It's impossible to grade proof coins from photos."
I have a 1960 cameo Franklin that is very nice but not a huge amount of frost, so I am not sure that is a requirement. Posting photos for your thoughts on my coin.
I am quite sure that @ModCrewman has a good grip on what constitutes a CAM based on his years submitting them.
The other 1960 half shows good frost and deep mirrors on both sides, which the first half does not show, particularly the reverse mirrors.
Coin Photographer.
Lighting and pics also plays a huge role in how a coin looks. We can’t compare frost on a coin for sure unless they are taken under exactly the same lighting conditions or we have them in hand. Everything we can say here is a good guess at best.
It all goes back to one thing - you can’t grade proofs from pictures. It is fun to try sometimes and see just how far off you are, and that’s just because the pictures don’t show what they need to.
Coin Photographer.
There's a dramatic difference between these two coins, the 1960 doesn't show a hint of reflection on the devices, whereas the 1963 does all over the portrait:
I don’t understand your point. Can you please clarify. Seems the 1963 has more frost than my 1960, is that what you are saying. Thanks
Compare Franklin's cheek and hair on both coins. You can see the texture of the frost on the 1960...thus the cameo designation. The surface of the portrait on the 1963 is smooth in your photo, and I can tell by the shading on Franklin's cheek and lapel of the 1963 that the angle of the lighting is more severe to get the cameo appearance to show up.
I can't describe it more than that...what I believe I see is informed by looking at literally thousands of sets over the last decade as I've assembled my own collection the vast majority (>90%) of which have been purchased raw and submitted for grading.
ModCrewman 1950-1964 Proof Registry
If the grade does not fit you must resubmit!!
@Modcrewman Love the look on the 51 Franklin. Did the 51 Washington come from the same set? Very similar.
Actually not...but I agree, they look very similar.
Always a shot, but the bell doesn't appear to have the same frost as the portrait, so my answer would be that I don't think it would upgrade.
@Joey29, it seems you were just questioning if your half was CAM at all, and now you're asking if it's DCAM? I'd suggest buying a book on CAM coins of this era, likely Tomaska's, and then go from there.
Also, your coin has no shot at DCAM from what I see. Again, you can't tell for sure from the images.
Coin Photographer.
That is because ModCrewman showed me that my coin is much stronger than the OPs coin, and he thinks his is a CAM
Sorry the grade did not pan out for you. I just looked through some ebay listings and your coin has more eye appeal than any 65CAM I saw, and more than most offered.
Regardless of grade I think you have a stunning “A” coin to be proud of.
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
For the record I no longer believe my coin should be cameo - because all of the expert insight that appeared on my post.
This kind of insight is a huge value to me so I’m very appreciative of all of the good folks that gave some expertise. Thank you —
Aw thank you! And - it has sentimental significance to me, so in the end it doesn’t really matter - but man, I learned so much from the expertise on this message board...!!! It was worth it. (From that point of view I actually did profit from grading this coin)
@Che_Grapes Is it possible for you to take a picture of the half in the exact same lighting as the Ike commem? The lights that you took the half under seem to wash out the contrast and the pictures that you took with the Ike commem would be a much better representation of the coin in hand I think.
Coin Photographer.
The 1950-1970 Era for Proof and SMS coinage is a niche area that many collectors play in (including me for almost 24 years).
A wide variety of coins ranging from low grade ugly common coins, to high grade brilliant coins, Cameo coins, DCAM/UCAM coins, toned coins, varieties, errors and/or condition rarities. Comparing graded examples of these coins can lead to head scratching and spirited debates over which is better (i.e. numerical grade and/or designation) and over the inconsistency in how CAM, DCAM and UCAM designations are determined and applied.
I submitted a 1959 Proof Half dollar to PCGS last year that came back PF67, no CAM. When I look at the coin in hand and look at the True View photo of same I scratch my head. To me the coin looks like it should have received a CAM designation. It looks equal to or better than other 1959 proof half dollars shown on Coin Facts that were awarded a CAM designation. I suspect that in the future I will submit my coin to PCGS for a "second opinion" in the hopes that it is awarded a CAM designation.
A True View photo of my 1959 Proof half dollar is attached.
All in all a fun area to play in. The best education one can get in this niche area is to read books on the subject matter and look at as many coins (raw and slabbed) as you can. Doing so will help you obtain a knowledge base from which you can collect in this area effectively (with a good eye for quality and price).
BTW, when I looked at the 1963 proof half dollar posted by the OP my initial opinion of the coin is that while it may have some frost on the devices, the level of frost is no where close to being heavy enough to warrant a CAM designation from PCGS.
It looks like a premium coin to me brother.
👍
Well I took several new pics and maybe this one shows the point the best:
Graded cam vs no cam
No CAM designation on the 1959? @SanctionII did you receive a complimentary jar of Vaseline with that submission?
But - I would have preferred higher grade than 65 - ouch!
I can sympathize with the frustration on the grading of Frankin proofs.
Bottom line, they are really tough to grade by photo, so it's difficult to give an informed opinion.
I mean, if you're gonna send coins in for grading without understanding how to grade, you're gonna have a bad time, man.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
That 1959 is definitely cameo! What a beautiful coin. Don't sell it unless it has the cameo designation 😂
Was waiting for a comment like this - always one wise guy out there
I just don't understand how complaining about grades you got when you don't know how to grade makes any sense.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
After many years here, and learning from the experts, I have learned that grading proofs and proof designations (i.e. CAM) is not to be tried from photographs. In fact, coin photography on any coins can be deceptive, based on lighting, angles, equipment. As far as grading in general, the coin in hand is also the final evaluation point. I know my grading skills are not at the level of the professionals, and I accept that. However, I do keep studying and trying - that is the only way to improve my skills. Cheers, RickO