New Trueview of a recently graded coin.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,284 ✭✭✭✭✭
Would it warrant a DCAM designation if the toning were removed?
Your thoughts please.
10
SanctionII
Posts: 12,284 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
I think you're maxed out at a CAM. They're crazy tough on giving out SMS DCAMs, and the obverse frost and mirrors are lacking in my opinion. The color is also a plus the way it is, so I'd personally keep it.
Coin Photographer.
The lettering isn't DCAM quality.
Beautiful coin, by the way.
Stripping the toning off will provide you with a somewhat lifeless $30—retail coin.
peacockcoins
Nice SMS toner.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Leave it alone. It's got great surfaces.
Pete
In hand, under good lighting, the fields are deeply mirrored and the devices are heavily frosted. The devices near the rims do not look as heavily frosted as the central devices because they are toned with a light blue color.
Somewhere I have photos of this quarter that were taken by Todd years ago. Those photos give the coin a completely different look than the Trueview photo.
Your opinions on the 1965SMS and the 1966SMS quarters that were recently graded with the 1967SMS quarter pictured above please.
The 1965 should have gotten the designation (CAM). But it is 1965, and those CAM minors are really really really hard to make. I'd bet if you submitted it ten more times you still wouldn't have the designation.
The 1966 is a liner coin no matter what. The reverse is lacking, but I'd probably give it the designation (CAM), but I can easily see passing it up.
Coin Photographer.
I do not think the OP coin would go DCAM if the tarnish were removed. ICBW, but the removal itself could harm the frost and the mirror fields. Cheers, RickO
Attached are two photos of the 1967SP67CAM quarter. These photos were taken years ago by Todd. They show differing looks of the coin as it appears in hand under good lighting.
Also attached is the recent Trueview photo of this coin.
Very interesting that the Trueview photo shows the coin in a manner that is very different from what is shown in Todd's photos. Tood's photos shows the rim lettering and numbering having frost similar to the frost on the central devices.
Nice coin! I'd be afraid to mess with it.
I think the tone enhances the appearance of the frosted devices, if removed it might lessen the contrast even though it should brighten the coin. Also, I believe the criteria for Deep Cameo on 1967 SMS coins is bit more strict, the fields can't be cloudy at all. The 1965 SMS is nice and struck with the right obverse die, the best 1965's always seem to show that over-polished/burned area near the rim at the back of Washington's head.
Liberty and IGWT are holding it back. Frosty but not frosty enough
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
The makeup of the corrosion is extremely fragile. Any cleaning will easily remove some of, most of but not all of that delicate formation of crystals created through a not so ideal environment. A cleaning will forever lesson the mirrors and frost on a coin with the removal of a layer. There is absolutely no way, by chemical or mechanical means, a coin surfaces can be restored to what they were when the coin was stamped.
But people do clean coins and many times, do not inform an unwary buyer that the coin has been cleaned.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection