New Trueviews of recently graded coins. Which ones did or did not CAM; and why?
SanctionII
Posts: 12,284 ✭✭✭✭✭
No peeking at the grades 
3
SanctionII
Posts: 12,284 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Here we go:
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No
8. Yes
9. No
10. Yes
11. No
12. No
Really there were a few coins where I was a bit wishy-washy, but I went no with the toning because I think PCGS would have said the toning enhanced the contrast and therefore no CAM. I would call them CAMs myself though.
Coin Photographer.
FlyingAl.
You are batting .500, guessing correct on 6 and incorrect on 6.
Who is next?
I'm admittedly a novice, but I'll try.
In order:
No - frost seems missing on cheek
Yes - frost seems light on mid-torch, but still there.
Yes - good frost
No - weak frost from eye to ear, and light on rev
No - strong cam on rev, but not on obv
No - weak portrait cam
No - weak rev cam
No - like obv, eagle torso is weak
No - reverse weak
Yes - not complete, but overall good frost
No - not enough contrast on the eagle, but I'm pretty unsure about this one.
No - eagle is too shiny and washington's cheak looks a little glossy too
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
neildroberston.
You are also batting .500, guessing correct on 6 and incorrect on 6.
I don't want to stir the pot here, but I did pull up the grades and I'm only seeing 5 incorrect based on my guesses. I'll double check, but the five I got wrong I'd still stand by my assessment, with the exception of two dimes that I said I'd call CAM above. I'll edit this if my calculations were wrong as I go back through the grades on Cert Verification.
Above edited, it was 5 wrong. The two dimes I did call CAM, but based on the discussion about PCGS not CAMing RB copper, I figured they wouldn't give these coins the designation. I guess they are a bit lax on that standard. The dimes deserved the designation. However, the other two dimes that got it should not have received the designation (I'll leave out the dates for other guessers) I'm my opinion. The other coin I got wrong I also stand by my opinion.
Coin Photographer.
I got 8 out of 12, but this is admittedly very difficult. It's tough going of off photos, and tough being a grader from the get go. I think several of those coins are very close to and on both sides of the line between CAM and non-CAM.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Interesting that we agreed on 9/12. The nickel, first dime, and first quarter were the points of difference, but if you want to count my statement regarding the first dime as CAM in my book but not PCGS's because of color, that makes 10. Very interesting that we were so close together, and the other two are the real liner coins IMO.
Coin Photographer.
Since no one else has played it is time to announce the results.
I was incorrect in my prior posts about FlyingAl and neildroberston guessing 6 wrong and 6 right.
My question was "Which ones did or did not CAM; and why?". This question is very precise. I think that FlyingAl, neildroberston and spaceyhayduke misinterpreted my question leading all of them to guess wrong on #3 (#3 did not CAM, instead it received a DCAM designation
).
1 graded PF67
2 graded PF67CAM
3 graded PF68DCAM
4 graded PF67
5 graded PF68CAM
6 graded PF67CAM
7 graded PF67
8 graded PF67CAM
9 graded PF67
10 graded PF68CAM
11 graded PF67
12 graded PF68
FlyingAl got #4, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 correct; and he got #1, #2, #3, #4 and #6 wrong.
neildrobertson got #1, #2, #4, #7, #9, #10, #11 and #12 correct; and he got # 3, #5, #6 and #8 wrong.
spaceyhayduke got #1, #4, $5, #6, #7, #9, #10 and #11 correct; and he got #2, #3, #8 and #12 wrong.
The photos of the 12 coins show the appearance of the coins very well. Looking at them in hand under good lighting results in me having the opinion that #s 1-11 warrant at least a Cameo designation (#3 is a lock DCAM). Only #12 does not warrant a Cameo designation due to the weakness of the reverse frost.
What is interesting is that #1, #4, #7, #9 and #11 did not receive a Cameo designations (without the toning on these coins they would clearly warrant a Cameo designation); and #2, #6 and #8 did receive a Cameo designation (even though they having toning).
These coins and the grading of same again illustrate the subjective nature of coin grading (as to awarding or not awarding a designation, in this case a Cameo designation).
In any event, the toned coins shown in this thread are very eye appealing due to the mirrored fields, frosted devices and multiple colors.
Thanks for playing.
.
it wasn't from lack of desire. personally, i posted a bunch this afternoon, did research and watched a fair bit of numismatic material. (more than usual) also doing some housework, including steps up/down 2nd floor.
OH but now i see the thread was made yesterday. there has been a lot of activity recently, imo, so that may have contributed. also you've posted a bunch of stuff recently, so the thread MAY have been unintentionally looked over.
those are some nice coins.
i thought #10 was a trick question, whereas it didn't cam because it was DCAM!
did you consider dipping #6 or does that toning look nice in-hand? it looks like some of the toning coins like these take on that is invisible at certain angles, including head-on usually.
w/o looking at values, which does affect my opinion of some coins (grade rarity), LOVE #1 !
after buying so much of this stuff, do you find your heart still skips a lil from time to time when you find something pretty/potential?
LanceNewmanOCC
I did not consider dipping any of the coins, including #6. They are just fine as they are.
As I have collected coins like this over the years my eye for quality has gotten a lot better. Coins that grabbed my attention years ago, no longer do.
However, when I come across a coin that stands far above the norm (i.e. a BN or a RB copper proof Lincoln with deeply mirrored devices and frosted devices that just glows; or a Cameo or DCAM silver proof that has multicolored rim toning on both sides of the coin that frames the central devices) my heart does beat faster.
I interpreted the question as a CAM at a minimum
.
Anyways, a quick analysis (I'll leave #3 out, reason above). I also got #5 instead of #4 wrong, so I fixed that here.
1- I said yes, I stand by that. I think PCGS called too much tone. The obverse and reverse have some strong frost, enough to warrant a designation in my opinion.
2- I said no, I would disagree with this. I thought the tone would hold it back as it did with #1. I did say somewhere that I said no for some coins I personally thought were CAMs, this is one, the other was #4 (I was back and forth) which I said I thought would not CAM and I was correct. I see it as a CAM.
5- This I disagree with. The obverse is not there. It should have not CAMed, and in my opinion, this isn't even a liner coin (compared to others). If 4 doesn't CAM, this isn't close IMO.
6- Same as above.
I wouldn't dip any of them. I really like them and I think PCGS may have missed a few, but their whole policy on CAM coins with color baffles me. I really just don't understand it, as clearly it's a bit all over the place. Thanks for doing this, it was fun to play!
Coin Photographer.
Cameo and DCAM designations on toned coins is an area of the hobby where endless discussion and debate is the norm (which at times can be fun and at times can be frustrating).
I guessed 7 out of 12.
U.S. Type Set