Guess the Grade and the Designations on 5 recently graded Proof Franklins.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,284 ✭✭✭✭✭
3
SanctionII
Posts: 12,284 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
TTT.
Added a photo of a fifth Franklin.
Waiting for your grade and designation opinions.
TTT.
No one wants to play?
64
66CAM
66
Details Cleaned
67CAM
Coin Photographer.
The half dollars graded:
PF65
PF66
PF66
PF66
PF65.
None recieved a Cameo designation.
This is painful Kevin.
I'm sure you feel the same way, but I have a hard time seeing how they didn't all get a CAM designation. I can maybe see on the 4th coin a little sheen on the top of the portrait, but apart from that this is an outstanding group of coins that surely should have received a little bit more love from the grading room.
I agree - I was overly harsh with what coins I gave a CAM to based on what your other threads were like, and still I had to give it to the two coins that are almost undeniably CAM. The only coin that really doesn't deserve IMO is the 1950. Even that one is close!
Coin Photographer.
Is it you, or them, in your opinion? Some certainly look deserving of CAM and/or DCAM, though this happens to be a grading weakness of mine, along with the FBL designation.
Tom
from those images, that is impossible!!!.
i think you need to have an ngc membership if you don't. this is a crap ton of money you are forking out on submissions.
every one doesn't need to be a home run but the coins you've been posting...
edited to add:
i don't think it did/should have affected the designation but a 20-30% solution dip (very light to protect frost) may help the obv a bit in the right field IF you are good on high-end proofs with not leaving spots/streaks/hairlines.
My personal opinion on the five coins is that:
A. the 1950 warranted a grade of PF64 or PF65 due to hairlines, and it warranted a Cameo designation; and
B. 3 of the 1953 coins warranted a grade of PF64 or PF65 due to hairlines and they all warranted a Cameo designation; and
C. 1 of the 1953 coins warranted a grade of PF66 or PF67 and it warranted a Cameo designation.
Last year I submitted a 1950 and a 1953 half dollars for grading and they both came back PF65CAM. Attached are photos of those coins. To me they look very similar to the five coins shown above.
Earlier this year I submitted two other 1953 half dollars, both of which graded PF66 (one may warrant a Cameo designation); and one other 1950 half which graded PF64CAM. Photos of those coins are attached.
At some point in time one or all five of these coins may be submitted for reconsideration or regrade.
I've long heard the adage that PCGS likes deep mirrors rather than frost, but this is extreme grading. Is there a possibility that there are new graders that are being overly harsh on these coins? I've looked at a lot of @SanctionII's threads, and there are in EVERY thread - at least five to ten coins that should have gotten the designation - but didn't.
I wonder why. I really do.
Coin Photographer.
My numismatic variation of a famous quote by Johnny Cochran during the OJ Simpson trial is:
"If the designation does not fit, you must resubmit."
The subjective nature of coin grading (which is merely an opinion of one person [or maybe a consensus of three persons] given at a single point in time) precludes tangible, concrete, ascertainable dividing lines.
Ergo, coin grading is a tantamount to a game of dice played on a street corner or in a casino at a table.
Kevin,
I know looking at your TV's that you got very harsh grading. I have been there and it takes awhile for the sting to go away. It could be that you submitted so many CAM/No CAM coins that after a while they just said No, No, No, No and repeat.
Here is my Washington Quarter Variety Registry Set
This is my Washington Quarter Proof Variety Registry Set
Although the grading might’ve been a little bit harsh I can easily see the difference between the first five and the next two that did make Cam. Weakness in the forehead, The lack of thickness around the face, and all five of them are lacking frost in the main and other hairlines.
Now this may just be shadowing on the first five but not the next two, unlikely. Can you take close-ups on the frost details?
Attached are photos from Coin Facts of 1953 proof half dollars that have been graded Cameo. These coins appear to have fields and devices similar to those in the photos of my 4 newly graded 1953 half dollars.
PF68CAM
PF68CAM
PF67CAM
PF67CAM
PF66CAM
Attached are photos from Coin Facts of 1950 proof half dollars that have been graded Cameo. These coins appear to have fields and devices similar to those in the photos of my newly graded 1950 PF65 half dollar.
PF67+CAM
PF67CAM
PF67CAM
PF66CAM
PF66CAM
PF65CAM (??????, My newly graded PF65 is much of better quality).
PF65CAM
This coin graded PF68 and did not receive a Cameo designation.
based on the amount of coins in this particular arena you have bought/subbed over a LONG time, your commentary above shows you are pretty dialed in. so have you bought your ngc membership yet?
i can't say i'm a super fan of playing mom against dad but the fact is if you don't, someone else will.
i know people that have done it and made some booku bucks.
from my limited experience subbing proof frankies, i have noticed they do bump the grade a lot in really frosty but not cam situations in lieu of camming. what comes to mind was a 1956 t1 i got back in 68. it was a clean coin. don't recall if i dipped it but where i did or not, i'm sure just thinking about it made me quiver a bit. those surfaces are FRAGILE.
on that note, i remember long ago when i read about pcgs taking the prong inserts and rubbing them VIGOROUSLY against various proof coins to see if they would leave any hairlines and as reported, they did not!
Nice looking regardless of designation and tough to find.
Thank you Lance for agreeing with me...I was on a bad number
I'd love to see that thread Lance, as I must have missed it the first time around. I find it nearly impossible to think anything could contact a proof coin (much less do so "vigorously") without causing hairlines.
try it and report back!
that thread(s) would be back within a couple/few years after i joined i'd say. quite possible there may be an article about it floating around as well as i'm sure pcgs would want to promote their scratchless gaskets.
I did an experiment a while back with the proof set cello and found that you need to press pretty hard to cause hairlines.
Coin Photographer.
nice.
i THINK i recall something about what really scratches the surfaces are small debris particles not as much something touching the surfaces. ie. q-tip, finger, etc. although various dipping compounds may have small particulates floating around which is why i presume so many here seem to mention about using "fresh" acetone etc to keep particulates as well as just contaminated fluids from being left behind on surfaces.