IMO, without examining coin B (non-cam) in "tilt view" in the exact same conditions (lighting, lens, camera, etc.) as coin A (suspect cam) it is impossible to draw a conclusion. That being said, it's impossible (IMO) to draw a conclusion unless the coin is examined in hand.
Guys, I don't collect PF CAM or DCAM coins. But I notice the small, uneven marks of a tell tale cleaning in the reverse fields. Die polish lines I've seen are usually parallel. These aren't.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
I too questioned (in my head) why the lines don't apppear on the pillars in that video. But they do to an extent when I held a business card to the one side of a pillar as the vid played. And there are lines on the deeper recesses with the curve upper sweep lines on the left of the Mont. Would need a "in hand" look at whether those lines are incused and not raised but maybe they're just flat as would incur with acid.
So now, I guess, with the right tools and training, I'd like to see someone manually produce frost on a coin here, even if it's crude, due to the inexperience of the attempt. But this is not necessary since PCGS has said it's done with a weak acid.
Also would like to know if there's any reference in the Cameo and Brilliant Proof Coinage of the 1950 to 1970 Era book by Rick Jerry Tomaska about the problem grading companies had with the artificial frosting of proof coins. If one book says one thing and another says another thing or nothing at all, what does that tell us?
What I do know, a few very prominent wealthy collectors have viewed this coin almost 20 years ago in hand. I mean, they had the money to easily buy this OP 38cam coin but saying the effect is too light and they were just not impressed enough to do so.
No-one will ever be able to say, 'this was once a part of so so's collection and want to proudly add it to their collection.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
To circle an area a couple mm in size and use that as convincing of anything is a stretch
Tomaska's book was from 1991 and he was complaining of lack of uniformity between grading services. I did not see anything about altered surfaces as few were collecting DCAMs at that time. I am not sure what he mentions in his 2002 book about Franklin halves.
To circle an area a couple mm in size and use that as convincing of anything is a stretch
Tomaska's book was from 1991 and he was complaining of lack of uniformity between grading services. I did not see anything about altered surfaces as few were collecting DCAMs at that time. I am not sure what he mentions in his 2002 book about Franklin halves.
But what is your point? @FlyingAl has made a claim of alteration on op coin, and has provided substantial evidence to back up said claim. I’m sure he’s aware that light sources and angles can affect the way a coin shows in a photograph, but Im not seeing how your comment about varying photography techniques reasonably disproves anything that he’s said thus far.
To circle an area a couple mm in size and use that as convincing of anything is a stretch
Tomaska's book was from 1991 and he was complaining of lack of uniformity between grading services. I did not see anything about altered surfaces as few were collecting DCAMs at that time. I am not sure what he mentions in his 2002 book about Franklin halves.
Tomaska's book has no information that pertains to this era of proofs as far as CAM coins go. The eras have large differences in die preparation and maintenance. His book, while excellent for the later eras, is not relevant for 36-42. You're only confusing yourself.
You still haven't presented a single FACT showing the OP coin is NOT altered. Unless you can do so, I don't see any reason to believe you. You're simply throwing out distractions.
The reverse of the NGC CAM coin is barely frosted. It borders on brilliant. I know because I have a coin from the same die pair and state in my hand currently. I also know because there are coins from the same die and state in non CAM holders. It's NOT the same die pair as the OP coin, so it's no help here. TrueViews rarely show frost where it isn't there, and cameras don't create texture. Especially not TrueViews. Also, I stated that there were multiple areas where what I said was true. I circled the most obvious, it happened to be small.
In addition, grading these proofs CAM is not like the years 1950-70. The standards change almost MONTHLY. There is no consistency. There will likely never be. You have to stop comparing these proofs to the later ones, because they are so different when it comes down to FACTS.
So, until you explain with facts how each of these was produced by the mint on the OP coin, I won't be replying to you anymore:
incorrect color
incorrect frost texture
incorrect frost placement (missing frost)
wrong overall look
brush marks
To circle an area a couple mm in size and use that as convincing of anything is a stretch
Tomaska's book was from 1991 and he was complaining of lack of uniformity between grading services. I did not see anything about altered surfaces as few were collecting DCAMs at that time. I am not sure what he mentions in his 2002 book about Franklin halves.
But what is your point? @FlyingAl has made a claim of alteration on op coin, and has provided substantial evidence to back up said claim. I’m sure he’s aware that light sources and angles can affect the way a coin shows in a photograph, but Im not seeing how your comment about varying photography techniques reasonably disproves anything that he’s said thus far.
Agreed.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
To circle an area a couple mm in size and use that as convincing of anything is a stretch
Tomaska's book was from 1991 and he was complaining of lack of uniformity between grading services. I did not see anything about altered surfaces as few were collecting DCAMs at that time. I am not sure what he mentions in his 2002 book about Franklin halves.
But what is your point? @FlyingAl has made a claim of alteration on op coin, and has provided substantial evidence to back up said claim. I’m sure he’s aware that light sources and angles can affect the way a coin shows in a photograph, but Im not seeing how your comment about varying photography techniques reasonably disproves anything that he’s said thus far.
Also worth noting is the fact that while light can dictate how much frost is shown and where, it is very unusual for an area to appear frost-free when the light is otherwise showing off the frost in that area. I agree that it would be more ideal to see the OP coin and the one with the small frost break @FlyingAl in the same light, or in a video, or in hand, but lacking that, at the very least, he has presented a case which more than reasonably substantiates his claims, technical minutiae notwithstanding. I can’t possibly see how a photography argument could trump everything else that has been shown.
On that note, a side comment to @FlyingAl: this thread is the kind of research/dedication/knowledge this forum sees every so often from numismatists with decades of experience. I’d be impressed with anyone making this case, and far more so a YN. The topic is beyond my typical collecting interests, but your work is too compelling for me to not keep reading. Color me really, really impressed.
@airplanenut said:
On that note, a side comment to @FlyingAl: this thread is the kind of research/dedication/knowledge this forum sees every so often from numismatists with decades of experience. I’d be impressed with anyone making this case, and far more so a YN. The topic is beyond my typical collecting interests, but your work is too compelling for me to not keep reading. Color me really, really impressed.
I had to comment to thank you. I'm super thankful for all that this forum brings to the table and I'm even more so thankful that I can give back to it in some way.
It's comments like these and messages from other members that make me excited to log on each day and try and provide some insight and perhaps try and change the numismatic field for the better in some small way. If taking one altered coin off the market helps one collector, I'll make as many of these threads as I can to do continue helping that one collector.
The encouragement and positivity from this small group of collectors is what makes this hobby fun. I don't hesitate in saying that joining this forum was the best choice I ever made in regards to my collecting journey.
I always read your posts and enjoy them as well- great contributions and a depth of research/knowledge in an area I have very little familiarity with, which is why I generally only read them and rarely post a reply. Keep it coming!
DLRC is in contact with PCGS about this coin, it appears they are bringing it for a review at the FUN show. Hopefully the correct decision is made for this coin and the guarantee is honored.
Great post @FlyingAl I had seen this coin but had no interest due to the extraordinary premium. In my Jefferson proof set I have no CAMS or DCAMs prior to 1950. And I have only a single 1950 DCAM with nice color, up until about 1980. Then they are all DCAMS, and they are all very BORING. Toning adds character to coins and toning is pretty rare on modern coins.
There is a simple solution to this issue over frost being painted on this 1938 Jefferson. Just dip it in acetone or Xylene and see if the painted on frost disappears. I bet it will. But if it is real frost, I think it unlikely that the frost will disappear. Hard medicine for the current owner though. PCGS should agree to do the dipping........to validate their grading of CAM.
@Coinscratch said:
This is the same coin listed in CoinFacts at PR68, next.
Same coin as in the OP? No it is not.
Yea, I guess you catch on pretty quick don’t you
I had noticed similar markings on the eye area and thought they were the same but Al already corrected me to the fact they were just the same dies.
Carry on, I’m simply a spectator at this point.
Slightly OT: Was this coin from the Wohlforth collection? I ask, because before he passed he had offered me a '38 with some obverse contrast, but I declined instead of letting him send it to me for a look (poor judgement on my part there). It would have been holdered with his name.
Slightly OT: Was this coin from the Wohlforth collection? I ask, because before he passed he had offered me a '38 with some obverse contrast, but I declined instead of letting him send it to me for a look (poor judgement on my part there). It would have been holdered with his name.
Slightly OT: Was this coin from the Wohlforth collection? I ask, because before he passed he had offered me a '38 with some obverse contrast, but I declined instead of letting him send it to me for a look (poor judgement on my part there). It would have been holdered with his name.
Interesting thread, BTW!
No, this coin was in an old ANACS 66 holder.
WOW. From ANACS PR 66 to PCGS PR67CAM. Can you provide a little more history?? Will PCGS disclose the date they graded the coin PR67CAM? Is it possible that frosting was applied after it was cracked from ANACS slab??
Slightly OT: Was this coin from the Wohlforth collection? I ask, because before he passed he had offered me a '38 with some obverse contrast, but I declined instead of letting him send it to me for a look (poor judgement on my part there). It would have been holdered with his name.
Interesting thread, BTW!
No, this coin was in an old ANACS 66 holder.
WOW. From ANACS PR 66 to PCGS PR67CAM. Can you provide a little more history?? Will PCGS disclose the date they graded the coin PR67CAM? Is it possible that frosting was applied after it was cracked from ANACS slab??
Two different coins, the op coin with the alleged fake frost is not the same as the coin pictured above
Slightly OT: Was this coin from the Wohlforth collection? I ask, because before he passed he had offered me a '38 with some obverse contrast, but I declined instead of letting him send it to me for a look (poor judgement on my part there). It would have been holdered with his name.
Interesting thread, BTW!
No, this coin was in an old ANACS 66 holder.
WOW. From ANACS PR 66 to PCGS PR67CAM. Can you provide a little more history?? Will PCGS disclose the date they graded the coin PR67CAM? Is it possible that frosting was applied after it was cracked from ANACS slab??
Not quite! I own the coin we are referencing the ANACS 66. It has genuine frost, I'm quite sure of it . It is not the OP coin.
It now resides in an NGC 66 slab. I cracked it trying for a star and didn't get it. Needless to say, I was shocked. The obverse is as deep as these Jefferson nickels get. It's amazing.
DLRC is in contact with PCGS about this coin, it appears they are bringing it for a review at the FUN show. Hopefully the correct decision is made for this coin and the guarantee is honored.
DLRC is in contact with PCGS about this coin, it appears they are bringing it for a review at the FUN show. Hopefully the correct decision is made for this coin and the guarantee is honored.
DLRC is in contact with PCGS about this coin, it appears they are bringing it for a review at the FUN show. Hopefully the correct decision is made for this coin and the guarantee is honored.
That thread was a very interesting read, thanks for posting it Leo! I haven't been around for a while so I love reading some of the old threads in the early days of the forum, when I was still in grade school lol
DLRC is in contact with PCGS about this coin, it appears they are bringing it for a review at the FUN show. Hopefully the correct decision is made for this coin and the guarantee is honored.
I have no idea how long an appearance review takes, and DLRC assured me that they would contact me when they received a decision from PCGS. Since it's only been three months and I haven't heard anything, I'd expect it'll be another 3-6 months before it can get through PCGS.
Great post flying Al.
I'm too tired to post much so I'll make this short and not so sweet. Back in the mid 70's when college kicked me out, I restarted collecting. 1938 Jeff's in Ms and pr were in my sights because at first you could buy them for as little as a buck. Proofs a little more.
I always looked at the steps and boy were they mushy almost all the time.
The coin in question, pr68cam has mushy steps and for an early coin with cam, that just doesn't compute in my mind. I don't know when the cam goes away but all those early pr strikes from a fresh die should have hammered steps. I have MS 38jeffs with better steps than that proof.
@gumby1234 said: @FlyingAl This was done to many Morgan dollars and Franklin halves back in the day. I made a thread about it months ago to see if anybody knew if it was still be practiced. There are probably aa few unsuspecting collectors out there with coins that were altered by adding fake cameo contrast. It fooled the TPG's many times.
That's scary. I've been told many times that these professionals -- 3 of them -- will catch these things 99.99% of the time evein within 10-15 seconds.
I've been a stickler for stating it's tough, even for a professional who has done this for years, to be near-perfect given human error, eye fatigue, body fatigue, lighting being off, etc.
I think the assembly-line rapidity needs to slow down to catch these things even if it interferes with the business models. You can't tell me another 20-30 seconds looking at these coins wouldn't help.
@gumby1234 said: @streeter I think mushy steps on 38 Jeff's is the norm. I dont think it depends on the die being worn. Of course worn dies won't help either.
A fresh proof cameo Jeff should have the best steps of all. I have Ms 38 Jeff with better strike. And that tells me this proof coin is not early which would have been necessary to have that cam effect.
You don't have to be a detective to follow the bread crumbs on this.
Comments
IMO, without examining coin B (non-cam) in "tilt view" in the exact same conditions (lighting, lens, camera, etc.) as coin A (suspect cam) it is impossible to draw a conclusion. That being said, it's impossible (IMO) to draw a conclusion unless the coin is examined in hand.
Guys, I don't collect PF CAM or DCAM coins. But I notice the small, uneven marks of a tell tale cleaning in the reverse fields. Die polish lines I've seen are usually parallel. These aren't.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
have you ever photographed 'frosted' coins from that era?
Many times. Not sure what this has to do with the coin being altered or not.
Coin Photographer.
I too questioned (in my head) why the lines don't apppear on the pillars in that video. But they do to an extent when I held a business card to the one side of a pillar as the vid played. And there are lines on the deeper recesses with the curve upper sweep lines on the left of the Mont. Would need a "in hand" look at whether those lines are incused and not raised but maybe they're just flat as would incur with acid.
So now, I guess, with the right tools and training, I'd like to see someone manually produce frost on a coin here, even if it's crude, due to the inexperience of the attempt. But this is not necessary since PCGS has said it's done with a weak acid.
Also would like to know if there's any reference in the Cameo and Brilliant Proof Coinage of the 1950 to 1970 Era book by Rick Jerry Tomaska about the problem grading companies had with the artificial frosting of proof coins. If one book says one thing and another says another thing or nothing at all, what does that tell us?
What I do know, a few very prominent wealthy collectors have viewed this coin almost 20 years ago in hand. I mean, they had the money to easily buy this OP 38cam coin but saying the effect is too light and they were just not impressed enough to do so.
No-one will ever be able to say, 'this was once a part of so so's collection and want to proudly add it to their collection.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
>
I ask because then you should know light sources and angles between light, coin, and camera can make a coin look drastically different.
Heritage sale of last PR67CAM https://coins.ha.com/itm/jefferson-nickels/nickels/1938-5c-pr67-cameo-ngc/a/1294-3254.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#
a couple of their pics - same coin first showing frost
and second in slab
and then link to NGC of same coin with pics that you can blow up for a third version
https://ngccoin.com/certlookup/3735469-006/67/
To circle an area a couple mm in size and use that as convincing of anything is a stretch
Tomaska's book was from 1991 and he was complaining of lack of uniformity between grading services. I did not see anything about altered surfaces as few were collecting DCAMs at that time. I am not sure what he mentions in his 2002 book about Franklin halves.
But what is your point? @FlyingAl has made a claim of alteration on op coin, and has provided substantial evidence to back up said claim. I’m sure he’s aware that light sources and angles can affect the way a coin shows in a photograph, but Im not seeing how your comment about varying photography techniques reasonably disproves anything that he’s said thus far.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
@davewesen I don't see frost on the top pic.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Tomaska's book has no information that pertains to this era of proofs as far as CAM coins go. The eras have large differences in die preparation and maintenance. His book, while excellent for the later eras, is not relevant for 36-42. You're only confusing yourself.
You still haven't presented a single FACT showing the OP coin is NOT altered. Unless you can do so, I don't see any reason to believe you. You're simply throwing out distractions.
The reverse of the NGC CAM coin is barely frosted. It borders on brilliant. I know because I have a coin from the same die pair and state in my hand currently. I also know because there are coins from the same die and state in non CAM holders. It's NOT the same die pair as the OP coin, so it's no help here. TrueViews rarely show frost where it isn't there, and cameras don't create texture. Especially not TrueViews. Also, I stated that there were multiple areas where what I said was true. I circled the most obvious, it happened to be small.
In addition, grading these proofs CAM is not like the years 1950-70. The standards change almost MONTHLY. There is no consistency. There will likely never be. You have to stop comparing these proofs to the later ones, because they are so different when it comes down to FACTS.
So, until you explain with facts how each of these was produced by the mint on the OP coin, I won't be replying to you anymore:
incorrect color
incorrect frost texture
incorrect frost placement (missing frost)
wrong overall look
brush marks
Coin Photographer.
Agreed.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Also worth noting is the fact that while light can dictate how much frost is shown and where, it is very unusual for an area to appear frost-free when the light is otherwise showing off the frost in that area. I agree that it would be more ideal to see the OP coin and the one with the small frost break @FlyingAl in the same light, or in a video, or in hand, but lacking that, at the very least, he has presented a case which more than reasonably substantiates his claims, technical minutiae notwithstanding. I can’t possibly see how a photography argument could trump everything else that has been shown.
On that note, a side comment to @FlyingAl: this thread is the kind of research/dedication/knowledge this forum sees every so often from numismatists with decades of experience. I’d be impressed with anyone making this case, and far more so a YN. The topic is beyond my typical collecting interests, but your work is too compelling for me to not keep reading. Color me really, really impressed.
I had to comment to thank you. I'm super thankful for all that this forum brings to the table and I'm even more so thankful that I can give back to it in some way.
It's comments like these and messages from other members that make me excited to log on each day and try and provide some insight and perhaps try and change the numismatic field for the better in some small way. If taking one altered coin off the market helps one collector, I'll make as many of these threads as I can to do continue helping that one collector.
The encouragement and positivity from this small group of collectors is what makes this hobby fun. I don't hesitate in saying that joining this forum was the best choice I ever made in regards to my collecting journey.
Coin Photographer.
I always read your posts and enjoy them as well- great contributions and a depth of research/knowledge in an area I have very little familiarity with, which is why I generally only read them and rarely post a reply. Keep it coming!
Great post @FlyingAl. Your passion is very evident.
@FlyingAl I don't care about this series at all but this thread was a great debate and a great read. Very interesting read indeed!
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
I have to agree. Excellent work, Flying Al. Posts like this keep me coming back.
Tom
Mine is an early die state NGC Pf 67. Since there was no cameo effect intended for these years it is the most one could expect for a '38.
After a closer look it appears mine is actually an obverse repolished die and stand corrected. Any further comments are welcome.
UPDATE:
DLRC is in contact with PCGS about this coin, it appears they are bringing it for a review at the FUN show. Hopefully the correct decision is made for this coin and the guarantee is honored.
Coin Photographer.
Great post @FlyingAl I had seen this coin but had no interest due to the extraordinary premium. In my Jefferson proof set I have no CAMS or DCAMs prior to 1950. And I have only a single 1950 DCAM with nice color, up until about 1980. Then they are all DCAMS, and they are all very BORING. Toning adds character to coins and toning is pretty rare on modern coins.
There is a simple solution to this issue over frost being painted on this 1938 Jefferson. Just dip it in acetone or Xylene and see if the painted on frost disappears. I bet it will. But if it is real frost, I think it unlikely that the frost will disappear. Hard medicine for the current owner though. PCGS should agree to do the dipping........to validate their grading of CAM.
Same coin as in the OP? No it is not.
Is there anything that could be applied that would not be removed with a soak in acetone?
Yea, I guess you catch on pretty quick don’t you
I had noticed similar markings on the eye area and thought they were the same but Al already corrected me to the fact they were just the same dies.
Carry on, I’m simply a spectator at this point.
Slightly OT: Was this coin from the Wohlforth collection? I ask, because before he passed he had offered me a '38 with some obverse contrast, but I declined instead of letting him send it to me for a look (poor judgement on my part there). It would have been holdered with his name.
Interesting thread, BTW!
No, this coin was in an old ANACS 66 holder.
Coin Photographer.
WOW. From ANACS PR 66 to PCGS PR67CAM. Can you provide a little more history?? Will PCGS disclose the date they graded the coin PR67CAM? Is it possible that frosting was applied after it was cracked from ANACS slab??
Two different coins, the op coin with the alleged fake frost is not the same as the coin pictured above
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Not quite! I own the coin we are referencing the ANACS 66. It has genuine frost, I'm quite sure of it
. It is not the OP coin.
It now resides in an NGC 66 slab. I cracked it trying for a star and didn't get it. Needless to say, I was shocked. The obverse is as deep as these Jefferson nickels get. It's amazing.
Coin Photographer.
Reminds me of the infamous 1960-D PCGS MS64FS Jefferson nickel. Anyone here remember when that coin was downgraded?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/457953/how-i-bought-the-100-000-1960-d-jefferson-nickel-for-9-750-plus-the-juice/p1
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Ha! I unfortunately don't have eight grand to spare to take a coin off of the market. Hopefully PCGS will do it though.
Coin Photographer.
That thread was a very interesting read, thanks for posting it Leo! I haven't been around for a while so I love reading some of the old threads in the early days of the forum, when I was still in grade school lol
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Good catch! Hopefully we will get an update after PCGS takes a look at it.
Great thread. Thanks for posting.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
cert still active ->https://pcgs.com/cert/40047031
still listed on eBay ->https://ebay.com/itm/394379768857?hash=item5bd2ddb419:g:mpMAAOSwYx5jb0Ie&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoG%2BBtdMp5D1C0Oq3FnVjYonD9TagzgfPxGv9J2iWzj5eOr2B4J7rXmwABldHmxHgOcdTyjrSTs0dT1QowCSt48KR9yKTbl9AKPPL5iWf88L7UyPEtQ%2BuDqySTMVW86ljpZRdPY5J858mmRTfV7Ar52RSH%2FeBDXk6pTpjxURhbXYmQUL19GVJqnZ%2FS6pa2i1A2naiMfc4smfAi7YOc1sQKyE%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_ySj_WwYQ
eBay listing pulled -> This listing was ended by the seller because the item is no longer available.
I’m still seeing it up, and I was in contact with DLRC today. They said they are still waiting on a determination from PCGS.
Link:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/204215923669?mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&siteid=0&mkcid=1&campid=5338200483&mkevt=1
Coin Photographer.
Perhaps applying an acid that etches the coin, but it would have already been removed in the rinse.
@FlyingAl was any determination made about this coin?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
As far as I am aware it is still at PCGS for an appearance review.
Coin Photographer.
Any news about this coin yet?
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Not yet.
I have no idea how long an appearance review takes, and DLRC assured me that they would contact me when they received a decision from PCGS. Since it's only been three months and I haven't heard anything, I'd expect it'll be another 3-6 months before it can get through PCGS.
Coin Photographer.
@FlyingAl thanks.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
another early proof nonCam CAM?
https://ebay.com/itm/373721658830?hash=item57038bf5ce:g:a6UAAOSwChhhQOOY&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAA8Cp6lBwaS6w99WDJ2%2BRt%2FSRQCqsb2JBoH63iDblV4hTdoqe0%2Bc8qgfYNcRrEpaRJs85GjX%2BL5qMoDjp5LzQMUeUkAAp4yr71TILq4MOZEGkGOCeB2xGB7rsllGr3VtAbkauTd0Xxi5yTkncEyFsmQ%2FfRSCxtJHIH0su3qL8fSN4sLO2ab3DFaWzfcqiUXz0bwtXVk8ys6nY8sGIxoVeWV4cYYF34CMXp3AGZwadw2IzcZ6nKuIEFbq%2FEBmguqmr7bpymMpgRb2KEeSa0rdUGBLREOUGbXGbTgZiJZl2usqE2gTs3%2F5Qm2Ir8POu%2Bn7%2BcOg%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR77YxafjYQ
Great post flying Al.
I'm too tired to post much so I'll make this short and not so sweet. Back in the mid 70's when college kicked me out, I restarted collecting. 1938 Jeff's in Ms and pr were in my sights because at first you could buy them for as little as a buck. Proofs a little more.
I always looked at the steps and boy were they mushy almost all the time.
The coin in question, pr68cam has mushy steps and for an early coin with cam, that just doesn't compute in my mind. I don't know when the cam goes away but all those early pr strikes from a fresh die should have hammered steps. I have MS 38jeffs with better steps than that proof.
Just my 2 cents. Carry on.
Per Stacks Bowers this piece was the one and only CAM for this date in 2011: auctions.stacksbowers.com/1942-jefferson-nickel-type-i-proof-65-cameo-pcgs-cac-secure-holder
That's scary. I've been told many times that these professionals -- 3 of them -- will catch these things 99.99% of the time evein within 10-15 seconds.
I've been a stickler for stating it's tough, even for a professional who has done this for years, to be near-perfect given human error, eye fatigue, body fatigue, lighting being off, etc.
I think the assembly-line rapidity needs to slow down to catch these things even if it interferes with the business models. You can't tell me another 20-30 seconds looking at these coins wouldn't help.
@streeter I think mushy steps on 38 Jeff's is the norm. I dont think it depends on the die being worn. Of course worn dies won't help either.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
A fresh proof cameo Jeff should have the best steps of all. I have Ms 38 Jeff with better strike. And that tells me this proof coin is not early which would have been necessary to have that cam effect.
You don't have to be a detective to follow the bread crumbs on this.
Another update:
The coin is still at PCGS for review (they got it in early January of this year). I will continue to update if I receive any information.
The cert is still active.
Coin Photographer.
Are we looking for excuses here or are we looking for facts?
The fact is that the new Jefferson Nickels came out in the same year as the Buffalo ended.
The excuse is that the changeover rushed the preparation and production of the new coin, with obvious results.
Pete
January…interesting.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook