1961 Franklin halves, DCAM, Cameo or Brilliant?
SanctionII
Posts: 12,253 ✭✭✭✭✭
Your thoughts?
3
SanctionII
Posts: 12,253 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
I would guess both CAM. I don't think enough contrast for DCAM.
Collector, occasional seller
I'd also call them both CAM.
Coin Photographer.
They both should be CAM, but PCGS obviously disagrees.
Type collector, mainly into Seated. -formerly Ownerofawheatiehorde. Good BST transactions with: mirabela, OKCC, MICHAELDIXON, Gerard
Cam
Definitely Cam. The cameos back then although rarer have much more character to them than the cameos that come out today.
Both half dollars graded Proof 67.
Neither are Cameo, according to PCGS.
I would have guessed at least CAM too. However, in my mind, PCGS has really tightened up a LOT over the past year, whether on grading raw coins, or on Reconsideration!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Wow, I am speechless.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
The coins are what they are, the pictures are what they are.
Cam.
Stunners....
Pretty sure I have a Kennedy Half that I am sure will fall just shy of CAM.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Yep, they are as tight now as my ex's pocketbook.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Wow, I would have guess CAM at a minimum and a really good shot at DCAM. Those look really nice by the way.
Here is my Washington Quarter Variety Registry Set
This is my Washington Quarter Proof Variety Registry Set
Nice coins...I have had a '61 Proof half sitting here on my desk for a few weeks now and admiring it for it's subtle rim toning. Now I realize it is nothing special without the frost!
K
My limited understanding is the reverse lettering- especially STATES OF AMERICA is looked at much more carefully and if those letters don't have a strong contrast the entire coin doesn't get the designation.
Beautiful coins for sure and I personally think they are worthy of the CAMEO designation.
peacockcoins
Even without the CAM designation on the holders, when it comes time to sell these would surely bring more than run of the mill brilliant proofs.
Collector, occasional seller
@Maywood said:
The coins are what they are, the pictures are what they are.
I thought about his post; and respond to it with his own words (slightly modified by me) in a reply he posted to my thread on two 1957 Cameo proof nickels. In that thread.....
@Maywood said:
But are they really Cameo?? (and my slight variation to his statement is...... But are they really Brilliant??......).
The Trueview photos of the two coins are fine, but they do not show the two coins as they really are when viewed in hand under good lighting.
Primarily the photos show the reverse devices as having frost at a Cameo level (IMO), but only when the coins are positioned in a certain way. If one rotates the coins under good lighting the thickness of the frost on the reverse devices fluctuates. More than anything it is my belief that this factor caused PCGS to not award a Cameo designation to either coin.
I do agree that if these coins were marketed for sale as PF67 examples, both would likely sell for much more than the price a standard PF67 truly brilliant proof 1961 half dollar would bring.
As far as the Brilliant designation awarded by PCGS to the two coins goes, in this case I disagree with our host. In hand both coins are so eye catching and fully contrasted (even with the fluctuating level of frost on the reverse devices) that I would award a Cameo designation to both (of course since I own the two coins I am biased, since ownership adds a designation
)
Perhaps Maywood will favor us with his own opinion on whether the two coins are really Brilliant (based upon his review of the photos only?).
While searching for raw Cameo proof Franklins I have made Cameo examples of all dates and major varieties (16 total), except four of them. I have been unable to find and make Cameo examples of the 1956 Type 1, 1959, 1961 and 1961 DDR. I have submitted some 1959 and 1961 halves that IMO warrant a Cameo designation, but our host disagrees. So I have an unfinished task to work on. One of these days I will find and make Cameo examples of the 1956 Type 1, 1959 and 1961. As for the 1961 DDR in Cameo,............................. fuggidaboutit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obviously pictures make them look better than they are.
Here's my 59 that didn't make cam either...........
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"