What would it have taken for this PR CAM 1971 Kennedy to achieve the DCAM status?
braddick
Posts: 24,178 ✭✭✭✭✭
In my mind's eye, this is about as close as possible to a DCAM without getting there.
What is missing in your opinion?
The difference between a CAM and a DCAM per the PCGS price guide in PR69 is $80. and 1K.
peacockcoins
0
Comments
Actually looks over graded as a 69
Here are a couple examples PCGS gives for a PR69 DCAM:
PR69 CAM:
peacockcoins
What is missing in your opinion?
The letter "D" between the 9 and C in the assigned grade, it's a mechanical error.
With a population of 508 in 69 CAM plus a price guide of $80 in 69 CAM vs $1,050 in 69 DCAM, it is almost certainly not a mechanical error.
As to why the CAM vs the DCAM, it could be fairly minor (small area where the frosting is just not strong enough). And it makes some sense that PCGS is less forgiving on a coin that isn't too common in 69 DCAM.
On most days, IMHO, you would probably see that coin in a 68DCAM insert.
Wondercoin
@U1chicago said: it is almost certainly not a mechanical error.
Lighten up, it was meant in jest. The coin looks more over-graded than under-graded, lots going on in the center of both sides, 1971 is a tough date for Kennedy Half-Dollars and I'm sure the OP knows that.
I can't tell you the number of times I've looked at a 1971 proof set with a frosty dcam Kennedy portrait. Only to be disappointed when the reverse is brilliant.
To me that coin is dcam all day based on those photos. However, as pointed out by others, it does not look like a 69 to me either. 68dcam is probably a fair grade, but I could also see a 67dcam if some of those scratches are not on the slab.
Of course, you have the option of cracking it out and resubmitting. Feeling lucky?
“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!
I'll provide better photos when this one arrives.
I believe much of the tics and specks seen are a result of the slab.
Although Mitch is probably correct in that if it is DCAM it is probably only then an MS68.
peacockcoins
I love how anyone claims to be able to tell a Prf69 and Prf68 from such low res photos. Must be nice to have Superman vision 😉
amazing how dark the fields can look when you reflect into the lens
Are you referring to the PR69CAM or the PCGS TrueViews (or both)?
peacockcoins
the sellers pics - when you get the coin, you will be ableto tell if it is a liner or lighting shot
The letters in Liberty may have held it back.
Good point.
My first go-to on these is the mintmark. If it is a strong cameo I know the rest of the coin has a shot.
Even DCAMs will have weak contrasted mintmarks (as evidenced by the TrueViews above).
peacockcoins
Reverse is weak for DCAM. You'll be able to find other examples that are graded 69DCAM with less contrast but that's the exception not the rule.
Also look how the lighting is all over the rim of the coin. This means the photographer was doing everything they could to make the cameo pop, looks like they may have adjusted brightness as well after photo was taken. In my opinion won't get 69DCAM.
Unattractive to me. Appears topped out. What’s all that around the rims - tarnish? Pass.
Start it on the bay at 99c?
Wow.. I have it's twin sitting in a proof set thinking I would crack it and send it in but I think I'm going to rethink that.
What you are looking at is an artifact of the photography. There is no tarnish around the rims.
Regarding eBay: It was a coin that started at 99c and I won it with a final bid of $29.00
peacockcoins