First Cameo 1936 Half Dollar Certified
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,305 ✭✭✭✭✭
While it may seem insignificant, this opens the door for a not insignificant portion of 1936 Proof half dollars to now be called Cameo. It should also open the door for some 1937 coins.
It seems PCGS and CAC are finally willing to relax a bit on what has been the tightest graded series of CAM coins in US numismatics. Coins like the above have traditionally ended up in non-designated holders for several dates and denominations.
Coin Photographer.
26
Comments
Nice looking Proof Walker.
Assuming of course that in hand the coin looks like it does in the True View photo, IMO if the coin was a Franklin or a Kennedy half it would never have received a CAM designation.
The devices are not fully and evenly frosted (the flag, Lady Liberty's gown, the rock pinnacle and the eagle's feathers).
The sun and rays on the obverse do not appear to have any frost at all.
so they no longer require frost on the sun?
As far as I’m aware, that was never a requirement.
Coin Photographer.
So they no longer require frost on in god we trust?
I was under the impression that no frost on the sun was a killer. That one (picture) has no sun frost. Very nice coin but a gift for the designation
Martin
From what I have seen, at least half of currently designated coins do not show sun frost.
Coin Photographer.
Extremely nice looking cameo Proof Walker. Explain to me what would constitute your 1936 cameo as opposed to these 1937, 1938 and 1939 frosted walkers. Are there any subtle differences keeping these coins out of that designation now that the “doors been opened”, so to speak?
I’m not being a wise-guy - taking both sides of each coin into account, the 1936 looks to have more frost and contrast.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@FlyingAl said: While it may seem insignificant, this opens the door for a not insignificant portion of 1936 Proof half dollars to now be called Cameo. It should also open the door for some 1937 coins.
It seems PCGS and CAC are finally willing to relax a bit on what has been the tightest graded series of CAM coins in US numismatics. Coins like the above have traditionally ended up in non-designated holders for several dates and denominations.
I don't see this as cause for any type of celebration unless maybe you're the submitter who will reap the reward. There is a constant droning on about grade-flation, relaxing standards, over-grading, under-grading, inconsistent grading, etc and it's been going on for 20+ years. So which is it??
This is a large part of the problem that has driven me away from standard issue US coinage and into Exonumia.
The 1936 coin is beautiful!.
It really accentuates the feathers on the Eagle.
Pete
Interesting. It is a nice half, but I don' think I'd go as far as calling it a cameo. The bar shouldn't slide because of non-existence in a certain issue. Isn't this sort of coin exactly what a plus grade is for?
Collector, occasional seller
No, this is a coin for ngc’s star. Almost cameo, nice surfaces, special coin, but doesn’t quite make the cameo designation.
I’m wondering if Ian should pull this auction and let cac review it to implement their guarantee? The buyer is going to be deceived.
Steve says:
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
If the buyer views the images and they’re accurate, he’s certainly not going to be deceived.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't necessarily see this as a good thing either - my post was more informative. The bar is now seemingly lower for these coins, and here I don't personally think they got it right. This coin should be in a non-designated PCGS holder or an NGC star holder like the rest of the 1936s before it.
Coin Photographer.
This is a good point - no need to pull the coin.
I do think the submitter got some luck here though, especially with the bean. Might be time to start sending contrasted 1938s, 1939s, and 1942s that didn't CAM yet back to PCGS and CAC.
Coin Photographer.
To illustrate the points above earlier, and to show that I'm not making this up, please enjoy the below non-designated coins. You'll notice quite quickly that in addition to contrast, they are all from the same die pair, and all show the same weakness on the rays and flag from overpolishing of the dies.
But to start.... the OP coin. In a... 65 CAC holder. I suppose I can't prove my point better, and I had a hunch this would be the case. Same coin, but no designation in the old holder. Which one is right?
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-walking-liberty-half-dollars/1936-50c-pr64-pcgs-pcgs-population-639-835-ngc-census-401-736-mintage-3-901-numismedia-wsl-price-for-problem-fre/a/131612-27122.s?hdnJumpToLot=1&x=0&y=0
PR64 CAC - dead on match to OP.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/419700/1936-Walking-Liberty-Half-Dollar-PCGS-Proof-64-CAC-Green#gallery-1
PR65 CAC Norweb - dead on match to OP.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-walking-liberty-half-dollars/1936-50c-pr65-pcgs-cac/a/1294-3640.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#
PCGS PR64 - Dead on match again.
PCGS 65:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/608406/1936-Walking-Liberty-Half-Dollar-PCGS-Proof-65-OGH#gallery-1
PCGS 64 CAC:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/300118/1936-Walking-Liberty-Half-Dollar-PCGS-Proof-64-CAC-Green#gallery-2
NGC PR66:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-walking-liberty-half-dollars/1936-50c-pr66-ngc/a/1367-3333.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
PCGS PR66:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-walking-liberty-half-dollars/1936-50c-pr66-pcgs/a/1319-3186.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
All of these were found in about a half hour of looking, and I've only scraped the surface of what's out there.
Coin Photographer.
PCGS should want that coin back. Or make a statement that their standard for CAM has changed for the series
Martin
When I think of Proof Walking Liberty half dollars that warrant a Cameo designation this one (owned by Skyman) always comes to mind:
I have seen this coin and held it in my hands multiple times. In hand the frosted devices look better/thicker than they do in the above photos.
Other Proof Walkers that have received a Cameo designation (that I have seen photos of) do not come close in quality to Skyman's coin.
This 1938 Proof Walker received a Cameo designation from our host.
This 1939 Proof Walker received a Cameo designation from our host.
These 1942 Proof Walkers received a Cameo designation from our host.
Do you think any of these coins deserve to be awarded the designation?
I have submitted many Franklin and Kennedy proof half dollars to our host for grading since 2021 that I thought warrant a Cameo designation. Our host disagreed and did not award the designation to them. Examples are set forth below.
Reviewing photos of the above Proof Walkers (excluding Skyman's 1938) and comparing them to the True View photos of the Kennedy and Franklin halves set forth below causes me to scratch my head about what the grading standard is for awarding a Cameo designation to 1936 through 1970 Proof and SMS coinage. It is difficult to determine if there is any standard; and if there is, it is difficult to articulate same (verbally or in print) an a manner that can be understood (with the reader, upon learning same, saying I NOW GET IT AND IT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE).
This 1964 Proof AH Kennedy (graded 2 years ago) did not receive a Cameo designation.
This 1964 Proof Kennedy (graded less than1 year ago) did not receive a Cameo designation.
These 1953 Proof Walkers (graded 2 years ago) did not receive a Cameo designation
These 1955 Proof Franklins (graded less than a year ago) did not receive a Cameo designation.
This 1959 Proof Walker (graded in 2021) did not receive a Cameo designation.
This 1959 Proof Walker (graded 1 year ago) did not receive a Cameo designation.
This 1960 Proof Walker (graded less than 1 year ago) did not receive a Cameo designation.
These 1961 Proof Walkers (graded less than 1 year ago) did not receive a Cameo designation.
These 1961 Proof Walkers (graded 1 year ago) did not receive a Cameo designation.
These 1962 Proof Walkers (graded less than 1 year ago) did not receive a Cameo designation.
This 1963 Proof Franklin (graded less than 1 year ago) did not receive a Cameo designation.
There are of course examples of Proof Franklins and Kennedys that did receive a Cameo designation when it appears the coin did not deserved same.
For example, this 1950 half.
Some Proof coins warrant the designation and do not receive it. Some other Proof coins do not warrant the designation and do receive it.
Such is the nature of coin grading (an area of human endeavor that is subjective that produces a single data point [the Opinion of a grader as of a single point in time] on the state of preservation of a coin), which is a foundational lynch pin of the hobby.
I have many times in the past posted comments about the topic of what is or is not a Cameo. This current thread about the 1936 Walker that was awarded the designation grabbed my attention and caused me to post this long comment, plus photos. In doing so I invite others to contribute their thoughts and opinions on the topic.
Have fun with your coins:)
@SanctionII - generally, proofs from 36-42 are not graded on the same contrast standard as any other year, so it’s unfair to compare them to anything but themselves.
Coin Photographer.
Or get more people to understand and/or accept that grading is subjective and can be inconsistent.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
FlyingAl.
Your point is a good one.
However, who is to say whether the 36-42 proofs (and for example proofs from 1906 back in time) should or should not be graded on the same contrast standard as later produced proofs?
Why should 36-42 proofs be treated/graded differently, and why is it unfair to compare them to other years? Who makes this decision?
is it because of the 19 year gap between 1917 and 1935 between proof production at the mint (meaning in 1936 there were few if any mint employees with knowledge and experience in the production of proof coins; and thus the mint employees chosen to produce proofs in the 1936-1942 time period had to learn from scratch, via trial and error during production runs)? [I can see some logic to this argument].
The entire hobby (much like other areas of human endeavor) is fluid and ever changing. Trends arise then disappear. Standards change as do collector tastes and interests. People participating in the hobby grow, age, ascend, descend as the years go by. All of what happens in the hobby makes it interesting for hobbyists, providing grist for watercooler discussions (even those discussions that happen on the forums).
For me the uncertainty in where the dividing line between non Cameo and Cameo coins (plus to a lesser degree the dividing line between Cameo and DCAM/UCAM coins) is a source of frustration and entertainment at the same time (in part because ownership adds a designation; when coins I submit for grading do not receive a Cameo designation I get irritated; and when they do receive a Cameo designation I get elated
)
If grading companies could somehow bottle those positive emotions into a legal drug, they'd make billions! They could call it Elate-a-grade
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@SanctionII - I see what you’re saying - good points.
Generally these CAMs are so rare for the series (usually only a small handful for mintages of several thousand+, and the process for making the Proofs was considerably different than other years due to a lack of experience in mint workers. It’s almost like it’s own island in a sense. Generally, that seems to carry over.
As such, you usually can’t compare them to other Proofs due to the difference in manufacture.
While I understand that this makes the hobby fun, I think the TPGs should eliminate inconsistencies when they can. With these Proofs, it’s possible to grade CAMs aided by die pairings, and instances such as this would not necessarily happen any more.
Coin Photographer.
I have reviewed these multiple times, and I believe that the graders must forget to add cameo to the holder.
By the way, what are the parallel striations on the bust of the 1960.
God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.
There was frost on the sun, but it melted.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
sadly, with the current inconsistency of True Views it is not possible to compare frost levels from their pics.
OK. That was funny.
Martin
On the ‘36-4X proofs is the cameo designation more like “early die state” than an actual reflection of the frost on the coin? At least in comparison to Franklins/Kennedys?
I was curious how the position of the light (only one in my case) would impact the devices and particularly the sun. I thought it was a little interesting and wondered what some of these look like in hand with the ability to tilt/rotate. Also if one focused on maximizing the cameo how much change could appear in a photo of these.
I updated a prior thread just to keep them together (easier to find - for me
).
It is updated in the first post (OP) with the Walker but it is a MS (not proof) but shows how different devices light up or not from different light positions. Of course as a MS it is not cameo. Thought some others might find it of interest or not.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1086726/ike-dollar-cameo-versus-photo-position-update-with-walker-added/p1?new=1
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Just another inconsistency? Actually not. When something is rare or hardly exists, lower the standards. If that were a franklin...
And don't give me any excuses. There are plenty of full, complete cameo coins dating back well before 1936.
So IMHO, this is just another case of TPGS making grading difficult for us. After all, when you change a standard (FULL FROST) for one series like FBL (both sets) for Franklins it means more resubmissions and more money.
Buy the slab and find a sucker.
PS I just added a new book to my collection (buy the book and not the coin). JD has a new one Nickels.
They are still proofs, but different manufacture shouldn't be a loophole for calling them cameo. I can, in fact, compare them to other proofs when it comes to attributing a universal designation.
Its the opposite. The higher the value, the higher the probability that they would be more scrutenous and reluctant to "make" another condition rarity, which we all know has an impact on the value of the issues. Many rarities are otherwise known as "protected dates", and much tougher to upgrade than a rainbow toned 81-s morgan in 64.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Unless, of course, you're talking about uber rarities that are unique or only a few survive, at which point theyll be graded with clemency with regard to giving it a details grade. The grading of those coins doesnt really matter to me, but the former scenario is something i'm quite familiar with.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Current bid with BP is now over $11K!!!! At the time the current high bidder placed that bid, that was his max bid. We know this, since he exceeded the current underbidders max bid by less than the current bid increment. Naturally, he may have placed a new higher max bid since then.
Over 11 hours left!
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
Nearly triple what it went for last time.
This is a FANTASTIC example of "buying the holder".
Coin Photographer.
Current bid with the buyers premium is over $17k, with almost four hours still to go! WOW!
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
@FlyingAl
I’m guessing last time it sold it was not in a cam holder, same grade?
Thanks
Martin
This was posted earlier in the thread by @FlyingAl:
But to start.... the OP coin. In a... 65 CAC holder. I suppose I can't prove my point better, and I had a hunch this would be the case. Same coin, but no designation in the old holder. Which one is right?
Corrected link:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-walking-liberty-half-dollars/1936-50c-pr65-pcgs-cac/a/1225-4645.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark, for some reason the link in my post was wrong.
Here's the correct one:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-walking-liberty-half-dollars/1936-50c-pr65-pcgs-cac/a/1225-4645.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
Coin Photographer.
@FlyingAl @MarkFeld
Thanks
Martin
Thanks, Alex and corrected accordingly.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Even assuming that the grade and designation were a gift, you cannot draw conclusions on the basis of a single coin submission.
And regardless of the designation, the coin is extremely frosted for the date and type. There aren’t but a limited number of frosted coins, and even without the designation, the coin is worthy of spirited bidding and worth much more than the average 1936.
And before anyone asks, I am not the consignor. I do think it would have been preferable to post this thread after bidding ended however.
The quality of imaging varies a lot, and you are comparing photos from many different sources. Unless you have seen them in hand, you can’t draw conclusions.
Realized $18,562.50 with buyer’s premium
Any thoughts on whether this helps the price of the other PF65 cameos for other dates? I realize the 1936 is a better date but there was apparently a $14k premium for designation and sticker and I doubt there are many collectors working on a date set of cameo Walkers.
A 1942 NGC PF65 cameo dime sold for just north of $2.8k tonight as well. It seems like there is strong demand for designated 1936-1942 designated cameo coinage.
Die pairings are fairly conclusive.
Regardless, the thing was undesignated beforehand. It's a $14k plastic/sticker bump. Huge congrats to the submitter, but the shift from not designating these to suddenly doing so is unexpected to say the least.
IMO - it's time to crack and send all liner 36-42 near CAMs to PCGS right now.
Coin Photographer.
If only they would recognize CAM on RB cents.
Collector, occasional seller
Die pairings are irrelevant to whether a coin is cameo or not. It doesn’t preclude a cameo from a different die pairing from coming forward. Potential cameos result from the first few coins struck with decreasing amount of frost after each strike at initial use or after polishing.