Deleted. Waiting For Auction To End.
Walkerlover
Posts: 934 ✭✭✭✭
.
0
Walkerlover
Posts: 934 ✭✭✭✭
Comments
It’s considered inappropriate to discuss the merits of a coin currently up for auction.
Paging @FlyingAl...
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Thanks for the mention Tom!
I mostly agree with the second comment, so I plan to reserve my thoughts until the end of the auction. I have been tracking this one for a couple weeks now.
Coin Photographer.
@Walkerlover
You could probably revive this thread now.
The coin is lovely, and pretty much every 1937 5c in CAM traces back to this die pair. Generally, the deeper the mirrors with these the earlier the strike, and the frost is fairly stable over the CAMs. I think whoever won this one will be quite happy.
However, collectors with a sharp eye can get the same quality for a fraction of the price. This PR67 outclasses the CAM IMO.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1745938/1937-Buffalo-Nickel-PCGS-Proof-67
Coin Photographer.
Very nice coin. But CAMs are tough to find.
He’s very well aware of that. I think his point was, that although the coin he linked isn’t designated Cameo, it exhibits contrast very similar to the one that was. But despite that, because of the lack of the designation, it will sell for a lot less.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's nice. But it's not cameo. If you want a cameo, that ain't it. A nice 65 will be even cheaper... but it's still just a 65.
I must strongly disagree.
PCGS PR66CAM:
PCGS PR67:
Coin Photographer.
So you're saying PCGS got it wrong? It doesn't look full cameo to me but I'm not a huge fan of making definitive determinations from photos.
Yes, I am saying PCGS got it wrong. Those two photos are taken in nearly identical conditions, and they are about as perfect of a match you can get.
Coin Photographer.
The PR66CAM Looks to have "flyspecks", That PR67 looks "PQ" and cameo-ish.
.
Than by the same logic a MS 65 1926D SLQ just miss Full Head could be bought for a fraction of the cost of a true full head quarter and afford the same value and virtually the same look. I disagree that coin you mentioned looks as good as the cameo in that auction. Maybe close but same idea as the SLQ example I just mentioned
Alex, you should have posted pictures that didn’t show which coin was designated “cameo”. That way you would have gotten unbiased feedback.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
ok.
someone posted a link to an open auction instead of waiting, again
now an example: "then only buy coins already cac'd"
second comment, why is anyone telling him to buy a non-cam looker even though he wants a cam?
Mark, I’ve done that several times, and it doesn’t really make a difference in the long run.
Coin Photographer.
These are the photos to the link you provided.
Photo of the cam coin. People can get another perspective from the actual coins in their holders
looks like the non-cam has the contrast but not the mirrors
I think Flying Al is mistaken if he feels these are equivalent, jmo. Obverse definitely not
i'm not entirely happy with the snow thickness on the cam
this one you probably will need to see in person to be entirely happy after buying it
Please circle the areas of differing contrast on the GreatPhotos. I'm sure not seeing it.
Coin Photographer.
Perhaps the reason for dissent has to do with the apparent slight toning on the 67, which probably has nothing to do with the actual Cameo issue?
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
Gasp, and clutches pearls
Do you think that was the first time the 66 was graded? With the majority of these tough-to-make proofs, PCGS gets it "wrong" a dozen times before they get it "right". > @FlyingAl said:
+1, Neither am I.
@flyingal knows his niche better than anyone I've ever known, down to every last die marriage of every issue. Not sure why some cant fathom that a large percentage of currently graded coins will have a different grade 10 years from now. "Frost" doesn't have to be white, and if you dipped the 67, it would look identical but with less contact marks.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Perhaps, though I personally find the toning very attractive.
Yes, please do. I’m not seeing it either.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But isn't that a different point? Your original comment reads that you can find a 67 non-CAM that "looks just as nice". Now you're saying, it would be better to have a mislabeled 67 that is cheaper. Sure.
It is certainly possible PCGS got it wrong. But that is a different point. He said it would be better to find a 67 that looks just as nice. Now he's saying, hold out for a cameo that is mislabeled.
As for the contrast, it may be the photos but the mirrors do not appear fully developed in the top of the obverse and on the right side of the reverse. But they may be and it may be mislabeled. I don't think photos are definitive. But if it is, that's fine.
But I'm still not sure what the point is. You want a cameo, it would be better to find one mislabeled? You want a cameo, cheaper to buy it raw and submit it? You want a cameo, buy a 65 CAM and get an upgrade? The point is not that a 67 non-CAM can be as nice as a 66 CAM which is how the original comment read.
That was my feeling. But I don't think i would make a definite determination from photos.
I don't know what the mirrors look like in hand. But the Cameo designation relates to frost and contrast, not how deep the mirrors are. "Cameo Proof: A proof coin that displays a frosted looking, milky-white surface to all, or most raised portions of the design. To qualify as a Cameo both the obverse and reverse must exhibit main devices which are clearly frosted and create a contrast between fields and devices."
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not a fan of the "either/or" school of thought. Judging from the pictures the subject coin appears to have LESS contrast to my eyes and evidently others' as well. This is both obverse and reverse and not withstanding the bit of toning on the subject coin. Which is not to say none on it, just less.
And of course there is the artifact of photography and adjustments compared to "in-hand" viewing. I would not do it with this coin but interestingly oxidative toning on nickel or CuNi coins can be diminished with appropriate short exposure to (ie 5 minutes +/-) base solutions such as a clean, non-contaminated ammonia.
Even though it may not make a difference to not identify which coins were designated as which, appropriate scientific method would be to remove as much bias as possible.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Yes, but to my eye it diminished the contrast in those areas. At least in the photos. But, as I've said, I wouldn't rule out a cameo designation.
@Walkerlover
The GreatPhotos please, the large images. The slab shots have too much of a variation in photographic technique.
Coin Photographer.
I’m saying you should buy the coin, not the holder, and then get that right coin in that right holder. You’re far too fixated on what the plastic currently says.
Coin Photographer.
Not at all. I buy far more raw coins than slabs.
So why would you not want to buy a coin that is equal to a graded CAM at a fraction of the price? Chances are when you get it regraded it'll CAM anyways.
Coin Photographer.
I didn't say that I wouldn't. Again, I'm not 100% convinced it is cameo. But it was more confusion about what you said. You didn't say that you could find a 67 non-cam and regrade it as CAM. You said you could find a 67 that was "just as nice", not "just as cameo".
I agree. Lighting can make a cameo look much deeper or less contrast. It depends a lot on the amount and angles
No, I’m asking you to show the areas of differing frost on the GreatPhotos, because a lot of us aren’t seeing it.
Coin Photographer.
I already circled the area most prominent. But maybe you and some others are correct in your analysis. Just the way it appears to me.