1938 Lincoln Proof CAM or DCAM????

DMWJR

Thanks to Barry and his new DCAM nickel, I was encouraged enough to put a couple of pics up and see what you guys think -- yes this coin will be in the Lincoln Proof showdown in New York in February. This picture has NOT been altered, and looks just like what you see. Apparently the light reflected just below the obverse rim so there is a slight lighted line parallel with the rim that is not on the coin.

This coin is already designated as a CAM by PCGS. It was early in the process, and MAYBE they would consider it a DCAM. There are no DCAM's prior to 1950, so that will be a small roadblock. Look at the coin and please give me honest feedback. Sorry Don Merz, but this one is special in a different way than your 37 in 66CAM.

saynotoACG

pr63 cam. Lots of bagmarks, see cheek

DMWJR

Maybe I should make a better picture. It's not as "baggy" as it looks in this picture. It's already in a PCGS 66 holder, and I would submit properly graded. I was trying to capture the essence of the cameo -- without manipulating the picture to make the devises glow.

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Doug,

Photos or images online suck !!!!!!! You would be frustrating yourself trying to convince board members.

I did not know the showdown was set for february in New York.
BJ told me PCGS needed to wait until after the Indian cent "Showdown" to make plans for future "Showdowns"

Neither myself nor anyone I know has ever seen a 1936-1958 Lincoln cent that would qualify for a D Cam.Your set is getting better every time I look at it.You've added a 1942 in proof 65 cam.

Stewart

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

I need to correct myself.No one I know has seen a 1936-1942 cent in D Cam.
Stewart

CarlWohlforth

That is a nice looking Lincoln! It is super cool to see those earlier Lincolns with cameo contrast. This one doesn't seem to have as much frost as later DCAM Lincolns I am familiar with. I would be happy with a plain Cam!!!

DMWJR

I guess I was assuming too much on a February showdown, but I hope they agree to it so I can see your set. I would love to have your opinion on this coin. It has the "look" whether PCGS would DCAM it or not. I can take pictures macro pictures with my microscope which look great for detail, but I can't capture cameo effect worth a crap (at least not without enhancing the picture)

I will bring it to the Long Beach show and let you see it there. I got my plane ticket and room yesterday.

I added the 52 in 67CAM yesterday, and I still have a nice 1951 waiting in the wings. I posted a thread about it called "What would you do with a pop 1/0 . . . but . . . ."

wondercoin

Doug: Look at your "In God We Trust". Barely cameo at all - right? This brings up an iinteresting question. Let's assume the portrait, date, etc was a VERY NICE STRONG cameo, except "In God We Trust" had no cameo at all. Is this another situation Braddick refers to with a grading company excusing a "tiny" problem? Or, is the coin NOT cameo?

Will the grading of 1936-1942 cameos basically be "substance over form"? Throw the designation definition away in exchange for a "common-sensical" approach - if the coin has NEARLY all pertinent parts nice cameo, it is OK to excuse a non-cameo portion. If a coin has NEARLY every pertinent area NICELY DCAM except some "tiny" areas of virtually no cameo, that's OK as well for DCAM? Very interesting indeed.

Wondercoin

DMWJR

WC: That was my initial question on BNE's thread (Drum Roll . . . ) discussing the DCAM proof nickel.

Here was BNE's thought, to which I agree:

I do agree with those who have observed that the written PCGS guidelines may have been loosened a bit for this coin. If it were a 1963, one could safely say if would only be a CAM. But it is a matter of line-drawing, as many have observed, and I am not going to second-guess PCGS for its decision here. One could extrapolate from the limited data so far that pre-'50 CAMs do not have to be "as" CAM or DCAM as their later brethren to get the designation.

Frankly, I was skeptical that PCGS would DCAM ANY 36-42 proofs, before I read that thread.
Link to Drum Roll

I will examine IGWT on the coin tonight. I was more concerned about the limited frost on the reverse as compared to a 1955 67DCAM that I have. Hence the question of "loosening" the standards for pre-50 CAMs and DCAMs.

wondercoin

"I will examine IGWT on the coin tonight. I was more concerned about the limited frost on the reverse as compared to a 1955 67DCAM that I have. Hence the question of "loosening" the standards for pre-50 CAMs and DCAMs."

Doug: You needn't be concerned with the "limited frost on the reverse" as far as I know. PCGS has basically determined that only the front of the 1950-1964 wheat cent matters as far as the cameo or DCAM designation. I have no reason to believe they would be harder on 1936-42 wheats than their 1950-1964 brethren.

Now, this is very interesting indeed. A 1950 or 1953 or 1959 Lincoln only needs obverse cameo contrast to be deemed cameo, while the nickel, dime, quarter and half of the same date need front and back cameo contrast. Another example of "line drawing". I own a 1950 Lincoln in a PCGS-PR65CAM holder that has VERY STRONG reverse cameo as well. I think it is a very neat coin because of the strong two sided cameo. Shouldn't this coin have a great deal more value than a 1950 Lincoln with only 1 sided cameo? I think so. Wondercoin.

DMWJR

WC: IGWT, as well as all other devices have nice heavy frost. Here is a picture of "WE" which I hope will show you the frost.

BNE

Go for it, Doug!

littlewicher

It's a very nice coin. In my opinion it wouldn't go DCAM. It probably would if you sent it to ACG, though.

merz2

Doug
Compare it to the 1937.I don;t think it is a PR66 either.I agree with PCGS on the CAM though.The CAM designation shouldn't effect the grade.The strike and any imperfections should.As Stewart says"it is hard to tell from Pics.So I'll refrain from guessing a grade.

DMWJR

The picture is pitiful, I'll agree.

saynotoacg: obviously, proofs weren't bagged, so there are no bag marks resulting from coins sloshing around.

Secondly, the "apparent" indentations on the cheek are filled with frost indicating minor planchet flaws, and not contact marks. The horizontal indentation across the top of the cheekbone is not the result of contact, as that would have removed the frost. The strike is full, and the die heavily polished. I guess you guys can see for yourself if PCGS will hold a showdown.

There is one small scratch running northeasterly along the front of the cheek, but then again it is only graded 66, and not a perfect coin.

Don, in my opinion, the 1938 has no more marks than the 1937. Truly a bad job on the photo.

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Doug,

Relax....take it easy.........and when we have the "SHOWDOWN"

I own the 1938 graded Proof 67 Cameo


Stewart

DMWJR

. . . (clunk) . . .

That's the sound of me falling out of my chair. I can't wait to see it.

oldcameoproofsguy

The most exciting part of the forums is grading coins from really crappy scans. The obverse looks like a solid CAM+ possibly even DCAM- but my feeling is that the reverse looks CAM- at best, therefore the coin will probably not grade DCAM. It does look like a solid CAM overall though

It would be sweet to own a pre-1950 Lincoln with that much cameo contrast. Very nice coin!

My Barbers