Pop, Coin #, CAM/DCAM questions (Warning: SQ-Related!)

ClarkOfKent

Anyone who abhors the collection of state quarters, please leave now!

I've got 2 SQs here. One PR69CAM, one PR69DCAM.
1. Does the unique number on each slab in any way indicate when it was slabbed? Basically, does a larger number indicate a more recent slabbing?
2. If the numbers do indicate relative time-o-slabbing, do you think PCGS is becoming more liberal with the bestowing of DCAM? Check the scan. I can't see that the DCAM is any more cameo than the CAM.

I was checking the online pop report to see the numbers for CAM. There aren't any. I noticed that for many very recent coins there simply aren't any listings for CAM.... only DCAM. What's up with that?
So, I used the method mentioned by robertpr in a previous thread,

<< <i>try going to the pop report page and in the upper right corner, where it says "lookup by pcgs number" >>

.
The coin number for the CAM, 813029, doesn't return anything. The coin number for the DCAM, 913029, returns the correct info.

When I did a 'Cert Verification', the CAM came back correctly.

I'm coinfused. Does PCGS not think SQ CAMs are worthy of listing in the pop report? Did they decide, at some point, that all SQs are DCAM, regardless? I, honestly, can't tell the difference between the CAM and DCAM. I don't think either of them, when viewed in-hand, are deserving of DCAM.

Here's the two coins. The scan makes them look more cameo than they really are.



Here's an obscenely large scan of the 2 coins

coinrookie

The frost looks a bit heavier on the dcam obverse. Could just be the pics.

Gilbert

This is merely speculation, but, it seems you had a little more trouble keeping the reflectivity down in the DCAM coin (notice more stray colors); maybe it has to do with the reflectivity of the fields, i. e., deeper mirrors, OR, it could merely be a matter of chance. Maybe its a matter of two different graders.

The frost does appear about the same, but there seems to be a difference in the fields, and thus CONTRAST, which helps to discern avg contrast vs deep contrast. Remember, I am just speculating.

ClarkOfKent

I've noticed, when scanning proofs, that the slightest tilt of the coin in the holder can make a good scan, or an impossible scan.

I know I'm being a little picky on this... just trying to learn.

Anyone have any clue why the CAMs aren't listed in the pop report? And, the Coin Number reference only lists numbers for DCAM.

BNE

I don't think the numbering system is sequential, per se. So I don't think you can draw any conclusions about grading trends from slab numbers.

There are no CAM proof numbers for the State Quarters (or brilliant numbers, either) because it is pretty much assumed that all proofs coming out these days (and even moreso as to ones being submitted for slabbing) are DCAM. I have encountered the same situation with pops for Jefferson nickels, which lack CAM and PR information after 1977. Since I am weird and trying to find the freaky brilliants for these late years, I contacted PCGS to get this information, and they e-mailed me the pops for the brilliant Jeffersons for those years. (Although I have since learned that they mistakenly include a lot of unattributed DCAMs, which, ironically, are a disappointment in this context.)

ClarkOfKent

BNE,



<< <i>it is pretty much assumed that all proofs coming out these days (and even moreso as to ones being submitted for slabbing) are DCAM >>



That's sorta the point I was trying to make. I'm theorizing that PCGS is just crankin' them all through as DCAMs. The one I have that is CAM could probably be cracked out and re-submitted, and come back a DCAM. Wouldn't be worth the fees, though. Besides... if my theory is true that they're giving out the DCAM quite liberally these days, I may have a rare, accurately graded CAM on my hands. After all, the pop report doesn't show any others graded as such! And the coin number 813029 doesn't even exist in their system!





Clark

BNE

Quick! Put it on eBay and tell people to L@@K!

Seriously, I get a kick out of those rare ones that are missing their requisite DCAMs or CAMs.

TomB

The coin number 813029 does exist, they just don't list it, perhaps do to space limitations in their system. They do this for many series. Take, for example, business strike Lincoln cents. A coin that is RD will have a number listed on this site but the corresponding coin in RB or BN will not necessarily have the number listed. The number still exists, they just don't list it. I don't know the exact reason why but that is how it's done. For your coins each DCAM starts with 9 while the CAM is the same number and starts with 8. For a business strike RB Lincoln the number might be 2859 while the RD Lincoln of the same date is coin number 2860. They may only list the 2860 number but they are both valid. The serial number of the individual coins will not, in general, give you good data as to when the coin was slabbed, however, the generation of the slab will help and it is evident that you have the newest generation slabs that have been used for less than one year.

PS: I don't in any way collect or sell SQs but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to try to help.

itsnotjustme

I think you can sneak a peak at the pop report by entering the coin in a registry set, then looking at the pop & pop higher. If you do this, I'd love to hear what they are.

DHeath

Clark,

Try the links below of two of my recent submissions sent on the same invoice. On the 64 quarter, the obverse is not strong enough to dcam. The 63 quarter on the right certainly is, but the reverse is better on the 64 (it would dcam). Look at the holders and see the results. PCGS liked the average cam 64 obverse with the dcam reverse as PR68 Cam. The 63 with the Dcam obverse and the below average cam reverse got no cam designation at all (a fair call, although the PR65 was a little tough). This question strongly points to the question of value sight-unseen. Personally, I like the look of the PR65 as much or more than the PR68 Cam.

Obverse
Reverse

ClarkOfKent

Thanks for the responses, folks.

TomB, looks like you've done your homework. And, I don't collect SQs either, but.... uh.... they do seem to be accumulating here. Don't know how that happened!

itsnotjustme, that was an excellent idea about the set registry. I tried it. It didn't list a pop or pop higher! I went back and added my DCAM one, and it showed the pop like it normally does. I guess those CAM pop numbers just aren't readily available.

DHeath, those are very sweet quarters. Personally, I'm leaning toward the '64. That reverse is frosty!

I have one lone, raw '64 quarter. It's of the flaming-blue-hair variety:



Clark