Home› PCGS Set Registry Forum

Ladies & Gentlemen, Hurry, Hurry, Hurry, Step right up, guess the PCGS grade!

RGLRGL Posts: 3,784 ✭
in PCGS Set Registry Forum
Grade posted today on this Proof 1954 Franklin half, with the photo representing an accurate portayal. Dare match your grading skills against the crew at Newport Beach? Guesses welcomed ... PCGS grade to be revealed, same forum time, same forum channel ...
The Ludlow Collection (DCAM/CAM)
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)

image

Comments

  • PlacidPlacid Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭
    PR 63 looking at the picture.
  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    68CAM. sweet coin and a good date. you have to love the clean fields!!

    al h.image
  • GaCoinGuyGaCoinGuy Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭✭
    PR67CAM........unless that smudge at the bottom of the obverse is a glare...........if it is, PR68CAM
    imageimage

  • andy007andy007 Posts: 475 ✭
    That looks like a Jeff Werlin picture, did you buy that from him on Ebay?

    Ok, PR67.
  • RGLRGL Posts: 3,784 ✭
    Yes, a Werlin coin and photo. And, if it matters, I felt his description and photo when dead on when the coin arrived ...
    The Ludlow Collection (DCAM/CAM)
    The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)

    image
  • MonstavetMonstavet Posts: 1,235 ✭✭
    Well, I think it is a PR68, no CAM or DCAM...too many areas of weakness in the frost. But still, nice to look at.
    Send Email or PM for free veterinary advice.
  • andy007andy007 Posts: 475 ✭
    Jeff is a good dealer and very honest on his opinions of a coin. Him and Tomaska are the experts in 1950-1970 cameo coins no doubt.
  • LakesammmanLakesammman Posts: 17,401 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If your luck is like mine, it came back in a body bag.
    "My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
  • TypetoneTypetone Posts: 1,621 ✭✭
    67CAM. No doubt.

    Greg
  • bennybravobennybravo Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭
    I'm guessing PR67 NOCAM, same reason as Monsta.From the pic, it looks like it's lacking just a little frost.Beautiful coin though.I hope it CAM'ed, and it's just the pic.

    https://www.ebay.com/mys/active

  • HuliganRSHuliganRS Posts: 345 ✭
    Agreed! 67 no cam.
    ">My PCGS Franklin Registry Set
  • RGLRGL Posts: 3,784 ✭
    Sorry, if I am short on patience tonight in light of the result, behold in all its glory a 1954 PR-63!

    Jeff, conservatively I thought, graded this a PR-65 CAM. I thought it to be a PR-66 CAM. But, there you have it ...

    I have been off a point either way or missed a non-CAM/CAM or CAM/DCAM designation on raw coins before, but two or three points and a CAM off? Never. I am not some newbie bundling off his new toys to PCGS. I bought a 54-63 run of raw Franklins from Jeff, all with some cameo contrast. I agreed with his assessment that the 54, 55 and 61 (a near DCAM) would CAM and that all of the coins would grade 65-67. I even thought the 56 and 63 had a shot at CAM.

    The results: 1954, 1959 = PR-63; 1958, 60, 61 = PR-64; 1963 = PR-65; 1955, 56, 57, 62 = PR-66.

    Unless these coins went to hazing-hell-in-a-handbasket during shipping, I do not know what is going on. I have been disappointed a point before in grading, but this? May the Almighty have mercy on anyone whose coins are graded on a Monday after the graders stagger in from their weekend benders ... Photo of all coins' obverses attached. Be afraid ... be very afraid. (To be fair, the '59 has hard to detect milk spots, I thought a 65 at worst. The 62 is a no-doubt DCAM obverse, but not a hint of CAM on reverse.)

    image
    The Ludlow Collection (DCAM/CAM)
    The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)

    image
  • LakesammmanLakesammman Posts: 17,401 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yep....your having my kind of luck with PCGS!image


    How do you get such nice pics of proofs/mirrors - any tricks??
    "My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
  • PlacidPlacid Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭
    I looked at the picture again more close this time.
    Is that a ding in the head in the shadow area above the ear in the bald area or part of the design?
  • bennybravobennybravo Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭
    OUCH!image

    https://www.ebay.com/mys/active

  • RGLRGL Posts: 3,784 ✭
    Placid: No damage or dings on that coin ... or any others, must be the photo.
    The Ludlow Collection (DCAM/CAM)
    The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)

    image
  • RGLRGL Posts: 3,784 ✭
    Placid: You disappoint me .. editing your PR-67/8 guess (and perhaps even CAM, I forget, but it was not was it is now) to a PR-63 after I posted the result ...
    The Ludlow Collection (DCAM/CAM)
    The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)

    image
  • osirisMMIIosirisMMII Posts: 225
    image Shocked but I shouldn't be......... I've got a '62 that's an easy CAM......... DCAM reverse - borderline DCAM obverse.......... and it's sittin' in a PCGS PR66 slab image
    ahhhh....... SODO MELVIN?????
  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    WOWZER!!!!!!!

    this one needs some forum discussion. i know i have a little difficulty in picking out hairlines, but to receive a PR63 there should be obvious hairlines for us to see even in the scan. my only self-doubt was what others expressed, some weakness in the frost. to be honest, i've seen weaker frost with the CAM designation and i OWN jefferson's with DCAM that are evenly but weakly frosted.

    what i do with these types of grades is what i'm sure you'll do. i put them in my reference set after i swallow hard and accept the grade. i think if nothing else it makes us consider our submissions a bit more and serves to get nicer coins holdered, but i think you got slammed on this one.

    please give us a report when you have the coins in hand. that should be more objective.

    al h.image
  • RGLRGL Posts: 3,784 ✭
    Keets: Thanks for your observations ... Yes, I guess I am now the not-so-proud owner of a PR-63 to PR-67 (including a '55 I snuck by earlier) Franklin grading reference set. I promise an appraisal once the coins arrive. I know, buy the coin, not the holder, but as we all know, becoming all the harder in a sight-unseen, Internet world of commerce, in terms of the value assigned.
    The Ludlow Collection (DCAM/CAM)
    The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)

    image
  • wondercoinwondercoin Posts: 16,973 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Putting the issue of cameo aside for the moment (which I am also personally comfortable calling the coin from the scan), keep in mind that the Grey Sheet on this coin in PR63 is $45 and the Grey Sheet on this coin in PR65 is $75. If the coin was placed in a major auction, I would not be surprised to see the coin trade at closer to PR65 money anyway than PR63 money. In other words, tightly graded PCGS coins are commanding BIG $$ these days. Many dealers and keen collectors have already factored into their buy price the fact that freshly graded coins are ultra solid for the grade. While this is dissapointing for the submitter (I've been there), think at the expression on the new buyer's face if he boiught a PR63 at auction and that coin came in the mail! image

    Wondercoin
    Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
  • RGLRGL Posts: 3,784 ✭
    Thanks, Wonder, but at the moment, I am more worried about the expression on my face image than any would-be buyer's image

    image
    The Ludlow Collection (DCAM/CAM)
    The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)

    image
  • ChrisMillerChrisMiller Posts: 43
    I will probably get slammed for this one, but I have doubts in PCGS. Why rely on one persons opinion to determine the value of your coins? Whos to say that everyone that works for PCGS or knows someone that works for PCGS doesn't own boxes of high graded coins?

    I think way too much trust goes into these grading companies. Its hard to believe so many people buy and sell according to a PCGS label, instead of the coin itself. I bet if you could take 1000 coins that are EXACTLY ithe same, and send them to pcgs at different times, they would come back with 5-10 different grades. Seems like these guys are having fun playing with peoples money.
    image
    Chris Miller
    CoinForums.com
    Unbiased discussion forum using vbulletin software!
  • ChrisMillerChrisMiller Posts: 43
    P.S Sorry you got screwed. It sounds like thats exactly what happened.
    Chris Miller
    CoinForums.com
    Unbiased discussion forum using vbulletin software!
  • RGLRGL Posts: 3,784 ✭
    Chris:

    But, all the more mind blowing is that is not one person's opinion. This is the consensus of two graders -- who spent 10 seconds or less on each coin -- and a "finalizer' who agreed to the grades they assigned. They have a difficult job cruising through so many coins, so quick, but you have to wonder at times about quantity over quality of their opinions. I do not envy them their job. Looking at countless coins without cease would have to be weary and would have to take any joy out of collecting. Who could appreciate a coin, or even want to look at one, after seeing that many for so long? What chance does a common '50s proof have when compared to the likes of a 33 St Gaudens or another fabled rarity? Think they graded that coin in 10 seconds? Not all coins are created equal -- nor am I suggesting they are deserving of the same grading scrutiny -- but how about something even close to being in the ballpark? Not a lot to ask ...
    The Ludlow Collection (DCAM/CAM)
    The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)

    image
  • ChrisMillerChrisMiller Posts: 43
    For the fee you pay to have a coin graded, they should include a detailed explanation on the grade the coin received. I would love to read the explanation on this one.
    Chris Miller
    CoinForums.com
    Unbiased discussion forum using vbulletin software!
  • JLWJLW Posts: 583
    That just isn't right!image
  • LucyBopLucyBop Posts: 14,001 ✭✭✭
    Lucy is dumbfounded as to how this beautiful 54 got this grade!!???!! I submitted a 56 which I think has a strong shot at dcam and a 63 that should go cam, after seeing this, now I'm not so sure.... My results have yet to be posted.....image
    imageBe Bop A Lula!!
    "Senorita HepKitty"
    "I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
  • goyankeezgoyankeez Posts: 357
    When I first saw the coin, I was thinking 67-68. I was surprised to see 63. It must have some major damage (hairlines) somewhere on the coin. Are those hairlines or die polishing marks on the lower part of the bell. And then there's that big smudge below "PASS" on the bell as well. To me the obverse looks clean, and the fields on both sides are very nice. The obv looks CAM; the rev no CAM; net= no CAM.

    I'm interested to know what and where the damage is for this to be 63.
    "Buy the coin, not the holder"

    Proof Dime Registry Set
  • ChrisMillerChrisMiller Posts: 43
    Thats not a nick on the rim (obverse) above the T is it?
    Chris Miller
    CoinForums.com
    Unbiased discussion forum using vbulletin software!
  • RGLRGL Posts: 3,784 ✭
    Unless I missed something, there is no damage/marks/excessive hairlining on the 54. I will check and advise when it arrives.
    The Ludlow Collection (DCAM/CAM)
    The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.