67 SMS dcam Jeff price? Updated - Now PR67 UC!
DHeath
Posts: 8,472 ✭✭✭
What in your estimation would be the value of a 1967 SMS MS67 Dcam? Particularly nice contrast and mirrors.
Edited to add - When I originally put this thread up, I owned a raw 67 SMS Jeff that looked dcam. After a trip to PCGS and a grade of MS67 Cam. Today, it crossed to NGC as a PR67 Ucam, pop 9/0. I'm delighted it got the designation. It deserves it. IMO.
Edited to add - When I originally put this thread up, I owned a raw 67 SMS Jeff that looked dcam. After a trip to PCGS and a grade of MS67 Cam. Today, it crossed to NGC as a PR67 Ucam, pop 9/0. I'm delighted it got the designation. It deserves it. IMO.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
0
Comments
The PCGS price guide has it listed at 1200 but it should go higher then that. The pop is 6/0 but the top two sets have one. Depends if there are two war raging bidders out there.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
William S. Burroughs, Cities of the Red Night
When I asked the question about a month ago, I was only marginally optimistic. My invoice posted tonight, and my 67 Jeff SMS submission went MS67 Cam. I really like the coin's contrast, and will put up a pic when it gets home. Thanks for the responses guys.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
It boggles my mind, and I don't "get" it, I'm afraid.
However, even I must admit that those SMS DCAM's are stunningly beautiful.
I'm not dissappointed. The coin has heavy cameo and the nicest mirrors I've seen. It looks like a modern proof. Maybe the grader saw a frost break I didn't. The coin is for my collection, so the cam/dcam designation is almost incidental. PCGS agreed it was a 67. It is one of those coins that is nice enough that if shown to a buyer, the holder wouldn't dictated the price. I placed it in my SMS registry set tonight. Maybe it'll be home for Christmas!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Very diplomatic.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
Can anyone give an opinion on the value of a 1939 reverse of 1940 PF 67 NGC? I haven't been able to find a thing. PCGS doesn't list a price.
Thanks
Ogden
Hi Don
It would have been nice to get the extra point but it's the eye appeal of the coin that counts.
I have wondered if the two 1966 presentation pieces (and I believe these two are regular proof coins, the two rarest coins minted in the twentieth century) are DCAM. 7-8 years ago, I had hopes to
personally see them when I came across a dealer who had close ties to the Schlag family but to find out,
they didn't know the whereabouts of the two coins.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Ogden
I had one of those at one time, paid close to $500 6-7 years ago. It's far rarer then the common type one, wavy step 1939 proof. Availability and demand dictate the price of this coin. Does your coin show any cameo contrast or a light frost on the devices?
Leo
Teletrade price guide show a $350 to $475 range for this proof coin.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Ogden
PS I paid $675.00 for it. PCGS lists a Proof one of these is MS-65 at $400.00 but doesn't specify the reverse of 1940.
Then it's worth as per se, $675 but the highest price for a TT sale is $475. Thanks for the the inf. on your coin.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
mo <><
** I would take a shack on the Rock over a castle in the sand !! **
Don't take life so seriously...nobody gets out alive.
ALL VALLEY COIN AND JEWELRY
28480 B OLD TOWN FRONT ST
TEMECULA, CA 92590
(951) 757-0334
www.allvalleycoinandjewelry.com
Do you have a pic before you sent it to PCGS? If all the areas do not stand out frosted from a common angle of view due to the curves and angles of the design itself.....may prevent a DCAM designation. Where as when a proof is so heavily frosted, it doesn't matter what angle it's being viewed from, it looks completely frosted. And this may be the case with your coin. Many here have discussed how the breaks or shadows in the frost may be the cause. For the mirrors and you should be able to do this with your coin as it has been graded a PF 67, the doubling or tripling of all letters and date can be easily seen within the fields. I've asked the earler pic because I can see two fprints, one is on the lower coat and the other is above and to the right of the building in the field.
You can always try the 3 strikes and your out gamble with PCGS grading game.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I didn't mention the prints, but you have a good eye. They are very light, and the reverse print is smeared. I can't blame PCGS with confidence, because they might have been on the coin and gone unnoticed by me till I took the pics. I've taken a few larger pics at a slight angle, with better lighting. I left part of the desktop, so you could see the contrast I used. I'm unsure of the letter reflection you mentioned, but the mirrors are better displayed in these pics.
Obverse
Reverse
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
The frost looks great, depends how deep the fields are. If the coin has been dipped, the mirrors will look etched as if some chemical has eaten into the mirrors. Comparing proof coins until you come across one the shows a halo within the deep mirrors and the reflection of the leters and date......I'll have a pic up soon to show that effect.............it will be awhile as I'm showing my 14 year old the ins and outs to maintaining a clean room, who has also misplaced $30 in Xmas money. lol
I'll get back soon.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
Here it is...took longer than I thought.....darn kids and computers....
I did this with my 1953 which is a B&W PF66 cameo. I will never upgrade this coin, no need for a dcam,
I'm very happy with this one.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
do you feel you've gained with regards to the coin being in an NGC holder? from my experience they are notorious for over-designating while PCGS is extremely tough in the other direction. what really makes things interesting is that we often wrangle here about the PCGS price guide being out of step with real world pricing, which i don't disagree with, but one thing they are clear about in the guide homepage is that the prices are for PCGS holdered coins. yet we try to equate prices for non-PCGS coins to the guide. you should probably seek another sheet or same-holder auction archives for an accurate price.
the more coins i view, the more it becomes apparent to me that PCGS grades off the clarity and depth of the mirrors as much as they do the frost on the devices. i have fully frosted cam's with slightly hazed/not fluid looking mirrors which were not seen as DCAM and i have seen caked white coins with weak mirrors not designated as DCAM. judging only from your photos and my previous experience, it seems likely that the mirrors on your coin are slightly impaired or there are areas of weak frost which were apparent to the grader at PCGS.
by 1967 the mint had made progress in the process of minting these SMS coins, as evidenced by the ever growing pop's of half dollars and nickels in the CAM/DCAM designation. my perception is that with a larger sampling of coins seen at PCGS, the graders are more subjective about what a DCAM should look like. perhaps that's why your coin was given CAM. at least the two services agreed on the numerical grade.
last week i had a 1967 jefferson come back MS67 with no designation and the frost appears close to that of your coin. the mirrors are slightly hazed. should i send it to NGC?? i think not. what would i gain if they designated?
al h.
BTW---was the coin sent to NCS prior to being sent to NGC as you had indicated in a previous post? if that's the case, than the two holdered comparisons aren't really meaningful.
Truthfully Keets, I felt it was Dcam from day one. I'll bet you will too if our paths cross at one of the shows. It isn't a tweener. Your question is a pretty good one though. Do you feel a PR67 Ucam is worth more than a MS67 Cam?
Here is a NGC 1967 PR66 Ucam that is not nearly as nice as mine, with a significant cheek ding and a weak reverse.
Here is a PCGS MS66 Cam for price comparison.
Here is an NGC PR68 Cam just for grins.
The coin I crossed was an $80 coin prior to the reholder. It is now worth a little more, and frankly, it deserved the designation. JMO
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
IMHO the two coins you linked which were NGC CAM and DCAM should neither have recieved the designation since both are quite weak on the reverse. my MS67 no CAM has better overall frost than both coins.
al h.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Nice coin Don!
I would love to see it in person.
I think that a NGC PF 67 Ultra Cam will certainly bring in more dough than a PCGS PR 67 Cam.
knowing that the coin went to NCS is helpful. without sounding like a PCGS "homer" or koolaid drinker, i'll stick to my earlier statement about the two services regarding the CAM/DCAM designation. no doubt if the coin had gone to PCGS after conservation or NGC prior to conservation our discussion would be a bit different. the mirrors were no doubt improved and traces of tone or the aforementioned fingerprint lessened with respect to their affect at grading. you should bebest able to comment on that when the coin is returned to you. i for one am quite interested to hear your opinion on what they did since i believe that to be the important point in this thread.
some view conservation in the same light as coin doctoring. that to me is sheer ignorance at best and self-righteous arrogance at worst. at present, i have two 1967 jeffersons and three 1965 jeffersons which should be seen by NCS. monetary gain being secondary, there is no reason i can think of that a beautiful coin should remain impaired if a procedure exists and a reputable service perfoms it which can restore the coin to it original state with no damage or after-affect.
al h.
At least with an NGC I could gain some consistency.
.......and the question i would ask is this:
what would the coin have been graded by NGC had it been viewed prior to conservation?
........or maybe it could be this:
what would the coin have been graded by PCGS had it been viewed after conservation?
in truth, only one of those can be answered. to try and draw some conclusion about the respective services based on this coin is useless. koolaid, koolaid. anybody got some black cherry??
al h.
I thought this pic would be interesting. The coins are 57 PR68 no cam, 59 PR67 cam, and 67 PR67 UCam
Keets, in response to your question, I didn't ask for a printout, but I believe the coin was soaked in a MS70 like cleaner, as there is absolutely no evidence of a dip, and only clean surfaces. I will say based on the grading though that NGC thought it was as nice as any they had ever seen, just like I did.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
high grade SMS issues have a decidedly different "look" than equally graded standard proof issues. the appearance to me is that the devices float higher up, if that makes sense. that bugger looked great when you first posted it a few months ago and still does.
al h.