Is this seated proof half graded correctly

sadysta1

I was going to buy it but I did not do it for two reasons
1. Price a tad high
2. I 've seen some PCGS CAMs and this one, I think, would not fly. I don't think that contrast is strong enough to be called CAM.

What do you think?

Also that number indicates that it came from an auction is there a way to figure out which auction house it came from and what the hammer price was?

tsacch

Linkage???????????

eminem

I would grade it as MS-INVISIBLE

sadysta1

I'm not a morning person

tsacch

I'de say it looks like a proof 62 Cam not a deep cam though for sure.....nice coin

FC57Coins

I think given the quality of the picture I wouldn't doubt the cam too much - obviously the last word would be in seeing it for yourself - but it looks like a nice piece, and given the price I would've taken a chance on it.

Frank

coinguy1

sadysta1,

It looks like an obvious cameo to me and for what it's worth, overall, I believe that NGC is stricter than PCGS on "CAM" and "DCAM/UCAM" designations.

DesertLizard

Looks like a Heritage auction sticker.

Who cares what the hammer price was at that auction. Pay whatever you feel it is worth.

Frankly, I would rather own this coin than say some of the hundreds or thousands MS65+ Morgan. Better value.

gemtone65

This liberty seated half does not look Cameo to me and I do not think PCGS would classify it as such -- certainly not on crossover.

The piece does indeed come from a Heritage sale, held in Long Beach in June or 2000, where it realized $805 with the juice. Still, a nice piece, but not a PCGS cameo.

KlectorKid

A agree with Mark that NGC is as tough if not tougher on Cameo'd coins. I think this one is a no brain cameo. The Obv. looks like CAM+ and the rev. looks like it just made CAM. All in all a very pretty coins.

66Tbird

Are the terms of sale ebay safe??? That's what I'd like to do for my auctions.

IrishMike

Couldn't disagree with you more strongly gemtone, it has been my experience in this series that the grading companies are close on their cameo designations. Take a look at this PF64 Cameo PCGS. PCGSCameo

This one looks like many Cameo proof seated halves. In fact looks nice to me and high end for a 62.

gemtone65

IrishMike: If PCGS is consistently calling stuff like the 1878 half "cameo," then I wonder whether the designation has any useful meaning. On a cameo scale of 0-10, I give the 1878 a 1, and the 1859, at most, a 5. Frankly, I would expect more from PCGS. Maybe they need such a cameo scale.

KlectorKid

I find NGC is better with cameo on classics... but i like PCGS more for Moderns

prooflike

I think the image is poor in showing the cameo, but since that is what you have to go by, you didn;t pull the trigger to get it.

danny72170

<< <i>Looks like a Heritage auction sticker. >>



Here what that coin sold for on Heritage:

2000 June Long Beach Bullet Sale

CalGold

Mike and Gemtone,

For what its worth, I saw the 1878 at the auction preview and though I don't have my notes in front of me I seem to recall wondering how it got a CAM designation.

CG

KoinKollector

Coin appears slightly hazy, looks nice and hairlined too... I would say its a CAM tho.

sadysta1

I did not buy this coin because I did not think it deserved a cam designation. Here is one of mine (it's not a cameo coin). Qestion is where do you draw the line where cam starts?

not a cam
still not a cam

gemtone65

Does anyone know if there is a different standard used for the cameo designation for coins of the same denomination across eras, or even what the standard is for any series and era? For example, the degree of contrast evidenced by the 1878 and even the 1859 "cameo" halves surely would not result in a cameo designation for, say, a Franklin half, even if graded by ACG. Well, on second thought,....

It seems that the grading services find it advantageous not to publish their standards for a variety of assessments they make, or if they do so, it is only reluctantly and after a long period of use of that particular standard.

ANACONDA

Hey guys.

I think the services use these standards for coins minted before 1916 (who cares about the rest made after the Barber Series ended.....):

Cameo -- decent cameo for the type, but not a heart pounder

Ultra Cameo and DCAM - head and shoulders above the vast majority of others for the type you'll see; an unusually exciting coin with deep mirrors and frosty devices.

Kinda like wimmin.

1) Ugly (non designated)

2) babe (Cameo) and

3) my goodness, I can't my eyes off of her (ultra cam and DCAM)

As far as NGC being more demanding than PCGS, Mark, I would tend to agree with you.

So, it's one of relative comparison, in my opinion. More could be said but sometimes more is less.

adrian

Trime

Sadysta 1,
Pretty coin. Breen Proof encyclopedia lists this as the Beistle 2-A variety (date above center;shield point minutely left of 8). Looks CAM to me!

sadysta1

Thank you, I need to buy more books...