Is this seated proof half graded correctly
![sadysta1](https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/authoricons/1846_10.gif)
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?
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?
0
Comments
Frank
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.
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.
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.
This one looks like many Cameo proof seated halves. In fact looks nice to me and high end for a 62.
<< <i>Looks like a Heritage auction sticker. >>
Here what that coin sold for on Heritage:
2000 June Long Beach Bullet Sale
My quarters:
Silver
Clad
Statehood
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
Re-elect Bush in 2004... Dont let the Socialists brainwash you.
Bush 2004
Jeb 2008
KK 2016
not a cam
still not a cam
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.
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
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!