Question For David Hall (With new scans)look again

BIGDAVE

why did this not get the cameo designation? it is in PCGS Holder # 40010682 pr67

NumisEd

Because your name is not preceded by a "Q" and end in "ers"

Bulldog

Dave,

Your links are no ,onger available. Thats what my computer says, and I believe her!

Bulldog

DHeath

Dave,

That looks like a nice coin, but based on the pics, it lacks the mirrors and the frost is a little light. JMO PCGS really requires heavy cam of the 50's coins to make the designation. I've got quite a few that are undesignated because of the slightest weakness on the reverse that are almost dcam obverse's. Still a very nice coin though.

eagle7

Dave, I saw the coin before the links died. Coin looks like a proof plus to me and therefore not due a cam designation but I would have to look at it in person to be absolutely sure. Where did it come from? Did you buy it raw or did it come in an NGC holder. Unless it looks better in person I dont think NGC would even cam it.

BIGDAVE

It Is in a PCGS holder , when i compare it to the other Pcgs washingtons i have I just dont understand,it has nice deep mirrors on the obv, the rev has some frost in the fields but 85%mirrors, My picture su$ks

FC57Coins

<< <i>the rev has some frost in the fields but 85%mirrors >>



Dave - I think you just answered your own question. It's my understanding that to receive a CAM or DCAM designation, both sides of the coin must have the same qualities. If one side does not match the other, it will not obtain the higher designation. The same holds true for PL and DMPL Morgans.

Frank

wingedliberty

Its difficult to tell for sure from the scan, but it does not appear to be a cameo.


Brian.

Russ

Dave,

Compare it to this one:



See the difference in the depth of the fields?

Russ, NCNE

sinin1

I'm thinking the obverse would make it

but the reverse does not -> therefore not given

Could look different in person than what I see in scan

BIGDAVE

new scans added ,as you can see they both look the same

Russ

Dave,

They're close, but I'm seeing more scanner reflectivity off the reverse of the 1961, which would indicate better field depth.

Russ, NCNE

littlewicher

Am I missing something here? He asks why the coin pictured didn't get the CAM designation, but on the holder it says CAM. Someone please explain.

Russ

LW,

He's talking about the 1953.

Russ, NCNE

BIGDAVE

littlewicher
there are two pictures up, one is a 1961 pr68 cam and the other is a 1953 pr 67 it is over to the right

DHeath

Dave,

Look in the scans at the area on the reverse outside the eagle's wings toward the rim. You'll see field frost. That is what I was aluding to in my first post. The mirrors on the reverse just aren't quite there. IMO