Guess the Grade, Proof Jeff, Proof Washington
CarlWohlforth
Posts: 11,074 ✭
Here are two proof coins fresh back from PCGS. These are quick photos hosted from a new place so please let me know if there are any problems viewing them. The fields are very mirror like. The nickel has a few minor hairlines. I like the blue album toning on the quarter.
0
Comments
Jeremy
Since the nickel has a few hairlines and it's PCGS, I'll go PR65 (technical 64, with a bump for eye appeal). I'm hoping you squeezed it in to a cameo holder, though.
I'll go 66CAM on the quarter.
Russ, NCNE
They are superb. I like the nickel and that's a tough one in cam, but I LOVE the quarter.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Washington-----PR66CAM.
all toning and other characteristics considered, you really should have had them conserved, especially the Washington. i know that's a dirty word/concept to some members, but they both would have benefited in the grading room and in the ever important eye-appeal category. i'll be quite surprised if you post that either received the DCAM designation.
al h.
Jeremy
I wouldn't dare touch the quarter. As for the grades, I'll hazzard a guess the Jeff went 65 dcam, and the Washington as 67 Cam (maybe dcam).
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
'56 Washington PR65 DCAM
disagree all you want and presume as you will. you'll note that i followed my comment with i know that's a dirty word/concept to some members because i assumed someone would disagree.
my opinion is that if both coins had clear mirrors they would have graded higher and been more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, at least to my eye. originality is certainly preferred, but i fully believe that when the toning of a coin doesn't enhance it's minted state, it begins to become a detraction.
in the case of the quarter, the denomination is almost totally obscured and the overall symmetry of the reverse design is upset by the tone starting to cover the eagle's right wing. absent the tone the coin would be more pleasing to my eye. perhaps you view it differently and that's OK. the Jefferson could have been helped less, but again, perhaps all those obverse flyspecks could have been lessened and that almost centrally located spot on the portrait could have been removed. those are the things i first saw on the obverse along with what appears to be a few scattered hairlines.
the hairlines on the Jefferson are there for good. it might be interesting to consider that absent the heavy tone on the Washington some hairlines might be visible. maybe not. with regard to my comments being more about money than anything else, that again is your opinion. perhaps you'd prefer a lower grade for your submissions if it can be avoided, i don't know. perhaps you believe in sacrificing at the hand of total originality, i don't know that either. the irony is that the coins "as is" are only original in the sense that they are what they have become. they aren't original in the sense of how they were made.
two different animals. each of us needs to determine which we deem more original.
BTW, can you give us a grade estimate on the coins??
al h.
I do not think the coin can be conserved -> purple dipped out would become hazy white and uglier than it is now
thats a bummer with toned proofs - sometimes the color takes away points versus the mint state coins that it usually helps
you expressed in your post what i attempted. thanks for doing it so well.
al h.
As far as the grades go we have one correct guess on the Jeff, nobody has the quarter yet.
I tried more photos and they came out similar. I need a new camera, it can't be my technique. (ya, sure) So I tried a third time using the natural sunlight that is streaming into my room right now. They don't seem any better. I still need to improve my photos. The toning on the quarter looks better in person, if you catch the angle right the toning is very blue on the reverse.
I'll post the grades later.
I missed the hit on the leg in the first pic, so I'll revise to PR65 Cam, but I still love the coin.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
the second group of pictures looks a bit more realistic, but im betting the true appearance is somewhere between the 2 sets. i have trouble getting good proof pictures mainly because i'm impatient at the camera and don't take notes, easily corrected errors.
al h.
So I would say reality is like the third point of a triangle where these two sets of photos are the other two points. Or something like that
Since you revealed the grade of the 1951 in another thread, I'll just say that's a mighty frosty Monticello!
Richard
MS Buffalo
MS 1951
new guesses
'51 nickel PR65 CAM
'56 quarter PR65
I've always thought my '50 should be a DCAM. In fact I had NCS conserve it. It started as a PCGS 67 Cameo. I thought if some of the toning was removed it could be DCAM. I sent it to NCS with a grade guarantee. It came back NGC 67 Cam. I cracked it out and sent it back to PCGS raw. It came back 67 Cameo. I wish I had left it alone.
Nobody is close on the quarter. I'll post that grade tomorrow morning.
edited to say: in the first case I held the coins just above a light colored wood table. In the second case the coins had no close background.
Great coins, and I'd bet if the ding is frosted it was forgiven. I felt in my first post the Washington might dcam, and I guess NGC did too. I don't think PCGS will award many dcams with heavy toning, but it looks like the dcam is there. Very attractive coins.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I think I have some evidence that PCGS won't give out DCAMs, or sometimes Cams, for coins that are heavily toned. I believe this encourages some folks to dip coins. I plan on posting a new thread once I have a few more images to demonstrate my point.