I humbly ask PCGS to pull the CAM, DC bonus off of classic proofs in the Registry.
oldcameoproofsguy
Posts: 3,174 ✭
When the NGC and the PCGS decided to include CAM and DCAM designations in their grading of pre- WWI proofs it did several things. Granted, classic proofs have always been and always will be curated to some degree, however, when the designation was added and dealers found out that they could get a sizeable return on a CAM or DCAM coin, the problem has become even more pronounced. Then the Registry came along and CAM and DC coins were given a plus 1 and 2- point grade bonus, respectively, which even further added fuel to the fire.
Classic proofs with original skin are becoming more and more difficult to find. IMO, finding a classic proof with original skin and outstanding eye appeal is even more difficult than finding a dipped DCAM counterpart. A Registry set with coins that are original with outstanding eye appeal will rate lower than a Registry set with dipped CAM and DCAM coins even though it may have been far more difficult to put together than the former.
The NGC and PCGS have helped create a market, which has encouraged the destruction of beautiful, original coins. It is my opinion that the PCGS can help discourage the practice of tearing the skins off of many proofs by eliminating the bonus in the Registry set and by not putting the DCAM percentage of the set. Granted it is a small step, but a step in the right direction.
Classic proofs with original skin are becoming more and more difficult to find. IMO, finding a classic proof with original skin and outstanding eye appeal is even more difficult than finding a dipped DCAM counterpart. A Registry set with coins that are original with outstanding eye appeal will rate lower than a Registry set with dipped CAM and DCAM coins even though it may have been far more difficult to put together than the former.
The NGC and PCGS have helped create a market, which has encouraged the destruction of beautiful, original coins. It is my opinion that the PCGS can help discourage the practice of tearing the skins off of many proofs by eliminating the bonus in the Registry set and by not putting the DCAM percentage of the set. Granted it is a small step, but a step in the right direction.
0
Comments
oldcameoproofsguy,
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. I have posted elsewhere, as follows, regrading my concerns about dipping/conserving coins and the financial incentive for doing so:
"I am not necessarily or automatically opposed to all dipped coins. Many of them, however, appear to be over-dipped, completely unoriginal looking and/or over-graded.
A major part of the problem, in my opinion, though, is that the major grading services are overgrading these dipped-out, un-original coins, thereby encouraging "conservation".
If the grading penalized, rather than rewarded, such coins, the financial incentive wouldn't be there. And, let's face it, it's almost entirely about the $$$$$$ "
I sent this coin in for designation review sure it would go cam. But it didn't. I won't dip it but whoever I sell it to might...
It has thick red toning that I didn't capture properly in those images.
bruce scher
Try the Presidential review. I tried this proof seated half three times for CAM under the regular service. Finally DH Camed it under presidential review. Many of the 19th century CAMs do look dipped out to me. I do not buy those. I buy those that look like the following. Some blast white pieces do seem original. Though very scarce, those are great pieces to own. Wish I had a good image.
Greg
bruce scher
I do plan on bringing a few question coins to the next show I attend. Unfortunately it won't be this week!