Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

1950's Deep Cameo Proofs.----------A follow-up after four plus years and not much has changed. Can s

keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
----------Well, it's been about a two-and-a-half years since I last attended this thread and I'm once again attempting to make some additions to my Jefferson Set with some tougher coins. I'm wondering if one of our membership would care to update the numbers below?? I don't currently have access to the pop report so I can't do it myself. Also, if someone is really bored and adept at addition image perhaps we can get the numbers for coins in the linked RGL thread. I know not a lot of collectors chase 1950 Proof Coinage so as an addition those of us who do should post some pictures to this thread as an inducement!!

Many thanks to whoever chooses to help out.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm in the process of buying a DCAM to add to my collection and my curiosity got the better of me so I checked the PCGS online POP Report and my hardcopies and was surprised to see how little things had changed in over four years. I thought I'd update the DCAM numbers for the 1950-1959 Jefferson Nickel pop's at PCGS to illustrate just how few exist and, hopefully, to get the opinions of others regarding either this denomination or perhaps the series they pay attention to from this era. Also, I'll link this thread by RGL to show his numbers for the lowest of the low from April of 2003.

Here are the Jefferson DCAM numbers as they currently show in the online report:

1950-----15.
1951-----10.
1952-----10.
1953-----6.
1954-----13.
1955-----52.
1956-----14.
1957-----3. no change!!!
1958-----5.
1959-----24.

=====================================================================

As an after-thought to Cladking's classic and modern thread, I began wondering about some of the 1950's DCAM's and did a quick check of the online pop-report. I wonder how many members give any thought to how few have been graded by PCGS for some dates? This applies to all the denominations.

My reasoning for the 1950's is that it seems to be tweener period, before 1965 yet still encompassing what most consider the modern designs. There should really be no arguement about the grading here since anyone who pays attention in the slightest knows that CAM/DCAM isn't nearly as subjective as a one or two point numerical difference. To earn the DCAM designation generally requires clear, highly reflective mirrors and DEEP overall frost on the devices and lettering.

With that said, I'll focus on a series I follow closely, Jefferson Nickels. There are five dates with graded DCAM populations of less than 10 coins:
1951---6.
1952---9.
1953---3.
1957---3.
1958---3.
It's worth mentioning that the first 1953 DCAM was certified sometime in 2001. Looking back at a July 1997 Census, there were three 1957 DCAM's and two 1958's. One coin in over 6 years for the two dates at a time when the incentive to holder these coins is ripe and depending on whom you're listening to, the grading has been from liberal to fair. With the re-design of the coin inevitable and prices on the crest of a 2-3 year wave, I'd have to think if there were coins out there we'd be seeing them show up. Heck, they have been for virtually every other series and time period. What about the 1950's proofs?

Any thoughts on the other denominations? Any thoughts on whether some dates will ever see a rise in true DCAM's? How about you guys that collect/search these coins and sets, are these numbers an abberation or do they reflect what you see, are they "real world" numbers??

Al H.image

editted because I hit enter instead of the shift key. DOH!!!image
«1

Comments

  • Options
    LucyBopLucyBop Posts: 14,004 ✭✭✭
    That about sums it up....
    imageBe Bop A Lula!!
    "Senorita HepKitty"
    "I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
  • Options
    image
  • Options
    RampageRampage Posts: 9,418 ✭✭✭✭
    Best post I have seen all day. Keep 'em coming Al. imageimage
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ...........and i return with a vengeance!!!!!!!!

    al h.image

    image
  • Options
    DHeathDHeath Posts: 8,472 ✭✭✭
    Al,

    I hate illumination. Cut out the light and let'em sleep. If everyone starts picking cherries, the orchard will soon be exhausted. image
    Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers
    and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
  • Options
    Very well done and informative. Great postimage
  • Options
    cladkingcladking Posts: 28,331 ✭✭✭✭✭
    low hanging fruit

    Check out this thread on a similar subject.

    There are lots of great truly rare moderns which sell for a song compared
    to their older counterparts. Many of the condition rarities are also grossly
    underappreciated.







    Revised.
    Tempus fugit.
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    hey Sam

    i really don't think the coins i'm talking about fit the term "low hanging fruit" in even the slightest degree since they are recognized as true rarities and generally priced accordingly by those in the know. the 1953 i listed is perhaps the best example. i believe morris may have made one in the past year with the certain knowledge that it was a 5 digit coin and R&I Coins had a 1958 PR68DCAM listed for some time at $10k+. some of the Jefferson dates in DCAM i have never seen for sale and they may well be once in a lifetime oppurtunities for an interested collector if found.

    it just seems that many members ignore the fact these are truly rare and collectible coins with absolutely NO downside. imagine that in the more than 15 years of grading, PCGS has only assigned DCAM to three coins for each of the three years i listed. that's just the nickels. with roosevelt dimes there are two dates with three DCAM's each and two dates with a single coin, a single 1951 Lincoln and the quarters and half-dollars seeming "easy" in DCAM for most years!!! and remember, the transition from CAM to DCAM is bit more noticeable than the numerical grade.

    i'm almost convinced that the likelyhood of finding these coins in still intact proof sets or as raw singles is so slim as to approach nill. with that encouraging tidbit, how can they be sloughed off by the general collecting community as they are??

    al h.image
  • Options
    RGLRGL Posts: 3,784
    Al: I think there are still some treasures to be cherry picked from the uneducated/unknowing, but agree there are not a lot of '50s DCAMs extant...it took me a little while to find it, and pop figures date from then, but here is a post of mine from last August:



    As I am wont to do, I completed another little research project since I was curious about the numbers/rarity of individual dates among 1950-1959 proof coinage. The results (counting DCAMs in all grades):

    Total number of PCGS proof DCAMs graded per series (1950-59)

    1.
    Franklin half dollar -- 1,075
    2. Washington quarter -- 490
    3. Lincoln cent -- 294
    4. Roosevelt dime -- 201
    5. Jefferson nickel -- 88

    Single-digit DCAM date populations, all grades (1950-59)
    (
    if a coin is not listed, 10 or more examples exist in DCAM)

    1951 Lincoln 1c...............................1
    1952 Roosevelt 10c..........................1
    1953 Roosevelt 10c..........................1
    1953 Jefferson 5c.............................2
    1957 Jefferson 5c.............................3
    1958 Jefferson 5c.............................3
    1951 Roosevelt 10c..........................3
    1954 Roosevelt 10c..........................3
    1952 Lincoln 1c...............................4
    1950 Franklin 50c............................4
    1951 Jefferson 5c.............................6
    1952 Jefferson 5c.............................7
    1950 Washington 25c.......................7
    1951 Washington 25c.......................7
    1952 Washington 25c.......................8

    Interesting only one Franklin makes the list, although it could be argued this series is the most submitted/resubmitted. Many Jeffs and Roosies are DCAM rarieties, but do not seem to command much respect caught between the cent and the larger quarter and half ...

  • Options
    cladkingcladking Posts: 28,331 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Keets;

    My point really is that there is a vast array of all types and varieties of rare
    coins from the last few generations which have gone begging due to an in-
    credibly tiny demand. This demand has been growing in leaps and bounds in
    the last few years and it would be unwise to bet against a contiuation of this
    growth. This is especially true since the demand is still much smaller than most
    figure when they see "common" coins bringing large amounts on the market. What-
    ever the future holds there is a certainty that there are still many great and scarce
    coins available today for very reasonable prices.
    Tempus fugit.
  • Options
    I think these coins do command alot of respect, but being DCAM is not enough - if the coin is a DCAM 63, the excitement is not there as much as a DCAM 68. Also the series have different weightings don't they or are all of them CAM +1 DCAM +2 for the registry's?


    So what about 1965 or 1966 or 1967 full step nickels? can you count them all on 1 hand? When these ultra rarities change hands, who knows what they go for besides the buyer and seller and broker/agent/coin dealer (if involved)
  • Options
    RGLRGL Posts: 3,784
    I can't speak to other series off the top of my head, but DCAM Jeffs from the 1950s are scored as 3 ...
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    hey Randy

    what i found from a quick look and what your post shows compactly is how the low pop DCAM's are grouped in specific years, 1951-1953. those sets are hard enough to find as it is, and with the packaging most often the coins are in a sad state. last spring i had a track on some Capitol holder sets but i hesitated. i still shudder at that memory cause there were some nice gems.

    al h.image
  • Options
    SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TTT.

    I was brousing through old threads and came across this one from 21 months ago from Keets. Since I am a fan of cameo coins from 1950-1970, I thought it would be worthwhile resurrecting it.

    If Keets would be so kind, please favor us with an update on your survey. Since you originally posted the thread have there been any changes in the DCAM Jefferson nickel populations you quoted? Also if anyone else has updated population information for cents, dimes, quarters and halves, please post that information also.

    For those who would prefer that information on CAM/DCAM coins not be publicized, my apologies to you. Sharing information on the forums is laudable is it not? Anyway, the more CAM/DCAM fans the better I say, since increased demand increases the value of my collection, since competition is healthy, since more pictures of cherry picks will be posted and since the repartee between CAM/DCAM fans in the threads they post on the boards makes for great interactive, realtime entertainment.
  • Options
    SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TTT again.

    Calling Keets.

    Geez, I thought that there would be a few new posts by now. Everyone must be distracted playing with their new 2005 Satin Mint Sets.
  • Options
    SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TTT yet again. Calling Keets, Calling Keets, where are you Keets.
  • Options


    << <i>... There should really be no arguement about the grading here since anyone who pays attention in the slightest knows that CAM/DCAM isn't nearly as subjective as a one or two point numerical difference. >>



    I gotta disagree with this premise. I see way too many coins cross the line from Cam to Dcam and visa/versa on resubmissions.
    "Wars are really ugly! They're dirty
    and they're cold.
    I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
    Mary






    Best Franklin Website
  • Options
    SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TTT again for the last time. Keets, where are you buddy?
  • Options
    SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TTT.
  • Options
    ..........lo0king for Keets too ............hello ??
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TTT for all the curious.
  • Options
    pontiacinfpontiacinf Posts: 8,915 ✭✭


    << <i>That about sums it up.... >>



    while Lucys input is always welcome, I think its time for her to be concentrating on:

    image
    image

    Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
  • Options
    SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Interesting thread, especially for those who like 50's proofs [Lucy, where are you?]., moi included.

    My own personal experience with these coins can be summarized thus:

    I have been looking for raw 1950-1970 Cameos and DCAMs in the Western US for 8+ years. I have cherrypicked examples with a Cameo look for most of the 1950-1970 dates in all five denominations. Many examples would receive a Cameo designation if slabbed. However I do not think a single cent, nickel, dime or quarter from the 50's that I have cherrypicked would receive a DCAM designation. A few of the 50's halves should get a DCAM designation [i.e. a couple of 1956 Type 2s and a 1954]. That's it for the 50's folks. As for the 60's proof and SMS coins, it has been easier [compared to the 50's era] to find and cherrypick examples that would get a DCAM designation. However it is still highly unusual to find DCAM coins from 1960-1970, especially SMS coins with deep mirrors and thick even two sided frost [my best SMS cherries are a 1965 DCAM nickel, a 1966 DCAM nickel and a killer 1967 DCAM quarter].

    Anyone else want to add their own stories about cherrypicking DCAM examples of these coins?
  • Options
    SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    How about Keets, Lucy, Cameonut, 100proof1957, Skyman, DHeath, Russ, Carlwohlforth, Grabba and MadMarty chip in with their own stories? I am sure that they have some interesting tales to tell, all of which would probably confirm Keet's position that 50's DCAMs = rara avis.
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    stories, you want stories?????image

    while i've only been at the "Game" for about 8-9 years, most of my searching stories would be of dissappointment and frustration that only occassionally end in success. the formula, the numbers should be enough to dissuade any sane collector from playing along. i won't do it for you, but go to the PCGS pop report and add up all the DCAM's in each denomination from 1950-1959 and then do the same with the number of Sets issued by the Mint. a little division will cause even the strongest person's heart to sink.........................and yet we search for the pearl.

    my favorite is the Jefferson Nickel and for the subject years there have only been about 150 coins graded DCAM by PCGS, with roughly 1/3 of that number coming from a single year-----1955!!! that is a staggering statistic. at NGC the numbers are even smaller with a total of less than 100!!! keeping all this in mind i never really get discouraged because i thoroughly enjoy looking at coins and never lose hope. as much as anything i get a thrill when the oppurtunity to search a large group of sets presents itself and keep myself amused and refreshed by trying to become educated about some of the varieties and errors that the Mint produced. they are actually quite abundant during these early years when production was increasing as collector interest demanded coins and the technique of Frosted Black-and-White Proof issues was being re-learned after years of no production.

    one thing that i notice, something i may start collecting, is the variety of packaging used, both direct from the Mint and post-storage. in Mint packaging, i see quite a bit of overlapping when changes are made which tends to run right up through the early 1970's. but the coins are the important thing. my best Jefferson scores have been Cameo coins from 1951, 1952, 1956 and 1958. oddly, a few have been coins that i had set aside prior to actually looking for them, coins which looked nice prior to my epiphany which ocurred during a reading of the Tomaska book on 1950-1970 Proof Coinage. in respect to the coins, i've kept them raw!!!

    BTW, can anyone else relate to the musty smell of those old, yellowing envelopes which have been in deep storage for years or even decades?????imageimageimage
  • Options
    CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 9,614 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Good stuff. I was convinced for the longest time this market was set to totally cave. Everyone (Legend, QDB, and other highly respected folks) frequently pointed out that tons of coins hadn't been made yet and that out of the millions struck there must be a lot things that still hadn't been found. So here we are four years later, the pops aren't significantly different, and, to this classic fanatic, the modern market looks for real.
  • Options
    SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Any other 1950-70 Cameo fans out there who want to contribute their own stories about hunting for these coins?

    Your stories would be a very interesting read.
  • Options
    CameonutCameonut Posts: 7,257 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I have been at the cameo/dcam game since 1989. Alot has changed since then. It has become extremely difficult to find nice cameos as the dealers have mostly figured out that us cameonuts will pay strong money to get frost with deep mirrors. So they scour their inventory for anything that might command a premium or sell to another dealer that specializes in cameos.

    I have many stories to tell, but let me confine my remarks to the Jeffersons to stay consistent with this thread. Even after 18 years, I have only owned 5 1950's PCGS Jefferson dcams - one was downgraded due to artificial frost - so really only 4. I sold one years ago and wish I had it back - but that is a different story. I also owned 2 NGC Ultracams - still have one.

    At any rate, I have looked at thousands of proof sets and scoured dealer cases for graded dcams or upgradeable cameos. Vey hard to find.

    My story is that I was lucky to be at a small local show where part time dealer was set up. He often buys proof sets from estate sales and gets the inside track because he does appraisals of estates. Anyway, he often has new material when most of the other dealers have the same old stuff. On this particular day, he had a 1953 proof set in the original green box. The box was open so I could take a look. It was fun to extract the bundle of 5 coins from the tissue paper and look at the individual coins. Any of you that look at these proofs in cellophane bags can attest to the fact that you really can't see very much. Tough to tell the technical grade as you can't see any hairlines or small spots. Cameos are sometimes hard to see as well. As I flipped thru the bundle, I came upon the Jefferson. I didn't need any close inspection to tell that it was a strong cameo. I smiled (maybe smirked) and finished looking at the bundle. The Jefferson was definately a keeper, but what would the dealer charge? He priced the set at Grey Sheet bid and I couldn't peel the cash out fast enough. I don't remember the exact amount I paid but I think it was about $200 or $225. Got that set home and freed the nickel from its cello wrapper to reveal a wonderful cameo. PCGS agreed and graded it a PR67DCam. One of my better finds over the years. Still have the coin and it is in my
    Registry Set if you want to see a photo.

    OK - there is my Jefferson story - any more out there?

    “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson

    My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!

  • Options
    SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TTT.

    I like this thread and its topic.

    I thought I would send it to the top to see if any other cameo fanatics could be persuaded to spend a few minutes telling us their own stories about "the hunt".

    I am still waiting for someone to step up to the plate and tell us about his or her success proving that 1950-1970 DCAM coins are common as dirt by showing us the "truckload" of these coins that they came up with after spending 2 or 3 days looking for them at shops and showsimage

  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I am still waiting for someone to step up to the plate and tell us about his or her success proving that 1950-1970 DCAM coins are common as dirt by showing us the "truckload" of these coins that they came up with after spending 2 or 3 days looking for them at shops and shows

    the likelihood of that is about the same as a naysayer entering the thread to say they were wrong.image
  • Options
    I was wrong...imageRespectfully, John Curlis
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    image
  • Options
    You must admit, I am trying to support you...Respectfully, John Curlis
  • Options
    I know where a 1956 DCAM quarter is right now!!image
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TTT for some hoped for number crunching(see the OP).
  • Options
    BaronVonBaughBaronVonBaugh Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>----------Well, it's been about a two-and-a-half years since I last attended this thread and I'm once again attempting to make some additions to my Jefferson Set with some tougher coins. I'm wondering if one of our membership would care to update the numbers below?? I don't currently have access to the pop report so I can't do it myself. Also, if someone is really bored and adept at addition image perhaps we can get the numbers for coins in the linked RGL thread. I know not a lot of collectors chase 1950 Proof Coinage so as an addition those of us who do should post some pictures to this thread as an inducement!!

    Many thanks to whoever chooses to help out.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    I'm in the process of buying a DCAM to add to my collection and my curiosity got the better of me so I checked the PCGS online POP Report and my hardcopies and was surprised to see how little things had changed in over four years. I thought I'd update the DCAM numbers for the 1950-1959 Jefferson Nickel pop's at PCGS to illustrate just how few exist and, hopefully, to get the opinions of others regarding either this denomination or perhaps the series they pay attention to from this era. Also, I'll link this thread by RGL to show his numbers for the lowest of the low from April of 2003.

    Here are the Jefferson DCAM numbers as they currently show in the online report:

    1950-----15.
    1951-----10.
    1952-----10.
    1953-----6.
    1954-----13.
    1955-----52.
    1956-----14.
    1957-----3. no change!!!
    1958-----5.
    1959-----24.

    =====================================================================
    Dec 23, 2010

    1950: 17
    1951: 13
    1952: 12
    1953: 11
    1954: 19
    1955: 74
    1956: 18
    1957: 3
    1958: 5
    1959: 25

    Funny how they jump in 1960.

    1960: 141
    1961: 99

  • Options
    MikeInFLMikeInFL Posts: 10,188 ✭✭✭✭
    Thank you for updating this thread. I always find the first hand accounts of specialist collectors to be interesting, and this thread is no exception. Thanks again...Mike
    Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
  • Options
    OnTheHuntOnTheHunt Posts: 200 ✭✭✭
    Any feel for how many have yet to be submitted? I look at all pre 1970 proof sets I can (about a decade now) and see few 1950's dated deep cameos in the wild. I don't have nearly the luck in finding 1965-1969 DCAMS that some members of the board experience.

    Steve
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    thanks for the updated numbers, Baron!!image

    my intial thought is how little the population has actually changed, especially when you consider that most of the growth has taken place in three years, 1953-1955. and 1953, the number almost doubled yet is just 11 coins in all(i believe a forum member crossed a 1953 NGC UCAM over to a PCGS after a few tries). certain dates seem to have stopped growing in numbers; it doesn't surprise me since they are historically known to be very lean when it comes to nicely frosted coins struck by the Mint, 1957-58.
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    thanks for the updated numbers, Baron!!image

    my intial thought is how little the population has actually changed, especially when you consider that most of the growth has taken place in three years, 1953-1955. and 1953, the number almost doubled yet is just 11 coins in all(i believe a forum member crossed a 1953 NGC UCAM over to a PCGS after a few tries). certain dates seem to have stopped growing in numbers; it doesn't surprise me since they are historically known to be very lean when it comes to nicely frosted coins struck by the Mint, 1957-58.
  • Options
    BGBG Posts: 1,762 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Options
    ModCrewmanModCrewman Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>What is your, and other 1950's Jefferson Nickel Proof Collectors, thoughts on this process? Did I lose some value taking it out of the PCGS holder even though I, and NCS, felt it needed conservation, or is the coin now in the correct holder? >>

    I think you need to define your definition of "value". My assumption would be that the conserved coin would be more attractive than the pre-conservation coin you've shown and perhaps result in a better price regardless of the plastic in which it is housed. In the perfect world the coin would bring the same price regardless of the plastic, however...we don't live in that world, nor do I have the directions to get there.

    It looks like a nice coin.
  • Options
    BaronVonBaughBaronVonBaugh Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>----------Well, it's been about a two-and-a-half years since I last attended this thread and I'm once again attempting to make some additions to my Jefferson Set with some tougher coins. I'm wondering if one of our membership would care to update the numbers below?? I don't currently have access to the pop report so I can't do it myself. Also, if someone is really bored and adept at addition image perhaps we can get the numbers for coins in the linked RGL thread. I know not a lot of collectors chase 1950 Proof Coinage so as an addition those of us who do should post some pictures to this thread as an inducement!!

    Many thanks to whoever chooses to help out.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    I'm in the process of buying a DCAM to add to my collection and my curiosity got the better of me so I checked the PCGS online POP Report and my hardcopies and was surprised to see how little things had changed in over four years. I thought I'd update the DCAM numbers for the 1950-1959 Jefferson Nickel pop's at PCGS to illustrate just how few exist and, hopefully, to get the opinions of others regarding either this denomination or perhaps the series they pay attention to from this era. Also, I'll link this thread by RGL to show his numbers for the lowest of the low from April of 2003.

    Here are the Jefferson DCAM numbers as they currently show in the online report:

    1950-----15.
    1951-----10.
    1952-----10.
    1953-----6.
    1954-----13.
    1955-----52.
    1956-----14.
    1957-----3. no change!!!
    1958-----5.
    1959-----24.

    =====================================================================
    Dec 23, 2010

    1950: 17 up
    1951: 13 up
    1952: 12 up
    1953: 11 up
    1954: 19 up
    1955: 74 up
    1956: 18 up
    1957: 3
    1958: 5
    1959: 25 up

    Funny how they jump in 1960.

    1960: 141
    1961: 99 >>



    =====================================================================
    Nov 6, 2011

    1942: 1 This is a Type 2 PR66DCAM. This one has been in somebody's set for awhile. I would love to have it if he ever gets tired of it!

    1950: 17
    1951: 13
    1952: 12
    1953: 11
    1954: 20 up
    1955: 74
    1956: 20 up
    1957: 3
    1958: 5
    1959: 26 up

    =====================================================================
    Nov 12, 2012

    1950: 17
    1951: 13
    1952: 12
    1953: 11
    1954: 21 up
    1955: 80 up
    1956: 21 up
    1957: 3
    1958: 7 up
    1959: 27 up

    The 1958 went up 2 in the last year, but the 1957 has not moved in years.
    The '57 & '58 are staying expensive due to these low numbers.
    If the '54 & '56 go up a little more they may become affordable.
  • Options
    DHeathDHeath Posts: 8,472 ✭✭✭
    That's a great looking 59. The reverse is really strong.
    Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers
    and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    what a great coin!!

    i'd forgotten about this thread and since i don't have access to the PVGS pop report i wonder if someone else would update the numbers for discussion??
  • Options
    BaronVonBaughBaronVonBaugh Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>what a great coin!!

    i'd forgotten about this thread and since i don't have access to the PVGS pop report i wonder if someone else would update the numbers for discussion?? >>



    =====================================================================
    Dec 23, 2010

    1950: 17 up
    1951: 13 up
    1952: 12 up
    1953: 11 up
    1954: 19 up
    1955: 74 up
    1956: 18 up
    1957: 3
    1958: 5
    1959: 25 up

    Funny how they jump in 1960.

    1960: 141
    1961: 99 >>

    =====================================================================
    Nov 6, 2011

    1942: 1 This is a Type 2 PR66DCAM. This one has been in somebody's set for awhile. I would love to have it if he ever gets tired of it!

    1950: 17
    1951: 13
    1952: 12
    1953: 11
    1954: 20 up
    1955: 74
    1956: 20 up
    1957: 3
    1958: 5
    1959: 26 up

    =====================================================================
    Nov 12, 2012
    1950: 17
    1951: 13
    1952: 12
    1953: 11
    1954: 21 up
    1955: 80 up
    1956: 21 up
    1957: 3
    1958: 7 up
    1959: 27 up

    The 1958 went up 2 in the last year, but the 1957 has not moved in years.
    The '57 & '58 are staying expensive due to these low numbers.
    The '54 & '56 are getting closer to the population of the '59, but the '59 is more affordable than either.
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If the '54 & '56 go up a little more they may become affordable.

    i don't think prices are driven as much by "graded pops" as they are by how high the grade is; i have both the above dates in PCGS PR66DCAM holders(solid coins). they only get expensive when they reach 67 and higher where the price is probably driven by the Set Registry phenomenon. your 1959 strikes me as an exceptional coin, a date that i have hesitated buying because i presumed i could find one raw.

    i can't find a picture of the 1954 but here's the 1956 that i bought about six months ago.

    image
  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Bob, i also picked up this 1940 since i last visited the thread about two years ago.image

    image
  • Options
    BaronVonBaughBaronVonBaugh Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>That's a great looking 59. The reverse is really strong. >>






    << <i>what a great coin!!

    i'd forgotten about this thread and since i don't have access to the PVGS pop report i wonder if someone else would update the numbers for discussion?? >>



    Thank You.
    I am very pleased with it. I was very lucky to get it.
    I have a '55 in PR67DCAM, but other than that I have been trying to just do the 1950s in PR67CAM.
    I'm still trying to find the '50 & '51.


    Keets that is really tough coin you have in that 1940 PR65CAM and a very nice '56 also.
    The 1938 - 42 in CAM are all difficult. I have a couple that just aren't good enough to get the designation.
    Perhaps they would make LC (Light Cameo) if there was such a thing.
    I have been updating the DCAM pops every year since 2010 about this time of year.

    Cameo pop
    1938 1
    1939 2
    1940 8
    1941 0
    1942 T1 1
    1942 T2 7

    1942 T2 1 DCAM

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file