Options
1951 Proof Jefferson - Guess the grade
CarlWohlforth
Posts: 11,074 ✭
As has been demonstrated before different lighting and camera angles can really make a coin look differently. The following photos show off the cameo contrast as much as possible:
The following images are of the same coin. These are at an angle which might be used to show off toning if the coin was toned.
The following images are of the same coin. These are at an angle which might be used to show off toning if the coin was toned.
0
Comments
Added...OK, maybe DCAM
It also looks like a very nice coin from the image.
I bought it raw thinking it was a DCAM coin. The seller had it pegged at 65 DCAM. As 1951 is a very tough year for DCAM proof Jeffersons I figured I'd take a chance on it.
I sent it to PCGS who certified it as PR 65 Cameo. I was disappointed. I waited a few months then cracked it out and sent it along to NGC hoping for an Ultra Cameo grade. NGC body bagged the coin for altered surfaces
Well I looked and looked and couldn't see any frost in the fields or any indication the frost was artificial. However I can't say I am an expert in detecting that condition. So I cracked it out again and waited a few more months. Then I sent it back to PCGS. This time they body bagged it for altered surfaces too! My, oh, my.
After letting it sit around for another month or two I decided this coin was out to get me. So I contacted the original seller who offered to buy it back at half what I paid for it. He got the coin back, proclaimed that it was a fine coin with nothing wrong with it. He dipped it and sent it to NGC. This time NGC agreed that the coin was fine and graded it PF 66 Cameo.
So in conclusion I would say this well traveled coin is boarderline 65/66 and boarderline Cameo/Deep Cameo. It also may or may not have altered surfaces. How is that for a precise grade?
Toned Coins for sale @ tonedcointrader.com
Great post. I hate to hear the outcome, but I appreciate the story.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
looking at the coin prior to reading your post i'd have said PR67CAM without reservation.
after reading your post, i would ask what led you to the conclusion that the "artificial surfaces" reference was about the frost??
looking at the pictures, i doubt it would DCAM because the reverse lettering doesn't seem to have sufficient frost and the obverse has enough haziness or lack of brilliance in the fields to hold it down. my hunch on the artificial surfaces is that the coin had been dipped, improperly rinsed and some residue was detected, perhaps only beginning to show after some time had elapsed. hence, PCGS didn't originally see what wasn't visible yet, NGC did when it became apparent and then PCGS also noticed it.
the original owner re-dipped the coin and removed what the services were seeing and the coin was holdered. hopefully he rinsed it properly this time.
al h.
I have seen many coins in NGC and PCGS holders that had obvious dip residue and/or bad rinses and others that clearly had been dipped though there was no residue. This Jeff didn't look like it to me. So I assumed they meant artificial frost. But they could have seen something I didn't see. Also the original seller freely admitted to dipping before he submitted it so he may have dipped it in the first place.