Proof Jeff Gang: Did you see what was made?

RGL · September 30, 2004 7:38AM

Pop shows a first, a 1/0 1938 PR-67 CAM ... now, that is a coin I would love to see. Anyone want to fess up to owning or making it or know who did?

solid · September 30, 2004 5:15PM

Very cool...I would love to see pics, also!

Ken

sliderider · September 30, 2004 5:21PM

I'll bet wondercoin did it.

seanq · September 30, 2004 11:40PM

That must be a neat coin, I'd love to see it too.

Sean Reynolds

poptopsRus · October 1, 2004 12:10AM

Wow impressive, I've gotta see that one.

kieferscoins · October 1, 2004 12:26AM

<< <i>I'll bet wondercoin did it >>

How much do you want to bet?

Cameron Kiefer

segoja · October 1, 2004 8:47AM

Just sold a 39 in 65 CAM! No where near as impressive, but a tough coin any any case.

Wingsrule · October 1, 2004 9:16AM

...and something like this would be worth...

badger · October 1, 2004 10:12AM

I didn't make it, but am interested in whomever did. I have a couple of prewar Jeffs in Cam, but nothing like a 67.

segoja · October 1, 2004 11:16AM

The 39 Cam went for 4 figures.

BNE · October 1, 2004 11:46AM

Wow! What a terrific coin to own! I wonder what it would go for? I say $8-9 K if it has eye appeal and good contrast. A terrific rarity.

coolkarma · October 1, 2004 1:08PM

Coooool!

And unfortunately, not mine

Some pictures would be great. Given a PR 66Cameo 1942 Type 1 Jefferson, pop 1/0, sold for $6,612.50 on Heritage recently, I'd guess that would be the low end estimate of its worth.

earlwbollinger · October 1, 2004 9:16PM

Wow!!!
What a coin to get graded that high after all these years.
Somebody must be really happy someplace.

badger · October 2, 2004 2:54PM

To see the coin, look at the upcoming Heritage Auction. Pics just posted.

coolkarma · October 2, 2004 3:14PM

<< <i>To see the coin, look at the upcoming Heritage Auction. Pics just posted. >>

Good work Badger.

1938 5C PR67 Cameo PCGS

Very nice, particularly the reverse

littlejohn · October 2, 2004 10:25PM

THAT NICKEL NOT CAMEO.!!!
LITTLEJOHN

IF THAT CAM. THAN MY IS TO.!

itsnotjustme · October 3, 2004 4:20AM

LittleJohn,
The one in the Heritage auction has much deeper mirrors than yours in these photos.

jonesy · October 3, 2004 4:34AM

Looks CAM to me!!

RGL · October 4, 2004 10:48AM

Nice coin, but for what that is going to bring, I would really prefer a heavier CAM obverse ... very borderline IMHO.

BNE · October 4, 2004 2:22PM

I agree, Randy. It could be the photo of the obverse (if so, for god's sake take another pic -- it could mean a grand or two), but if the obverse is fairly depicted, smoe of us may have a coin or two ripe for resubmitting. One-sided cams do occur with smoewhat greater frequency.

Russ · October 5, 2004 7:10AM

Geez, Heritage is terrible at imaging cameos. If I were the consignor of that coin, I'd demand that I be allowed to provide my own images.

Russ, NCNE

keets · October 5, 2004 9:48PM

judging from the pictures listed at Heritage the coin isn't worth the premium that'll go along with the CAM designation. i have seen some PR67's and PR68's with color that are much nicer in appearance. while CAM/DCAM is the ultimate goal and a true rarity in early proofs, CAM for the sake of the holder when the true appeearance is weak just makes me shake my head.

al h.

solid · October 6, 2004 1:03AM

If I were the consignor of that coin, I'd demand that I be allowed to provide my own images.

I've often wondered, and asked once or twice, if anyone has ever done this...

Anyone?

sliderider · October 6, 2004 1:13AM

<< <i>If I were the consignor of that coin, I'd demand that I be allowed to provide my own images.

I've often wondered, and asked once or twice, if anyone has ever done this...

Anyone? >>

I don't think they would allow a consignor to provide their own images. The potential for liability to them for selling a coin using doctored images would be too great. They do need to get a professional coin photographer of their own, to get more realistic images, though.

keets · October 6, 2004 6:11AM

................and how do we all know that the coin doesn't look like the pictures?????? if you're expecting a pre-1950 Jefferson to look like a post-1950 Cameo, you're hoping for more than you'll find. the best examples i've seen---and that isn't many---are all borderline and would look OK in a non-designated holder.

al h.

BigE · October 6, 2004 6:34AM

It's obviously is a bad picture because proofs don't come that ugly

------------BigE

coolkarma · October 6, 2004 10:30AM

<< <i>................and how do we all know that the coin doesn't look like the pictures?????? if you're expecting a pre-1950 Jefferson to look like a post-1950 Cameo, you're hoping for more than you'll find. the best examples i've seen---and that isn't many---are all borderline and would look OK in a non-designated holder.

al h.

>>

I have to agree with Keets on this one

The photo likely is a typical Heritage photo (not great, but predictable) so the coin is a bit weak on the obverse compared to a 1950's cameo. That's about the best there is for 1936-1942 proofs, except for BNE's 1942 Type 2 DCam

Of course, if none of you are going to bid on it, then perhaps it will sell for a price I can afford

CarlWohlforth · October 8, 2004 12:41AM

Well I am definately sending my '38 and '40 in for regrade. I think my '40 has a chance if the pre-'50 coins are judged to a looser standard. The image at Heritage shows a decent reverse but the obverse doesn't match. At least we get to see what it does at auction!

littlejohn · October 8, 2004 8:10AM

THAT NICKEL should not be a CAMEO.!!!
LITTLEJOHN

Proof Jeff Gang: Did you see what was made?

Comments