Could this CAM? --- 1942 Proof WLH (Poll)

TonedPeaceNut · November 18, 2004 3:11PM

Picked this up a couple of years ago in a Goldberg Auction -- actually bought the entire 1942 6 coin proof set.

It's graded NGC PF66 in an older style holder. I've always wondered if it could get the CAM designation.

I know it's a tough one to find in CAM or get a CAM designation on, but I haven't seen that many WLHs with any contrast, no less with the contrast on this coin. The mirrors have about 2 inches of dept and they are pretty clean.

If you don't think it has a shot -- how close is it? 50% 60% 90% Ect.

TPN

poorguy · November 18, 2004 3:31PM

It would take a couple of more angles of shots for me to determine the CAMness of the coin in question. From that angle I could see why they miiiight go CAM but that's only one angle. How are the fields? Nice, black and watery?

dthigpen · November 18, 2004 3:39PM

No, while there is some frost contrast in portions of the devices, the majority have no contrast whatsoever.

TonedPeaceNut · November 18, 2004 3:46PM

While we are at it -- does anyone have a pic of a CAM WLH????

Here's the one in the SG Santa Clara Auction -- but it doesn't show the true contrast or depth of fields.

TPN

ER · November 18, 2004 4:18PM

50/50

JRocco · November 18, 2004 11:11PM

I would love to see you score a cam, but that coin won't do it for you.

CarlWohlforth · November 18, 2004 11:19PM

It looks like a great proof Walker! However it doesn't look cameo to me because part of the skirt and part of the Eagle's wings are brilliant.

kieferscoins · November 18, 2004 11:34PM

It will not CAM.

Cameron Kiefer

dthigpen · November 18, 2004 11:35PM

Furthermore, I wouldn't crack it from a PF66 holder.

TonedPeaceNut · November 18, 2004 11:43PM

<< Furthermore, I wouldn't crack it from a PF66 holder. >>

It will simply be sent back to NGC fro designation review -- no cracking involved.

Looks like its a dead heat --- 12 to 12!!!!

Thanks for all the opinions.

TPN

Merc · November 18, 2004 11:47PM

The proof walkers may show some cam on Liberty on the obverse, but rarely cam on the reverse. I have seen some with cam on the holder but was not impressed. The cameo is very weak especially when you compare it to a Barber half or a Franklin in cameo. Here is a 1942 I have PCGS PF66 Miss Liberty has a mild cameo.

dthigpen · November 18, 2004 11:52PM

<< Looks like its a dead heat --- 12 to 12!!!!

>>

Realize this is just an educated opinion, but the brilliant luster spots on the wings on the reverse and *especially* the skirt on the obverse pretty much do disqualify it for a CAM designation; you'd be wasting money submitting it for review, in fact, I'd be willing to put my money where my mouth is and bet $250 that it will not come back CAM.

coinguy1 · November 18, 2004 11:54PM

No.

TonedPeaceNut · November 18, 2004 11:57PM

<< in fact, I'd be willing to put my money where my mouth is and bet $250 that it will not come back CAM. >>

Yes, but would you be willing to give odds?????

Hey Mark --- What happened with that Buffalo you thought would CAM from the last Long Beach show? Have you gotten it back yet????

TPN

dthigpen · November 18, 2004 11:58PM

<< 

<< in fact, I'd be willing to put my money where my mouth is and bet $250 that it will not come back CAM. >>

Yes, but would you be willing to give odds?????

TPN >>

I'll give you 10:1 payout on a $25 bet, how about that?

TonedPeaceNut · November 19, 2004 12:02AM

<< I'll give you 10:1 payout on a $25 bet, how about that? >>

Okay -- you're on. That's sounds fair. But it's going to be awhile. I'm going to walk it through @ the next Long Beach show.

It's not that I disagree with you. You might be 100% correct. Just makes it all that more interesting. I've never said it would CAM. I just thought I'd give it a shot. Big upside if it does.

TPN

dthigpen · November 19, 2004 12:02AM

<< 

<< I'll give you 10:1 payout on a $25 bet, how about that? >>

Okay -- you're on. That's sounds fair. But it's going to be awhile. I'm going to walk it through @ the next Long Beach show.

It's not that I disagree with you. You might be 100% correct. Just makes it all that more interesting. I've never said it would CAM. I just thought I'd give it a shot. Big upside if it does.

TPN >>

Fair enough, Let me know!

SanctionII · November 19, 2004 12:26AM

I doubt it.

By coincidence, I have an NGC PF66 1942 Walker that I showed to Mark Feld at the Santa Clara Show yesterday [by the way Mr. Feld it was a pleasure to meet you and I appreciate you taking a few minutes of your time to say hello and to look at my proof Walker]. I questioned whether mine could possibly cam. While the reverse of mine has very nice cameo contrast, the obverse looks similar to the 1942 pictured in this post.

Mr. Feld's opinion was that it would not cam. I did not think so either, but held out a remote hope that NGC goofed on the designation.

LanLord · November 19, 2004 12:28AM

I don't think it would cam because of the sun and flag, but that may change if other angle photos show better definition. The Eagle's wings and the rock also look less than cameo, but again, maybe the pic angle.

Regardless, it is a nice coin to have and one I'd be happy to call mine.

LanLord · November 19, 2004 12:29AM

BTW, I am hedging my bet and stating for the poll that I don't know. It's probably worth the submission fee for your peace of mind regardless of which way it comes back.

dthigpen · November 19, 2004 12:30AM

I want to see the justification for the person who voted "Lock CAM!"

Baley · November 19, 2004 12:31AM

Very very few proof walkers receive the cam designation, and I don't think this one qualifies.

I don't think it would cam because of the sun and flag

Lanlord, even the ones that DO go Cameo, don't have a frosty sun... it's always brilliant.

TonedPeaceNut · November 19, 2004 12:34AM

<< It's probably worth the submission fee for your peace of mind regardless of which way it comes back. >>

Yep, that's basically what I'm thinking too. Maybe it'll get a star???????

I know they give stars to CAMs that just miss UCAM. Maybe they give * to brillants that just miss CAM as well.

<< Regardless, it is a nice coin to have and one I'd be happy to call mine. >>

Thanks, I kinda like it too!

TPN

PTVETTER · November 19, 2004 10:55AM

It's not a cam but if you think it's a high grade proof sent it in

100proof1957 · November 20, 2004 8:06AM

How many cam Walkers are there ?

Not many !

Very esoteric area to delve in to !

airplanenut · November 20, 2004 8:14AM

I don't think it will CAM. Here's a comparison coin--a 1938 PCGS PR66 no CAM (I think it may well star at NGC, though, if it were sent)

(on the second shots, it's not toning... it's me... or at least my arm

)

Jeremy

coinfreak499 · November 20, 2004 8:26AM

Beautiful WLH! I don't think it will go cam though.

michael · November 20, 2004 11:44AM

i got the first walker graded cam by pcgs dec 19 2001 a 1938 proof 67 cameo

if you want to know if the coin is a REAL cameo or not to my standards and then pcgs standards

show it to me in person sight seen

michael

TonedPeaceNut · November 24, 2004 5:49PM

Hey APN -- why not try to resubmit that one. She sure is purdy!!!!

Well as a final thought on this thread, I'm going to have NGC regrade it @ Long Beach in Feburary and I'll post the results. Maybe I get a star!

TPN

michael · November 24, 2004 5:57PM

since the sun on the obverse of the proof walkers in the lowest point of the coin the sun for the most part do not have any cameo contrast at all

there are a couple of proof walkers graded cameo by one of the current top market leading grading services

that if broken out of their holders and resubmitted today right now raw would never get the cameo designation

michael

Could this CAM? --- 1942 Proof WLH (Poll)

Comments

Leave a Comment