Non-Bidder Remorse---1886 3CN

itsnotjustme

I thought seriously about bidding on this one, but held off. It would have been out of speculation although it would be an upgrade for my type set. This looks like a clear cameo and shot DCAM unless the photo is funky. PR66, sold for $737.

Auction Link

Russ

I frequently get non-bidder remorse. It happens right after Marty PMs me to brag about something he just got in from an eBay auction that I was watching but passed on.

Russ, NCNE

Sequitur

How could PCGS miss the designation on that one?

LincolnCentMan

I get non-bidder's remorse every once in a while. It's usually when I find out the reserve is set a lot lower than what I thought it would be. I usually dont bid on reserve auctions b/c I want to have a firm grasp of how much $ I'm at risk of sending out.

David

lordmarcovan

<< <i>How could PCGS miss the designation on that one? >>



Maybe they weren't assigning it when that was graded. CAM and DCAM designations on some of the 19th century proofs is a fairly recent addition, I believe. I also believe it's fertile ground for cherrypicking, if one can buy nondesignated coins like this and get 'em into CAM or DCAM holders.

I would say this was a perfect example of such a cherrypicking opportunity, and I can see why Brian is feeling the remorse. You can bet it won't be in that plain-old PR66 holder much longer.

Sequitur

I bid on that coin, too. But I was worried about image manipulation.

lordmarcovan

I think the pic's legit. I've seen 'em with that kind of contrast, and that oh-so-slightly hazy look.

michael

the coin was certified before they staRTED to designate pre 1917 cameos and deep cams which was june 1 2001

the coin is dipped out hence the haze scans do an excellent job at showing this

the toning was so deep it ate into the mirrors hence the haze and cloudiness after the dip

i cant say for sure as i cant see the coin in person but based on the image there are numerous large carbon on the coin and also two planchet flaws mint made surface disturbances that are extremely enhernet on the proof only 1886 three cent nicks

again sight seen might be different but i cant be sure from a scan

typical yuk yuk dipped out hazy cloudy mirrored stripped coin strong cameo or not and i think the way this coin was shot in flourscent light the coin is no way as cameo in person as the scan suggests

i would love to see this coin in person

michael

Sequitur

i think the way this coin was shot in flourscent light the coin is no way as cameo in person as the scan suggests

I'm feeling better already. Thanks for posting this; good analysis. Couldn't commit with that lousy scanner pic (scanners suck); a decent photograph would have been a different story entirely.

Tonelover

The date has a PCGS Population of 22/12 in 66 Cameo, it's reached the point where the premium for the Cameo designation is minimal and certainly was already factored in to the final winning bid. There are plenty more that are worthy of the designation but were graded before it was given out.

A Deep Cameo would be a major score as there are none yet so graded at PCGS but the picture appears to have been tweaked a little, unless those fields are really deep it may not have the contrast to go DCAM. I can't tell without seeing the coin.

What concerns me however is that huge scratch(?) running down the cheek, it seems to extend all the way up above Liberty's eyebrow. If that's on the coin then it will likely never fetch a strong price because discerning collectors would not buy a PR-66 with issues like that.

As such, based on what I can see in the picture, I conclude that the coin was no bargain.

itsnotjustme

Thanks for everyone's comments. I feel better already. I think in my 4 years on here I've learned a whole lot!

Shamika

I get non-bidders remorse far more often than bidders remorse. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.