Need advice on a Kennedy set - HELP - Large pic warning

JRocco

I just dug out this set of Kennedy halves I put together a while ago. They are in a Dansco album and most are graded 65+ and nice CAMS and DCAMS whenever I could get them. My question/problem is that they are starting to develop album toning. While this is sometimes good, I am worried about the toning on some better CAM and DCAM pieces. Does this lower their value? I noticed some really odd (bad) toning on the 72S for example. My question is should I do anything at this point? Should I just leave them alone or try to conserve any of them? Are some of them just casualties of my storage? HELP and Opinions please.

fivecents

I would leave them be and let them tone. I really like Dansco album toning.
btw...That 1964 looks like a killa cameo coin.

FC57Coins

I've never been a fan of putting proofs in either rolls or albums. Their surfaces are just too sensitive and can be easily damaged. My advise would be to take the proofs out carefully and put them in individual holders. If some of them have toned, like the 72S - A careful dip might get that stuff off. Otherwise the pieces look nice.

Russ

<< <i>I am worried about the toning on some better CAM and DCAM pieces. Does this lower their value? >>



Other than the silvers from 1992 on they don't have much value to begin with - and are easily replaceable - so if that is the only concern, I wouldn't worry about it. However, if the concern is their appearance and the toning is the ugly kind you might want to take steps to correct the problem. Usually it's more of an environment issue than the album itself.

BTW, the clad business strikes can pretty up very nicely in these Dansco albums with great target toning.

Edit: Just noticed the 1964 proof is a nice one. Pull that sucker out of there and send it to me!

Russ, NCNE

AgMe

As long as the toning looks nice, there is a market for both (toned & blast white). Leave them in & see how things work out.

-g

fivecents

If it were my set I would pull the cameo 1964 proof out of the set...................and SUBMIT IT. Unless it has alot of hairlines.

jdp2

<< <i>Just noticed the 1964 proof is a nice one. >>




How in the world can you tell that is a nice one from that picture?


FYI: That just impresses the hell out of me that Russ can do that.

seanq

<< <i>

<< <i>Just noticed the 1964 proof is a nice one. >>




How in the world can you tell that is a nice one from that picture?


FYI: That just impresses the hell out of me that Russ can do that. >>




I imagine in Russ' case, there is a long history of looking at pictures on eBay auctions and then comparing them to how the coins look in the hand.

Personally, I can see there is cameo contrast on the '64 in that pic. For that matter, the '70-S looks pretty nice, too.


Sean Reynolds

drjules

I am trying to put the same set together at the moment, and if I end up with the same quality as you have there I will be very happy

As for what to do I would leave them in place. Previous advice that the early proofs are easy to replace sounds reasonable and this way you may get some interesting toning

Dr J

poptopsRus

The proofs are easily cleaned as well with a little MS70 and water

JRocco

Thanks for the advice and opinions guys. Russ- you have a good eye- the 64 is one nice coin. Even with the pic shot thru plastic you nailed it. I guess I will put the set aside for a while and one day send it to Russ to let him pick thru and sell the rest for me. Thanks again guys. Now I am going to have to dig up the other sets I put aside at the same time to see how they are doing.