some of you guys replying in this thread should stick to what you're experience is and not try to debate the point based on how well you can read price sheets and pop reports, what the laws of Economics101 say and how you "feel" about the subject. in laymans terms, if you haven't searched for these coins and been actively involved in that segment of the market, you have an opinion, an opinion which doesn't hold very much value. stick to what your experience is and stop theorizing.
an aside to SanctionII, your 1965 SMS Jefferson is probably an MS66CAM at best, and for the year, that's pretty good.
<< <i>some of you guys replying in this thread should stick to what you're experience is and not try to debate the point based on how well you can read price sheets and pop reports, what the laws of Economics101 say and how you "feel" about the subject. in laymans terms, if you haven't searched for these coins and been actively involved in that segment of the market, you have an opinion, an opinion which doesn't hold very much value. stick to what your experience is and stop theorizing >>
In other words folks lets all become shallow, non-thinking androids who go through life learning nothing.
<< <i>an aside to SanctionII, your 1965 SMS Jefferson is probably an MS66CAM at best >>
And then lets all reach conclusions about the grade of coins we have never seen based upon probabilities derived from pops that we are not suppoed to bother considering.
What a fun thread, all due to the topic of a 1965 SMS nickel and how "rare" or how "common" a DCAM example is. Great comments all and clearly an example of why the forums are great.
Russ: I have not yet joined a TPG and have not submitted any coins for slabbing. My 1965 SMS will have to wait to be entombed. One of these days when I go as far as I want to go on putting together a complete set of 1950-70 raw cameos of all denominations [105 coins in all] I will send them all in for grading at the same time and have a blast comparing my assigned grades to the grades given by the TPG. However, tomorrow is my birthday and if I get a digital camera, I will start practicing and posting pictures. My first posted picture may well be my 1965 SMS.
Keets: You may be correct that my 1965 SMS will grade 66 CAM. I have no doubt it is a lock CAM. As for the numerical grade, I do not know. DCAM? I also do not know. What I do know is that my 1965 SMS nickel has a maximum cost basis of $9.14, has a maximum downside of $9.09, has a skyhigh upside potential and is darn right pretty to look at.
RYK: What is your definition of "pocket change"? The other coins in the SMS set with my cherrypicked nickel can be spent in commerce since they are "legal tender". So can my 1830 Bust Half and so can an 1807 Bust Quarter I looked at yesterday. They also fit in my pocket and I can make change with them.
This is a fun thread I don't consider myself a modern collector as I do not spend time or resources on coins minted after 1958(end of the wheatbacks). Clearly SMS DCAM's are very difficult to locate whatever the reason. But I also would be concerned about the bubble bursting on any modern coin. For example two years ago most MS66 1930 era Lincolns were selling for $100 and up. Now the pops have nearly trippled for these yrs in MS66 and 67; the result, MS66 coins are now dogs and sell for under $20 many times. All this in the last two yrs; I guess what I'm saying is just because the pops are low now and have stayed that way for many yrs does'nt mean that there are'nt many more of them out there. JMHO
<< <i>This is a fun thread I don't consider myself a modern collector as I do not spend time or resources on coins minted after 1958(end of the wheatbacks). Clearly SMS DCAM's are very difficult to locate whatever the reason. But I also would be concerned about the bubble bursting on any modern coin. For example two years ago most MS66 1930 era Lincolns were selling for $100 and up. Now the pops have nearly trippled for these yrs in MS66 and 67; the result, MS66 coins are now dogs and sell for under $20 many times. All this in the last two yrs; I guess what I'm saying is just because the pops are low now and have stayed that way for many yrs does'nt mean that there are'nt many more of them out there. JMHO
Chris >>
Generally speaking there probably is more danger of price increases on moderns than many of the older coins. This particularly applies to coins that are generally well made in large numbers. It almost certainly does not apply to coins like DCam SMS cents. In- deed when you consider that there were large numbers of collectors for coins like 1930 Lincolns and very few for the modern coins, it may well be less likely for pop increases on these.
Also the older coins have been widely collected for many years. While the collector base for them is growing the percentage increase in the collector base for the later dates is far higher.
I really like this thread and thus am sending it up to the penthouse for more exposure and continued comments from members of forum land. Keep your replies coming. In fact, if anyone can post pictures of 1965 SMS CAM or DCAM nickles, please do since that would foster even more discussion.
I really think it is more of a discussion with those that have different perspectives... and that is fine because there really are no right or wrong answers... it is perspective and more importantly taste... and in the matter of taste, there really is no dispute. Therefore, no debate really exists...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Here's a 1965 SMS 66-CAM cherried raw from a party that shall remain nameless ... so close to DCAM, but given away by a small bright stripe across the top of Tom's wig ...
RGL, your raw 1965 MSM nickel (courtesy one one who shall remain nameless, LOL) looks almost exactly like the raw 1965 SMS nickel I cherrypicked from an original set a few years ago (which I have talked about previously in this thread). When I get a chance later tonight I will have to compare your pictured nickel with mine.
My own opinion is that yours should DCAM (of course if yours does, then that means a better chance that mine would).
In any event, yours is a great looking coin.
One wonders why the one who shall remain nameless decided to let you cherrypick the nickel away from him. Maybe he was distracted by other more serious (1964 CAMDCAM AH Kennedies) matters.
Thanks, Sanction ... but beware of any bright spots ... my coin is not DCAM due to the brightness in a small spot atop Tom's wig. PCGS will forgive a tiny shiny spot in the most-deep recess on a SMS DCAM, but no more ...
And, for my good friend Russ, who has scored at least three SMS Jeff DCAMs I would love to have, I rue the day he began to think, Hey, there might be something to these Jeffs ... and, he can bite me!
RGL, I am now looking at my 1965 SMS nickel with a 10x loupe and am comparing it with the picture of your 1965. From your picture I can not see the stripe on the top of TJ's wig that you mentioned. On mine I see nothing but thick, uniform, unbroken frost across the obverse and reverse devices. There are some marks/nicks on TJ's jaw and cheek bone (as does the jaw in your pictured 1965) but even they are frosted.
The only thing strange about my 1965 is the fact that on the obverse there are some small bright coppery orange flakes embedded in both the mirrored fields and in the frosted devices. It is almost like a copper planchet became attached to the hammer die, became a die cap and eventually wore away to the point where only small flakes of copper were left on the hammer die. These were then embedded into the nickel planchet upon striking. For the copper orange flakes that are on the obverse devices, even they have cameo frost. For the copper orange flakes on the fields, even they are mirrored.
Very strange indeed. If my theory is correct, then how in the world would the cameo frost and mirrored fields survive the multiple strikings needed to wear away the copper cap on the hammer die in good enough shape to impart a CAM or possibly DCAM appearance to the obverse of the nickel planchet that looks the same as the CAM or possibly DCAM appearance of the reverse of the nickel planchet imparted by the hammer die?
I suppose another theory is that a mint employee used a cloth, that previously had picked up some copper flakes, to wipe down/clean the SMS nickel hammer die and that some of the copper flakes stuck to the hammer die and were embedded in the nickel with the first strike of the hammer die.
Comments
<< <i>I don't understand why we all keep having these arguments. >>
It's not an argument, it's a debate.
Russ, NCNE
"We're not arguing, it's a discussion"
-Daniel
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
an aside to SanctionII, your 1965 SMS Jefferson is probably an MS66CAM at best, and for the year, that's pretty good.
al h.
<< <i>some of you guys replying in this thread should stick to what you're experience is and not try to debate the point based on how well you can read price sheets and pop reports, what the laws of Economics101 say and how you "feel" about the subject. in laymans terms, if you haven't searched for these coins and been actively involved in that segment of the market, you have an opinion, an opinion which doesn't hold very much value. stick to what your experience is and stop theorizing >>
In other words folks lets all become shallow, non-thinking androids who go through life learning nothing.
<< <i>an aside to SanctionII, your 1965 SMS Jefferson is probably an MS66CAM at best >>
And then lets all reach conclusions about the grade of coins we have never seen based upon probabilities derived from pops that we are not suppoed to bother considering.
CG
Russ: I have not yet joined a TPG and have not submitted any coins for slabbing. My 1965 SMS will have to wait to be entombed. One of these days when I go as far as I want to go on putting together a complete set of 1950-70 raw cameos of all denominations [105 coins in all] I will send them all in for grading at the same time and have a blast comparing my assigned grades to the grades given by the TPG. However, tomorrow is my birthday and if I get a digital camera, I will start practicing and posting pictures. My first posted picture may well be my 1965 SMS.
Keets: You may be correct that my 1965 SMS will grade 66 CAM. I have no doubt it is a lock CAM. As for the numerical grade, I do not know. DCAM? I also do not know. What I do know is that my 1965 SMS nickel has a maximum cost basis of $9.14, has a maximum downside of $9.09, has a skyhigh upside potential and is darn right pretty to look at.
RYK: What is your definition of "pocket change"? The other coins in the SMS set with my cherrypicked nickel can be spent in commerce since they are "legal tender". So can my 1830 Bust Half and so can an 1807 Bust Quarter I looked at yesterday. They also fit in my pocket and I can make change with them.
Chris
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>This is a fun thread
Chris >>
Generally speaking there probably is more danger of price increases on moderns than
many of the older coins. This particularly applies to coins that are generally well made
in large numbers. It almost certainly does not apply to coins like DCam SMS cents. In-
deed when you consider that there were large numbers of collectors for coins like 1930
Lincolns and very few for the modern coins, it may well be less likely for pop increases
on these.
Also the older coins have been widely collected for many years. While the collector base
for them is growing the percentage increase in the collector base for the later dates is
far higher.
I really like this thread and thus am sending it up to the penthouse for more exposure and continued comments from members of forum land. Keep your replies coming. In fact, if anyone can post pictures of 1965 SMS CAM or DCAM nickles, please do since that would foster even more discussion.
I really think it is more of a discussion with those that have different perspectives... and that is fine because there really are no right or wrong answers... it is perspective and more importantly taste... and in the matter of taste, there really is no dispute. Therefore, no debate really exists...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
<< <i>Here's a 1965 SMS 66-CAM cherried raw from a party that shall remain nameless ... >>
Bite me.
Russ, NCNE
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
Russ, NCNE
My own opinion is that yours should DCAM (of course if yours does, then that means a better chance that mine would).
In any event, yours is a great looking coin.
One wonders why the one who shall remain nameless decided to let you cherrypick the nickel away from him. Maybe he was distracted by other more serious (1964 CAMDCAM AH Kennedies) matters.
<< <i>One wonders why the one who shall remain nameless decided to let you cherrypick the nickel away from him. >>
At the time he was at the bottom of the learning curve, and was taken advantage of by an experienced and ruthless Jefferson collector.
Russ, NCNE
And, for my good friend Russ, who has scored at least three SMS Jeff DCAMs I would love to have, I rue the day he began to think, Hey, there might be something to these Jeffs ... and, he can bite me!
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
Registry set link
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
The only thing strange about my 1965 is the fact that on the obverse there are some small bright coppery orange flakes embedded in both the mirrored fields and in the frosted devices. It is almost like a copper planchet became attached to the hammer die, became a die cap and eventually wore away to the point where only small flakes of copper were left on the hammer die. These were then embedded into the nickel planchet upon striking. For the copper orange flakes that are on the obverse devices, even they have cameo frost. For the copper orange flakes on the fields, even they are mirrored.
Very strange indeed. If my theory is correct, then how in the world would the cameo frost and mirrored fields survive the multiple strikings needed to wear away the copper cap on the hammer die in good enough shape to impart a CAM or possibly DCAM appearance to the obverse of the nickel planchet that looks the same as the CAM or possibly DCAM appearance of the reverse of the nickel planchet imparted by the hammer die?
I suppose another theory is that a mint employee used a cloth, that previously had picked up some copper flakes, to wipe down/clean the SMS nickel hammer die and that some of the copper flakes stuck to the hammer die and were embedded in the nickel with the first strike of the hammer die.
Any thoughts? SanctionII.