Would either of these Frankies go DCAM at PCGS? NGC grades revealed

cohodk

Please ignore the scuffs on the holder. Both are very high grade.

Russ

Judging by the images, I'd say both are very close. They appear to have the smooth, uninterrupted mirrors that PCGS likes to see, and the frost is pretty strong, but not quite at the "lock" level. They are coins - again, judging by the images - that I might take a shot with.

Russ, NCNE

TerrapinWill

For me that endorsement would be enough to take a shot.

GoYankees

I'd say yes to both.

seanq

I'd say no on the 1963, and maybe / yes on the 1960. The '63 doesn't look like it has the mirrors for a DCAM.

Please take my own miserable track record getting coins into DCAM holders into account when considering these opinions.


Sean Reynolds

Russ

<< <i>The '63 doesn't look like it has the mirrors for a DCAM. >>



What you're seeing on the periphery of the obverse is refraction caused by the plastic of the slab, not lack of mirror depth. This is one of the things I hate about NGC slabs. The plastic they use obscures contrast on cameo and deep cameo coins.

Russ, NCNE

JrGMan2004

IMO, I don't think #1 would make it, but #2 might... seems like the frost is a little light in spots on #1... but, that's not as big of a factor at PCGS, than NGC... so, it might still go DCAM... I'd take a shot with both of em

LucyBop

Mirror depth is a key, and one of the 1st clues for mirrors is the Black and White contrasting effect, also, the reflectivity of the devices in the mirrors which I cannot really see from the image, however to image that the coin must be shot at a angle, though I believe it to be there.



I think they both have a very decent shot at DCAM, and I'm not really seeing a show stopper on either coin....

A friend of mune started a thread awhile back about a NGC 57 Cameo Frankie asking if it would DCAM. I offered very similiar advice. Many on the boards said no way Jose. The person that started the thread sent me the coin one day express mail for my personal evaluation, upon seeing it, I sent it back and replied, 'submit it'.......Having the advantage of seeing it in person it was a obviously worth the hassle of submission, though I didn't think it was a slam dunk DCAM, simple a very strong candidate, as a 57 DCAM is a very tough make....

The coin was a pr67cam NGC, and it went into a PCGs pr68dcam holder making it a huge upgrade....

My own personal experience with NGC to PCGs crackouts is that the coins on average always seem to lose a grade with PCGs.

greghansen

IMO, the top coin wouldn't make it. The frost is dimished across a good portion of Ben's cheek and also on the lower lettering. The frost on the lettering should not be overlooked. The lack of it knocks out a lot of coins that would otherwise be locked in.

2nd coin looks like it would go DCAM, although I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it.

Cameonut

IMHO, the '63 won't make it - but very close. The '60 will make it.

Make sure to check the '60 for the DDO seen on the date and especially TY of Liberty.

cohodk

Thank you everyone for your responses.

The 1960 is NGC 68 UCAM.

The 1963 is NGC 69* CAM
I think NGC gave the 63 a * because it is a DCAM reverse and oh-so close DCAM obverse. It is the only 1963 with the * designation, however there are 2 UCAM

Now the big question. Send them to PCGS in the NGC holders or crack'em?

Russ

<< <i>Now the big question. Send them to PCGS in the NGC holders or crack'em? >>



If it were me, I'd crack them. Because the NGC plastic reduces the contrast, the coin has to be well above baseline for DCAM in order to have a chance of crossing.

Russ, NCNE