Would this older PCGS holder go CAM today?

JRocco

Going thru some older holders, I came across a few older green labeled holders and a few older rattlers where some of the proof Frankies I have look like they might go CAM by today's standards. Were these not designated back then? Opinions on this piece for example-pardon the older scratched slab and my camera's reflection on the lower obverse.

P.S. These are totally untouched pictures (no adjustments at all) shot using Marty's lampshade method.

airplanenut

They weren't designated back then... that's an easy cam, and if the mirrors are clear, a DCAM...

fivecents

Yes, that would cameo if resubmitted.

TUMUSS

As long as you don't send it to Murphy first

tsacch

nice cameo, dont resubmit and waste the money..........enjoy it for the old holder and sell it as is.

fivecents

Sorry, but I say crack the sucker...it could and probably would DCAM.

SanctionII

Your slabbed frankie is in an older holder which I think was used prior to the time that PCGS decided to give out the CAMDCAM designation. From your picture I would guess that your 1963 half is a lock CAM and maybe a DCAM. However I can not tell from the picture how strong the mirrored fileds are on the coin. It looks like the mirrors have some haze on them (but it could just be the slab and/or the picture making the fields look less mirrored than they really are).

I bought (overpaid for actually, but it was part of the cost of my education) a 1956 PCGS PF68 Type 1 Franklin half about 6 years ago in a similar holder, thinking that it is a cameo. I have not submitted it for review and possible CAMDCAM designation yet. Maybe one of these days.

Yours is a very nice looking coin. You could crack it out and resubmit it raw if you think it could regrade at higher than 66. If not you could submit it to PCGS for review with a request to have it evaluated for CAMDCAM designation.

relayer

Not if I submitted it

Myqqy

Looks like a very nice cam!! If only there was some way of removing those milk spots!

kieferscoins

<< <i>Not if I submitted it >>



Maybe the flips you use hazes them up.

Cameron Kiefer

Outhaul

<< <i>As long as you don't send it to Murphy first >>

etexmike

I think it is a no question Cam and a shot at DCAM under the right conditions.

-----------

etexmike

midwestcoin13

Cameonut

Crack it out and resubmit - looks dcam to me.

Years ago, I reholdered a bunch of PCGS rattlers into the newer holders, cost me $5 each and none of them were ever designated cameo. This coin could have been reholdered even if they had started to designate the cameos.