Would you conserve this coin - a poll.

DHeath

The market for coins in the right holder with the right designation is strong. The coin below is to me quite attractive, but underneath the lilac toning is a dcam. As it is currently holdered, it is a $100 coin. Were it dipped and reholdered as a 67 Dcam (which I believe it would easily do), it would be a $500 coin. Should this bad behavior be rewarded?

F117ASR

I have a 67 kennedy like that that has crap tonining and is in an ANACS holder as cameo. Maybe it will come out nice too. Are those before and after pics of the same coin?

DHeath

Those are before and before pics, shot at different angles.

Russ

<< <i>it would be a $500 coin. Should this bad behavior be rewarded? >>



See sig line.

Russ, NCNE

beartracks42

I agree with Russ.

K6AZ

If it was my coin, I would bust it out and send it to PCGS as is. It's an attractive coin.

RYK

I voted #1--for some reason, the idea of dipping 20th century coins does not bother me nearly as much as the idea of dipping 19th century coins. Go for it!

ColonialCoinUnion

I agree with RYK -

Dipping a modern proof somehow seems OK, while conserving a 1796 Dime, for example, and thereby reducing the population of uncorrupted examples from a few down to a few dozen -1 seems antithetical to numismatic decency.

DHeath

Just a quick preview before it heads to NCS. The squigglies and dust are on the airtite. I'll follow-up again after NCS with pics and later grades.

nwcs

I'd leave it and try for a reholder. They might just declare it dcam and then you'll have a dcam toned quarter worth even more.

RGL

Don: I personally believe there should be a CAM/DCAM TONED designation ... it would recognize the coin is a CAM/DCAM, but signal the toning prevents the contrast seen on a brilliant coin. Such a designation would give such coins their due and encourage their preservation. Those looking for the contrast of a brilliant would know to pass on the coin, while those who appreciate toning and specialists in a given series would know they have come across a special coin. I have a PCGS 1951 PR-68 (13/0) that is wonderfully rainbow toned and, IMHO, a DCAM. The DCAM is clear on the reverse since the toning stops short of the central device, but the obverse, which is just as frosted, is subdued by rainbow over the entire surface. Here's a (poor) shot of the reverse. I have resisted the temptation to have it conserved, even though PR-68, or even 67, DCAM would be a helluva score. I think it would be a sin to wipe out the beautiful and original toning on this coin, which Jeff specialists would look at and tell you is an undesignated DCAM, just in pursuit of a buck ...

coinkat

Why could it not get a CAM designation without a dip?