Photos - Very Questionable 1967 Washington SMS Cameo

itsnotjustme

I took photos of the 1967 Washington discussed in a prior thread. Short history, at some point someone was artificially frosting SMS and proof coins for CAM/DCAM designation. The quality got by grading services, but it altered with time. When I read the thread, I recalled a coin of mine of which I became suspicious. I recently picked the coin back up from 5 years apart.... and I feel sure it was doctored. I also do not think it looked near this bad when I got it.... it would have stood out right then.

I will turn this in to PCGS next chance I get.

shottaker

looks funny without a doubt to me.
Interesting theory when it comes to modern coins.
Since they cost less to grade they probably have less time spent on them.

I know its harder to figure between 68-70 on a modern eagle then whether a morgan is a 63,64, or 65 by far.

Much more time consuming and I regularly find flaws on MS/PR 70 coins. It's just not feasable to spend 30 seconds per grader looking at a bulk submit modern coin.

Not making excuses, but I can see why this would slip through with moderns when it would have been spotted far sooner with older series. The older series also have far fewer near flawless coins.

DHeath

Painted with Nic-a-lene?

DHeath

Or Nic-A-date perhaps?

Cam40

thats a `california proof` they can just change the m in cam to an el.
MS67 CAL

stinkinlincoln

Looks off to me too.
But Im no expert in Washingtons.

<<looks funny without a doubt to me.
Interesting theory when it comes to modern coins.
Since they cost less to grade they probably have less time spent on them.

I know its harder to figure between 68-70 on a modern eagle then whether a morgan is a 63,64, or 65 by far.

Much more time consuming and I regularly find flaws on MS/PR 70 coins. It's just not feasable to spend 30 seconds per grader looking at a bulk submit modern coin.

Not making excuses, but I can see why this would slip through with moderns when it would have been spotted far sooner with older series. The older series also have far fewer near flawless coins. >>


This statement bothers me abit. If I send in my coins, and sign MY check, and pay for a service, the graders should be looking at every coin for the same time and giving their honest opinion of what the coin grades. If not, they shouldnt be charging me.
Simple right? I pay for them to look at my coins, regardless of how many I send in. If they are taking my money, they need to be doing their job. Period.
JMO

TomB

Thank you for the images. I have no doubt that the coin in question had less or no blue haze on the devices and especially the fields when it was certified.

shottaker

<< <i>Looks off to me too.
But Im no expert in Washingtons.

<<looks funny without a doubt to me.
Interesting theory when it comes to modern coins.
Since they cost less to grade they probably have less time spent on them.

I know its harder to figure between 68-70 on a modern eagle then whether a morgan is a 63,64, or 65 by far.

Much more time consuming and I regularly find flaws on MS/PR 70 coins. It's just not feasable to spend 30 seconds per grader looking at a bulk submit modern coin.

Not making excuses, but I can see why this would slip through with moderns when it would have been spotted far sooner with older series. The older series also have far fewer near flawless coins. >>


This statement bothers me abit. If I send in my coins, and sign MY check, and pay for a service, the graders should be looking at every coin for the same time and giving their honest opinion of what the coin grades. If not, they shouldnt be charging me.
Simple right? I pay for them to look at my coins, regardless of how many I send in. If they are taking my money, they need to be doing their job. Period.
JMO >>



Thats the truth but they also need to get enough in and out to support the business. Not saying its right or wrong thats just how it is. Paying for a good set of eyes that are honest experienced and not active collecting/selling/owning is not cheap I'm sure.
The economic ramifications for them to miss a ton of ms65 common date morgans that are counterfeits would be far worse.
The easy solution is to not grade moderns as they are far tougher to grade using the human eye. Thats not much of a solution though.
They do take far longer though.

itsnotjustme

<< <i>I have no doubt that the coin in question had less or no blue haze on the devices and especially the fields when it was certified. >>

Tom, I fully agree with you. I also add I am near certain it did not look like this when I received it--even though I was much more novice then than today, I think I would have flagged it. However, it must have at least looked a little funky before I last saw it 5 years ago, as when I read about these I thought of this coin.

For reference, I bought this in Apr 02.

dorkkarl

i agree, looks like a artificial frosting job

K S