Question on CAM state quarters

danarchy

Why, in registry sets that have a cam state quarter, is there not a pop/higher shown for that coin?

just struck me as odd


thanks


dan

itsnotjustme

PCGS only compares to other CAMs. I feel this is wrong, and a 69DCAM is clearly higher than a 69CAM.

HoundDog

I agree with Brian, 110%

CarlWohlforth

I agree too!

danarchy

this I understand...but why doesn't the pop/higher show at all? My wife has a 69cam in a set...shows no same grades, no higher...doesn't even show a zero. Is this just something in the loop that needs to be corrected? Or is it that pcgs doesn't have a pop on cams(doubt) or are they really seen as that lowly of a coin?

littlewicher

To tell you the truth danarchy the 69 cam would be seen as lowly. A non-dcam is almost unheard of in modern proofs that are graded.

itsnotjustme

I've had my share of modern proofs in non-DCAM... Just look at most clad 2001 proof sets; these were for the most part, not strong DCAM coins. I feel the pop reports should reflect all the coins graded, not just the best/most common. When I'm sending in 5 coin X, I want to know what other submitters have received. If 10% were not DCAM, that should not be hidden from me.

BNE

itsnotjustme is right, it's not just him. While a DCAM coin may be "better" than a CAM, and both are "better" than brilliant, another way of looking at it (as others have noted on other threads) is that they are simply "different" kinds of coins. For example, I am putting together a brilliant set of proof coins to complement a cameo set in the same series that I've worked on. I want to be able to show off the fact that I have many of the very best examples of brilliant proof coinage without having to look at a population being shown as "above" a coin on my brilliant registry set, which would appear only because equal (or lesser(?)) graded coins have a CAM or DCAM designation.

I appreciate heavily cameoed coinage as much as the next fella, but brilliant coinage has a different aesthetic and is equally fun (and cheaper) to collect. I don't think the population reports (as opposed to weighting in ranking the sets, which I can understand) should incorporate the value judgment.

Then we get into the metaphysical question: is a 67DCAM truly a "better" grade than a proof 69, brilliant? Is a heavily frosted coin with visible surface blemishes truly a "better" coin than a white, brilliant example with nary a mark? In my opinion the balance is pretty fairly struck by adjusting registry rankings to accomodate the rarity of cameo coinage, but don't tell a perfect MacIntosh apple that there are seven bruised Granny Smith's in a population "above" it.

And it is also fun and a challenge to try to put together a perverse set (a la Braddick's low-grade wonders) by trying to find the best "brilliant" examples of modern proof coinage, where it is hard to find examples that DON'T exhibit enough contrast to at least merit a CAM designation.

I say "Let brilliants be brilliants!" (This can be added to today's plea to "free the radical coinage!")

littlewicher

Would it be possible to put together a modern non-cam and non-dcam collection? That would be an extremely difficult challenge. Would the brilliants be worth more than the cameos?

merz2

So far the majority of buyers say the brilliants aren't as desirable.The big money always go to the CAM & DCAM.

pontiacinf

i have all dcams in my set and wouldnt bother with cams or brilliants.