What woud you guys do with this '55 Proof set? (Grade in, anybody want to GTG?)
FadeToBlack
Posts: 7,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
None of the coins are anything special, except for the Franklin, but I'm not sure it's nice enough to get a dcam designation, and it probably needs a quick dip before going in anyway. I'm debating between pulling it out of the set or just leaving the set intact. I have the original box and tissue paper as well.
0
Comments
A 67 CAM is a $200+ coin...68 CAM is $400+.
From your picture I don't see a DCAM coming out of that, but I could be wrong.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
My Original Song Written to my late wife-"Plus other original music by me"
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A11CC8CC6093D80
https://n1m.com/bobbysmith1
Edited to add..........
Let the graders figure out what's under that haze/toning. that's what they are patd to do.......
The mint packaging on these contains pvc and inhibits proper viewing of the coins, so I simply cut them out. Leaving them in there then pvc will damage coins.....if not already.
you have posted this before and I believe it to be false. could you please provide something to back up your claim?? thanks in advance. back to the coin, I'd leave it in the packaging unless your motive for buying it was profit.
<< <i>The mint packaging on these contains pvc
you have posted this before and I believe it to be false. could you please provide something to back up your claim?? thanks in advance. back to the coin, I'd leave it in the packaging unless your motive for buying it was profit. >>
I have never seen any evidence that those sleeves contain PVC, and I will say that they often promote unattractive toning and usually cannot be dipped off the silver coins.
If these numbers will work for you, please PM me and let's make a deal.
In my estimation, if left alone for another hundred years, it will naturally turn black , except...with the way people think of "dipping" and "doing coins" it appears that it will always be white and never wrong for someone who doesn't like leaving what is, as is.... except to prove or disprove what it was in the first place.
And who needs to dip a CAMEO coin to know what it is ? Who needs to WASH it clean to grade it properly ?
Okay, back in my hole.
a quick comment on coins still in the Mint cello but not a comment on this coin.......................
quite often the haze imparted by long term storage in the mint cello will cause a non-cameo coin to appear frosted and the tone from the same storage can hide hairlines. I have removed coins from flat packs and "dipped" them only to discover brilliant and hairlined non-cameo coins. also, the cello itself can become cloudy and make it difficult to discern what exactly lies within. these and other things are the pitfalls waiting for those who search sets.
1. All haze and toning is removed revealing a high grade black and white CAM or even DCAM coin;
2. All haze and toning is removed revealing a coin that has frost on the devices and mirrored fields that are not good enough to warrant a CAM designation but is still a gorgeous coin;
3. 1 or 2 above, except the coin is low grade due to hairlines or other defects revealed after the haze and toning are removed;
4. 1 or 2 above, except that some toning can not be removed (i.e. the brown spots under the haze on the reverse of the pictured coin) and the coin looks worse because the damage to the coin from the defect is revealed and accentuated;
5. 1 or 2 above, except that the fields of the coin are impaired (shallow, blotchy, etc.) depriving the coin of eye appeal; or
6. All haze and toning is removed revealing a brilliant proof coin (not likely, but it does happen when the haze and toning and the mint packaging all operate to show a cameo appearance when there is none).
If I had the proof set containing the pictured half dollar, I would not be able to resist taking it out of the original packaging (to prevent further haze or toning). I would look at the coin and study it and if it has the tells that lead me to believe a gem CAM or DCAM coin lies beneath the haze and toning and that the haze and toning can be successfully removed, I would give the coin a bath or dip to clean it up.
<< <i>What I'd do...I'd cut it out in a second. Dip it and submit it if the fields cleaned up well enough. The area around the date looks like it may have some hairlines.
A 67 CAM is a $200+ coin...68 CAM is $400+.
From your picture I don't see a DCAM coming out of that, but I could be wrong. >>
What he said. Looks nice, worth a try.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
It's not an expensive set. Coin has a shot at 67CAM.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
http://my.affinity.is/cancer-research?referral_code=MjI4Nzgz
I have one in a birth year Capital holdered set. Yours is much nicer
Thanks for showing the before and afters... I trust you'll keep us posted on the progress
The reverse is a little spottier than I would have hoped.
Not sure about grading on these... No experience personally...
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
nice - prefer the 50C before tho
Best wishes,
Eric
It looked "natural".
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
<< <i>The fields resemble a galaxy in space. >>
Yes, that is a lot of spotting. It was not so apparent before the dip, and the nice bluish original Pr "haze" or what I am gonna term "Proof Blush"is gone, making this look like so many others. It's individuality was removed. I liked it a lot before. The second photo of the Obverse, the creaminess of that frost was very seductive.
Best wishes,
Eric
Successful BST Transactions!SIconbuster, Meltdown, Mission16, slothman2000, RGjohn, braddick, au58lover, allcoinsrule, commemdude, gerard, lablade, PCcoins, greencopper, kaz, tydye, cucamongacoin, mkman123, SeaEaglecoins, Doh!, AnkurJ, Airplanenut, ArizonaJack, JJM,Tee135,LordMarcovan, Swampboy, piecesofme, Ahrensdad,
<< <i>What's done is done, ........but man I sure did like it when it was ..........natural..... >>
It would have graded way to low in the eye appeal category. Prolly would have been a 62/63 cam before restoration heck it may not even graded due to the residue from the cello that was on the coin.
Successful BST Transactions!SIconbuster, Meltdown, Mission16, slothman2000, RGjohn, braddick, au58lover, allcoinsrule, commemdude, gerard, lablade, PCcoins, greencopper, kaz, tydye, cucamongacoin, mkman123, SeaEaglecoins, Doh!, AnkurJ, Airplanenut, ArizonaJack, JJM,Tee135,LordMarcovan, Swampboy, piecesofme, Ahrensdad,
64 DC........
<< <i>64 DC........ >>
+1
The later mint sets definitely contain PVC I believe in the form of an extremely
thin layer of plastic on the inside of each outer layer. I believe the earlier proof
sets are the same.
Nice pickup! Did you submit or rinse any others from the box?
https://imdb.com/name/nm1835107/
Successful BST Transactions!SIconbuster, Meltdown, Mission16, slothman2000, RGjohn, braddick, au58lover, allcoinsrule, commemdude, gerard, lablade, PCcoins, greencopper, kaz, tydye, cucamongacoin, mkman123, SeaEaglecoins, Doh!, AnkurJ, Airplanenut, ArizonaJack, JJM,Tee135,LordMarcovan, Swampboy, piecesofme, Ahrensdad,
All of this time and drama, and it is an NGC graded coin now? Yawn.
Did you use MS70? No way all that stuff comes off with just acetone.