Would this cam if...

aus3000tin

the toning and hazing were removed by PCGS restoration?






Thanks,

Chris

stealer

Let's see the reverse. The obverse looks CAM even without restoration IMO.

nankraut

Yeah...show us your backside.

Wabbit2313

Nope, since they don't designate these as Cam. Also, it was just graded based on the cert #.

magikbilly

I'd leave it alone. Could well be hairlines under there that kept it to 64. It is nice. Re Cam, how is the contrast on the sun? No CAM designation does not mean someone won't pony up. Try for a sticker? I see the Reverse now and don't see Cam.

Eric

19Lyds

<< <i>Nope, since they don't designate these as Cam. Also, it was just graded based on the cert #. >>

Really?

Walker Proofs cannot CAM?

Better not tell that to the 3 that already have the designation.

aus3000tin

Where can I find pics of these 3 other Walking Proofs???

Thanks,

Chris

Wabbit2313

<< <i>

<< <i>Nope, since they don't designate these as Cam. Also, it was just graded based on the cert #. >>

Really?

Walker Proofs cannot CAM?

Better not tell that to the 3 that already have the designation. >>



I am under the impression they stopped, thus the reason there is only 3. (Might be less with regrades) I have sent in a few that looked CAM but never get anything.

19Lyds

<< <i>Where can I find pics of these 3 other Walking Proofs???

Thanks,

Chris >>

I've been looking but cannot find any on Heritage.

Here's the PCGS Population Report for the Walker Proofs:



Only 7 from all years have attained the designation so they are extremely difficult to get.

aus3000tin

Would I have a better chance with "other company"???

Thanks,

Chris

TPRC

I think it's close without the clean-up, but perhaps there just isn't quite enough on the reverse. Obverse looks solid. Either way, it's an unusual piece.

aus3000tin

Thanks for the quick replies.

Chris

Tibor

The sun is the reason for the "no cam" situation. In over 30+ years
I have never seen anything even remotely close for cam designation.
I would have to ask Rick Tomaska or Val Webb if they ever encountered
any. Together they have more experience with 1936+ proofs than
any other dealer/dealers.

stealer

It looks like a perfectly fine CAM to me. One of the frostiest suns I've ever seen.

@Wabbit, most likely the reason why you don't is because the sun is almost never frosty and that's the first place they look.

Wabbit2313

<< <i>It looks like a perfectly fine CAM to me. One of the frostiest suns I've ever seen.

@Wabbit, most likely the reason why you don't is because the sun is almost never frosty and that's the first place they look. >>



I can't remember where I heard they don't designate it at all now. I would say the proof is that the coin shown above was just graded and you see the same thing I see. No designation.

MarkInDavis

It looks like it has a lot of potential, but of course I just see a photo. No way to determine Cam or not from a single photo. My guess is no Cam, but these near Cam Walkers definitely sell for more than completely nonCam ones. I have two proof Walkers and while neither of mine is Cameo they both are what I call near Cameo and that is what I look for in a proof Walker even more than the technical grade. A real Cameo is beyond my budget.

magikbilly

Carl W showed me a Pr Walker with a pretty frosted sun. It was spectacular!

Eric

commoncents05

<< <i>

<< <i>It looks like a perfectly fine CAM to me. One of the frostiest suns I've ever seen.

@Wabbit, most likely the reason why you don't is because the sun is almost never frosty and that's the first place they look. >>



I can't remember where I heard they don't designate it at all now. I would say the proof is that the coin shown above was just graded and you see the same thing I see. No designation. >>



This is completely not true. They still grade them CAM, but so few designate full contrast that they do not get graded often.

-Paul

19Lyds

<< <i>Would I have a better chance with "other company"???

Thanks,

Chris >>

I think so since their CAM photo's are easier to find than PCGS's 7. But its your choice.

coinkat

Terrific coin- no cam but don't let that change your view of the coin as it is still attractive. I would not dip the coin. Without seeing the coin in hand, I suspect there might be a less than obvious reason for a 64. if you dip the coin, the greater probability is that the reason for the 64 will be hightlighted making it less attractive than its current state. I would leave it as is and be thrilled to own.

I also suspect there are others here who will completely disagree and that is fine...

lostincoins

What a beautiful walker, the reverse is not frosty enough to cam but as others stated leave it alone. If you are looking to sell it and get the cam designation to increase value list it as a near cam coin and you will get well over list most likely as it is very nice.

Cameonut

Based on the photos, I think it has a terrific shot at cameo.

lostincoins

Because of the rarity of the cameo designation by our host you may want to try a different TPG as they have many mor designated that are not nearly as nice as yours and seem to have a much lower threshold for the qualification. I believe your coins value would still be higher where it is and properly described as to the rarity of the surface and the toning which gives it a fantastic eye appeal. I would also send it of for the bean on a coin like this one to add to the description. The right buyer would give you your 64 cameo $ for this coin.