Options
What level of cameo (or lack thereof) would you say this Franklin is?
Rexford
Posts: 1,302 ✭✭✭✭✭
Note that it is an early date and thus should not be considered in the same way that modern proofs are.
Here is the PCGSCoinfacts page for the date for comparison: http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/96693
0
Comments
I think they will call it "Cameo" because there are some "breaks" in the coat.
Right side of bell is weak but obverse will carry it.
CAM in my eyes.
I vote cameo
Here is a picture of a PCGS 66DCAM. I'm a little confused as to what makes it a DCAM in comparison to the one above. Coat and reverse bell look very similar, unless I'm missing something. The strike is better but that shouldn't be a factor. Could someone explain?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Is all the chatter in the obverse field of the first coin from the holder? There is much less of that in the second coin.
I don't think that's chatter, just die lines. You're right that they are more apparent on the first coin though.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
The standards have been all over the board for the last twenty years.
To me the image makes it look like a cam but not a dcam. Nice coin.
I would call the OP's coin a Cameo. Just a little less frost than the posted DC, maybe.
Can't tell from the pic [and my lack of experience] but I sure will learn listening to the more experienced graders and collectors here
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
I would call it cameo from what I see in the picture
Your obverse is stronger than the PCGS DCAM coin, but your reverse is weaker.
The obverse carries the most weight, and I dunno...looking at the PCGS coin compared to yours....not a helluva lot of difference.
Yours has 25% more obverse frost and about 15% less reverse frost (obviously just my eyeball opinions)....I'd send that sucker in!
If the grader had a good night, you might score big.
But several posters above have mentioned the rather arbitrary CAM vs. DCAM designations.........it's been like that ever since I can remember.
I have seen many DCAM coins that were a little sad......and also killer CAMs and everything in between.
Most likely two things and they are probably rather obvious......1) Differing standards from different sets of graders 2) "Built-in" inconsistency" as part of TPGs business model to ensure repeat submissions on "liner" coins.
Just my 6.2 grams of copper.........
The first is, IMO, CAM...it has less frost and the mirrors have breaks... and not nearly as deep (read that black, in the picture).... Again, this is a case of no standard to measure this characteristic.... Cheers, RickO
I'm very confident the OP's coin is a CAM. Don't see DCAM due to the lack of deep black fields. I believe there has been a bit of evolution in the CAM designations over the years. Some of the coins that were graded DCAM in early years of the designation would have almost no chance of landing in a DCAM holder today. You can't just focus on the heaviness of the frost to make your determination, a current DCAM requires jet black fields and heavy frost; I don't think the depth of fields was as much of a requirement back in the early days of the designation.
For comparison, here's my 67 CAM that I believe is properly designated.
PCGS absolutely requires deep mirrors to get a dcam (unless they make a mistake of course). After that, the frost has got to be there on both sides. Based on the photos, when I look at the OP's coin, I don't see the deep mirrors, but it has enough frost to be a cam.
Here is my '52 that I found at a show in Detroit. Some collector put this in a capitol holder long ago as the plastic was quite yellowed. Submitted this in 2000 and it came back a 65 cameo. I thought it had a shot at deep cameo because of the deep mirrors on the obverse (less so on the reverse), but it apparently fell short on the frost scale. There is less frost fade on the bell than the photo suggests. Someday I will resubmit it.
Looks to be off the same die as ModCrewman's coin above.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
Your coin is very nice, but there is a difference in eye appeal and Mr. Franklin's coat is not fully cameo. The opposing coin has deep watery fields that set off the device. Non the less you have a nice coin.
I so much like Franklin halves I just picked up a box set, as opposed to flat pack of proof coins, the last year of the boxes, really nice proof coins. Ben is just so nice, besides it's my birth year 1975.