Is it worth sending in... will it "CAM" "Tough, Honest Apinions Appreciated"

Comments

• TomB Posts: 22,092 ✭✭✭✭✭

  July 7, 2012 1:00PM

  I think it's lovely, but I will state that my experience with brilliant proofs of this era is that digital images seem to exagerate the CAM possibilities. Therefore, I will go with no CAM designation.

  Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography
  
  In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
  
  

  0
• keyman64 Posts: 15,548 ✭✭✭✭✭

  July 7, 2012 1:00PM

  Not my series but it looks pretty nice. Have you tried putting a ruler on end...to see how many inches are readable?

  "If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64
  Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
  

  0
• coindudeonebay Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭

  July 7, 2012 1:01PM

  If that is an accurate representation of what the coin actually looks like in hand, then it will not Cam. I see the contrast, but the mirrors seem extremely soft around the periphery of the design.

  0
• lasvegasteddy Posts: 10,432 ✭✭✭

  July 7, 2012 1:01PM

  a 50' proof
  it's worth sending even if it doesn't cam
  i don't think it would cam btw
  still a nice example

  everything in life is but merely on loan to us by our appreciation....lose your appreciation and see
  
  
  

  0
• NewParadigm Posts: 1,322

  July 7, 2012 1:03PM

  
  
  << <i>I think it's lovely, but I will state that my experience with brilliant proofs of this era is that digital images seem to exagerate the CAM possibilities. Therefore, I will go with no CAM designation. >>
  
  
  
  In my experience, 1950 is a date that the TPG's are tough giving cameo designation. Thanks for your input.

  0
• crypto79 Posts: 8,623 ✭

  July 7, 2012 1:03PM

  I agree with Tom, also being a 50 it is likely to get looke over a half sec longer to make sure. It needs to be all there to get it

  0
• Justlooking Posts: 2,895 ✭

  July 7, 2012 1:03PM

  I vote no cam, but nice.

  Let's try not to get upset.

  0
• ModCrewman Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭✭✭

  July 7, 2012 1:04PM

  Based upon the obverse photo it appears to me that the obverse fields will be the limiting factor. They do not appear to be black and deep enough to warrant the CAM designation. That being said, I'd sure be inclined to give it a try if the frost is as full as it appears.
  
  It's closer than I've come yet to a 1950 Washington Cameo.

  0
• georgiacop50 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭✭

  July 7, 2012 1:05PM

  Nope, not if the pic is accurate.
  
  edit : mirrors being the culprit

  0
• NewParadigm Posts: 1,322

  July 7, 2012 1:06PM

  My concerns are the cheek area and above the 5 in 1950. They have frost to a less degree which might hold it back.

  0
• NewParadigm Posts: 1,322

  July 8, 2012 2:54AM

  Morning peep's

  0
• mkman123 Posts: 6,849 ✭✭✭✭

  July 8, 2012 5:17AM

  never hurts to try!

  Successful Buying and Selling transactions with:
  
  Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.

  0
• TwoSides2aCoin Posts: 44,623 ✭✭✭✭✭

  July 8, 2012 6:05AM

  Look sir, even a bad photo can't hide a good coin.

  ``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5

  0
• messydesk Posts: 20,320 ✭✭✭✭✭

  July 8, 2012 6:21AM

  Nice coin, no cam.

  John
  Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution

  0
• lcoopie Posts: 8,873 ✭✭✭✭✭

  July 8, 2012 6:29AM

  is the cheek and neck (ob) and the right side of the eagle (rev) cameo?
  
  if not, then no.

  LCoopie = Les

  0
• ricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

  July 8, 2012 7:21AM

  Not a CAM.... but a nice quarter.... Cheers, RickO

  0