Does this Frankie look cam??

Manorcourtman · July 11, 2012 9:30AM

It's a TT pic. Does it look cam to you Frankie guys? I thought this generation of holders had the cameo designation, correct? Thanks for the input.

Cameonut · July 11, 2012 9:32AM

Yes, based on those pics.

Tonedlover · July 11, 2012 9:35AM

I think so!

lasvegasteddy · July 11, 2012 9:35AM

in the yes crowd too...is that type 1 or 2

ModCrewman · July 11, 2012 9:46AM

Looks frosty enough to me, but the fields do look a little marginal on the obverse. That being said if I submitted it, I'd have expected a CAM designation.

Can't speak to whether these holders included the CAM designation or not.

Harry779 · July 11, 2012 9:50AM

Looks CAM and looks like type 2

Manorcourtman · July 11, 2012 9:52AM

<< <i>in the yes crowd too...is that type 1 or 2 >>

Type 2

Shamika · July 11, 2012 10:47AM

Absolutely!

JRocco · July 12, 2012 4:04AM

Yes
But these were not always designated on the labels back in the day.
See my two examples here.

UNCOnly · July 12, 2012 4:23AM

<< <i>It's a TT pic. Does it look cam to you Frankie guys? I thought this generation of holders had the cameo designation, correct? Thanks for the input.

>>

I would say yes to that being a cameo. Since it's a T2, gem proof, it would be worth re-submitting it to PCGS for a cameo designation consideration. The difference in value between a T2 gem proof and a T2 gem proof CAM, can be as much as $55-$65.

johnny9434 · July 12, 2012 5:44AM

it looks good from here

keets · July 12, 2012 6:28AM

PCGS is pretty tight-lipped about the CAM/DCAM designation of the green insert slabs, but it's my understanding from discussion here that Modern issues weren't designated as such until around 1996. i have similar coins. as far as re-submitting it, i can see no reason to do that

CarlWohlforth · July 12, 2012 7:09AM

1956 saw some of the frostiest Frankies made in the whole series. This Type 2 is marginal with the top left of the yolk not very frosty. It may have been certified before PCGS put the designation on the labels. If you needed a better label for your registry set you could try to re-certify, otherwise I think the market would pay more for this than they would for a brilliant proof '56 so I probably wouldn't try to upgrade it.

Manorcourtman · July 12, 2012 7:37AM

Thanks for the opinions guys. It's staying in the slab as is! I was more curious about the time period PCGS began with the Cam designation.

lcoopie · July 12, 2012 8:58AM

a lime insert

georgiacop50 · July 12, 2012 10:30AM

I can never remember exactly when PCGS started FBL desig's.

Foodude knows the answer, you might PM him.

It was earlier than 1996 though, I am sure of that. Maybe 1992?

edit//: Conders thread places the OP's slab in the 1990 to 1995 era.

robec · July 12, 2012 11:09AM

I still have receipts from R$I dated 1992 for PCGS DCam Franklins. NGC from 1990.

This from 1992. I sold it in 2009.

keets · July 12, 2012 11:35AM

there's the answer, i knew it was out there although i'd guess that the OP's coin must have been holdered prior to the start of assigning the designation since it appears that it would qualify judging from the picture. in my mind it would just be too sensible for PCGS to give some sort of summation as to when this all began. why the secrecy??

Does this Frankie look cam??

Comments

Leave a Comment