I may have been disappointed in the grades, but Phil's images are pretty great!

ModCrewman · October 29, 2013 11:39PM

I had a Modern order of grades post yesterday, received on the 7th. I may have been disappointed in the grades, but the few TrueViews I ordered are pretty great, so we can at least enjoy those.

SP66 CAM

SP66 CAM

TwoSides2aCoin · October 29, 2013 11:43PM

It's tough picking, and shooting ….let alone listing and moving. Shaking and trembling is no fun either. Now shaking and moving ? That's what I'm talking about. Good for you , Sir ! You know how much I respect the quest you are on ? Every time you come in the shop I want to hide coins from you

LOL

kimber45ACP · October 30, 2013 12:43AM

keyman64 · October 30, 2013 1:17AM

Very Nice!

braddick · October 30, 2013 1:33AM

What grades were you expecting?

ModCrewman · October 30, 2013 1:43AM

<< <i>What grades were you expecting? >>

That is the operative question isn't it?

These 3 weren't actually too bad; my grades were 67 CAM on the 1966, 66 CAM on the 1965 and 67 DCAM on the dime. I knew the DCAM on the dime was a stretch, but a guy can hope.

The disappointments were actually throughout my 17 coin submission. I feel that they were very tough on this submission as on 17 coins I was 14 numerical points high and not a single coin grading higher than my expectation, and all but 5 off from my grade. For comparison, my last 18 coin submission was a net of 4 points off, previous 12 coins a net of 5 points off, and the previous 14 coin submission a net of 1 point off.

I expect some hits and misses on each submission, but this one feels pretty brutal.

BillJones · October 30, 2013 2:39AM

I can see why all three came back graded 66 given the minor defects, but that 1965 half is a very nice coin for what it is. Back when that SMS set came out collectors where not happy. The price went up from $2.10 for a Proof set in 1964 to $4.00 for an SMS set that was not much different from the coins in your pocket. I remember one dealer telling me, "Don't cut those coins out of the mint holder. People might not believe that they are really SMS coins."

That 1965 half dollar with the cameo constrast is really quite special.

ModCrewman · October 30, 2013 2:51AM

<< <i>That 1965 half dollar with the cameo constrast is really quite special. >>

I agree Bill. This submission actually came from a great run of SMS sets that I bought last month. The submission included 4 1965 half dollars all of which made the CAM designation 3 at 66 and one at 65; I thought two of them were 67's.

WTH here's the whole submission:

Line # Item # Cert # PCGS No. CoinDate Denomination Variety Country Grade
1 1 28452941 86845 1965 50C SMS USA SP66CA - I thought 66 CAM
2 1 28452942 86846 1966 50C SMS USA SP66CA - I thought 67 CAM
3 1 28452943 85241 1966 10C SMS USA SP66CA - I thought 67 DCAM
4 1 28452944 5242 1967 10C SMS USA SP66 - I thought 66 CAM
4 2 28452945 5242 1967 10C SMS USA SP66 - I thought 67 CAM
4 3 28452946 5242 1967 10C SMS USA SP67 - I thought 68 CAM
5 1 28452947 84197 1965 5C SMS USA SP66CA - I thought 67 CAM
6 1 28452948 84199 1967 5C SMS USA SP66CA - I thought 67 CAM
6 2 28452949 84199 1967 5C SMS USA SP67CA - I thought 66 DCAM - this one is actually a grade higher than I thought.
7 1 28452950 84202 1970-S 5C USA PR68CA - I thought 68 DCAM
8 1 28452951 5997 1965 25C SMS USA SP66 - I thought 68
9 1 28452952 86845 1965 50C SMS USA SP66CA - I thought 66 CAM
9 2 28452953 86845 1965 50C SMS USA SP65CA - I thought 65 CAM
9 3 28452954 86845 1965 50C SMS USA SP66CA - I thought 67 CAM
10 1 28452955 6846 1966 50C SMS USA SP66 - I thought 67 CAM
11 1 28452956 86847 1967 50C SMS USA SP65CA - I thought 67 CAM
12 1 28452957 96804 1968-S 50C USA PR67DC - I thought 67 DCAM

Cameonut · October 30, 2013 3:14AM

Based on the pics, I think the grades are about right except the '66 Kennedy had a shot at dcam...

The rest of the submission is something I would consider tuition on your grading education. The money is by no means wasted - you now know better how PCGS grades SMS coins. Numerical grade is one thing but the points where coins are considered cameo and deep cameo are much harder to learn.

braddick · October 30, 2013 3:20AM

<< <i>Based on the pics, I think the grades are about right except the '66 Kennedy had a shot at dcam...

The rest of the submission is something I would consider tuition on your grading education. The money is by no means wasted - you now know better how PCGS grades SMS coins. Numerical grade is one thing but the points where coins are considered cameo and deep cameo are much harder to learn. >>

The date; obverse lettering, and reverse lettering are too weak for a DCAM.

ModCrewman · October 30, 2013 3:28AM

I agreed with Cameonut that the 1966 Kennedy had a shot at DCAM. It has a definite "Wow" factor in hand; though Braddick's evaluation of the reason it didn't make DCAM may well be spot on.

The DCAM designation was a hoped for, but not expected goal.

etexmike · October 30, 2013 3:38AM

I know that you weren't all that happy but the whole sub looked pretty good to me.

Great images from Phil.

Mike

braddick · October 30, 2013 6:30AM

Either way, they all have that "WOW" factor that is so attractive in these early sixties SMS silver coins.

keets · October 30, 2013 12:14PM

you have been on a "roll" these past few years, perhaps the time for a few equalizer submissions has finally arrived!!

sparky64 · October 30, 2013 12:25PM

sparky64 · October 30, 2013 12:26PM

I like what you've posted.
Especially the 1966 Kennedy.

I may have been disappointed in the grades, but Phil's images are pretty great!

Comments

Leave a Comment