Options
NO CAM,CAM or DCAM
newcollect
Posts: 205 ✭✭✭
Happy New Year to everyone!
New to forum this past year and really love the post's and I hope contribute soon. I feel welcomed as I read the discussions because any common question or a detailed one leads to learning.
I just picked up this proof set and wanted to start a discussion.Any thoughts if any of these coins qualify
0
Comments
The silver looks DCAM but not the nickel or cent (might just be the pics though).
bob:)
Agree, the pics might not capture everything one would like to see. The photos of the reverses of the nickel and cent look "Cammy", but the obverses don't. On the other hand, the half obverse looks to be a strong CAM, while the reverse bell looks weaker.
Kind of have to see them in person, or individual pictures.
But I will say: Nice set! Being a 1963 baby, I'm partial to the date.
The silver looks CAM to me.
My YouTube Channel
Beauuutiful set! Need better pics to determine, though. The Quarter does look Cam.-joey
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.It does appear to be a nice set, but the way the light is reflecting off the devices doesn't look cam to me. Maybe slight cameo but not strong enough for the designation IMO.
Collector, occasional seller
Is that the sellers photo or yours and do you have the set in hand?
eBay Sellers like to show pictures of DCAM proof sets and have 10+ available so you don't receive the set in the picture. And there are sellers that really juice the pictures.
1963 DCAM's aren't really so rare, but if I had that set in and and it looked like the photos, I'd sen them all in - but that's just me. I like it when I find a CAM or DCAM but I've made a number of PR67's :'(
based only on these pictures I would think the only two-sided Cameo is the Nickel.
I think a lot of what you're seeing is the lighting. It takes a bit of time (and tuition) to be able to decipher photos of proof coins well to identify the cameos. What I'm seeing is this:
Half - Looks to have 2 sided frost, though heavier on the obverse than reverse. Obverse fields look to be deep, but the reverse fields not quite as much. I'd give it a 70% chance at warranting a CAM designation, no chance at DCAM.
Quarter - Obverse doesn't look to have much frost (if any) the cheek and front of the neck are the giveaway for me as they don't show any frost which makes the rest of the white likely just a reflection of the light. Reverse looks to have solid CAM/DCAM qualities, but one sided won't do you any good towards the designation. 10% chance at CAM.
Dime - Identical evaluation to the quarter, though the obverse perhaps has slightly more frost than the quarter. 25% chance at CAM.
Nickel - Looks to be a solid CAM, as Keets said above. The fields look to be deep enough for DCAM, but I the frost doesn't scream DCAM to me. I'd say 90% CAM, 15% DCAM.
Cent - Appears to be a solid CAM, though it's almost impossible to evaluate the obverse from that photo. DCAM's for the date aren't uncommon, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it being DCAM, though the reverse doesn't appear to have enough frost in the photo. I'll say 80% CAM, 15% DCAM.
That's my 2 cents (or 91 cents), take it or leave it. Overall, it's a nice, but not exceptional or rare set in my opinion.
At PCGS you need both sides to be designated. From the pictures I see obverse CAM on half and Reverse CAM on the rest (ANACS will designate 1 side). A nice looking picture that may have used lighting to make coins look more frosted than they are.
The mirrors look deep but I suspect it has been helped with photoshop - I am particularly suspect about the blackness in front of Franklin profile.
I think you may be right, I hadn't noticed that on the Franklin before, but the quarter looks a little suspect as well. If the seller's ID includes the letters m, a, and x you can almost be assured the coins aren't as good as they appear in the photo. At least that's what the voice of experience and tuition tells me.
I think a lot of what you're seeing is the lighting.
grasshopper, you have snatched the pebble from my hand!!!
as I was reading the responses I actually thought that you would be a guy to give a good, informed opinion. the truth is that judging pictures is tougher by degree than having a scruffy flat pack with hazy coins. these coins may be beautiful in-hand.
So hard to judge that feature from pictures...ModCrewman gave a nice assessment and keets had good points... only an in hand evaluation or pictures by some of the forum photographers could allow a proper evaluation of that feature. Cheers, RickO