Options
GTG - 1942 Half Dollar - Grade Revealed in Comments
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,028 ✭✭✭✭✭
Have at it! No cheating please. 
Coin Photographer.
7
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,028 ✭✭✭✭✭
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,028 ✭✭✭✭✭
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,028 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
MS67
If I sent it in, PR66
Since someone else sent it in I'll say PR67+. Very nice! There does appear to be a small spot of haze above the I of Liberty but not distracting.
Collector, occasional seller
I don't know the series and I have no idea if this is a good strike or a bad strike. I see an awful lot of movement on the hnd and thigh but I'm too much of a coward to guess 58.
64
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Proof, not mint state, and it looks to be a high grade example - 67 or better.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m at PF 66
Nice coin!
>
Edited to add proof designation.
PR 66
PF 67 and nice, it appears to be nearly haze free.
PR66+
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
67+ if that mark by liberty's foot is on the holder. If it is on the coin, then 65+ or 66. Maybe cameo.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
PR66. Has a lot of cameo contrast, but I’m guessing it didn’t get the CAM designation.
68
PR67
PR67.
PR67 CAC
I’m also going with PR67
I won't guess since I know this coin. Attractive piece!
PR67. Doesn't deserve a CAM designation.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I saw this on GC a few days ago, so I'd be cheating if I guessed.
Pr67
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
66 with possible Cameo designation
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
PR66.
PF67 or PR66+.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
PR67 ... no CAM but has frost
Nice coin
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
One can not grade proof coins from a photo.
The above being said, I will opine that (assuming the photo shows how the coin looks in hand) the pictured 1942 proof half dollar is not a Cameo (the fields are impaired and portions of the devices on both sides are not frosted). As for the numerical grade, I opine a 66+.
A very attractive coin.
I'll use this as my excuse.
Yikes
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
PF 66 (from what is seen only in the photo).
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
@lermish said:
I don't know the series and I have no idea if this is a good strike or a bad strike. I see an awful lot of movement on the hnd and thigh but I'm too much of a coward to guess 58.
Hmmm....This is a very strange answer to me. What the heck do you mean "movement on the hand and thigh" ? Also, I assume you can tell this is a proof coin, and your gut reaction of 58 is startling to me.....I don't think I've ever seen a graded PF-58 Walker....ever.
Clearly I was very, very, **VERY **wrong. My primary series is trade dollars and I'm used to seeing impaired proofs all day long.
But here is what I saw which looks like "circulation" to me. (I owned a HR Saint graded 58 that looked essentially identical; pristine fields, it clearly never circulated, but just enough sliding/friction to move it down to an AU.)
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Those are just planchet flaws. Commonly seen on nearly every Proof Walker.
Coin Photographer.
I will guess PR67+
What a fantastic strike with amazing detail.
They don't come much better than this one.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
It's proven that I am not a great proof coin grade estimator from past posts, but I could not imagine this being less than PF67. It is certainly a beautiful speciman regardless of grade.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
+1
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
PF 65
My YouTube Channel
PR67+
PR67 CAM
I have really hard time grading proofs from photos, but 66 or 67 seems likely and it has some frost on the sun, but probably not enough for CAM. Vertical mark in front of back foot on slab?
PR67. Nice untoned proof example.
Why are flawed planchets being used to mint proofs? My understanding is that the planchets are polished as well in striking proofs. Even if they are not, why aren't they being obliterated by the greater striking pressure and multiple strikes? I don't collect proofs but that contradicts my understanding of how proofs are made.
PR65
Here's the $15,000 reveal - this coin is:
.
.
We had a grand total of no guesses right (with a few possible right answers based on a possible CAM guess) - probably because this is a tough one. CAM Walkers are quite rare, and very few collectors have seen one. I'd say the mirrors on this one are a tad weak, but the frost is "all there" for the designation. I'd give it the designation.
This coin is from the CA-30 die pair.
1942 Proof Half Dollar
CA-30
Use Date: February 11.
Die Markers: Exceptional detail, strong IN GOD WE TRUST and complete AW. Roger Burdette’s book states this as a doubled die obverse, this was unable to be verified.
Figure One: Note the full AW monogram. This is an especially important diagnostic of this die pair, the AW must be complete and strong.
.
.
Figure Two: Note strong detail of IN GOD WE TRUST, and the full solar rays.
.
.
Figure Three: Lipped obverse rim.
.
.
Description and Coins Possible: This die produced the second best cameo Proof Walking Liberty half dollars. Buyers are encouraged to select a coin from this die pair for their collection if they seek a designated cameo coin. The combination of high detail quality and strong contrast leave little to be desired. Less than 25 contrasted coins likely currently exist from this die pair. As with most CAMs, the produced coins have slight variance in the quality of piece based on the time of striking. This rarely lines up with the application of designation - in this case, some CAM designated coins are inferior to some non-designated ones.
.
.
Image:
.
.
Not designated.
.
.
This coin was actually the reason I started my "what is your definition of a CAM" thread. While you might not be able to accurately assess a Proof's grade from an image, contrast is assessable provided the image is not done in an axial like setup (second full image in the die catalog). This post raises a few questions for members to consider.
1) If this coin does not meet most numismatist's definition of a CAM (based on the guesses received), then what does?
2) Why are the coins here so randomly designated - how does the OP coin get the CAM, but the last coin in the die catalog image set not? Remember both coins are from the same die pair and likely struck within twenty coins of each other.
3) After seeing the grade, do you change your mind on whether the coin deserves a CAM designation when you go back to consider?
4) If the coin does not meet your requirements for CAM, what needs to change in the coin to meet your standard?
Proofs were struck once on a medal press. Some of what you're seeing could also be die damage, but it's an early strike. It's a high point on the dies and it's pretty minor overall, so I'd say it's totally probable a few minor nicks show through from pre-strike defects.
Coin Photographer.
I am looking for a CAM Walker, have been for a long time. I have been offered several from auction houses or major dealers over the years, but I still have yet to see a fully frosted one I would agree is a CAM. Same for Buffalo nickels and Mercury dimes.
In my opinion the TPG's are significantly more lenient on the CAM designation for 1936-1942 coins than they are for the earlier proofs I collect (Barber & Morgan).
Assuming the coin in hand looks like it does in the photo of the coin in the PCGS slab I am surprised the 1942 proof half received a Cameo designation. It appears to have impaired fields and is lacking frost on the sun and on other portions of the devices.
When I envision a Cameo proof Walker Skyman's 1938 comes to mind. In hand that coin looks like a Cameo or even DCAM/UCAM proof ASE. Perhaps my brilliant/cameo dividing line for proof Walkers is too high.
Further, even though the 1936-42 era is different from the 1950-64 era, my own experience in having what I consider multiple lock Cameo proof Franklins not receive the designation (I have posted photos of these coins before) reinforces my opinion that the pictured 1942 half does not warrant a Cameo designation.
Of course if I saw the 1942 half in hand under good lighting I might change my mind.
Alex,
I thought robec and I nailed it!
"66 with possible Cameo designation"
BUT
As you showed us, one of the pics got the CAM designation and one didn't. So how is one to know what they will or won't do on any given day? Too much inconsistency if you ask me.
Congrats on the coin
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Nailing it would have required omission of that little word “possible”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Le roi a parlé!
Did you mention when this coin was graded? With as many striations showing I would not think this one would pass the smell test, these days.
And of course the Cam would explain the lower grade because let’s face it you can’t have both.
The difference between a medal press and a coin press being greater striking pressure, I assume. I would be disappointed if that was my proof, but I don't collect proofs to be able to make proper comparisons. I hadn't noticed that these hits are also on proofs.
If you're thinking "this guy is clueless", that's par for the course as I tend to conflate minor issues into major problems in other aspects of grading, anyway, so why not multiple small hits on the high points of proofs. Thanks.
Based solely on the pictures provided in the OP I would agree with what @SanctionII posted. However, I believe deference is given to proofs from this era, they aren't graded as strictly as post-1950 coins are. Another "however" is that the PCGS graders had the advantage of seeing the coin sans plastic. I guess that means the coin seems properly graded.
Thank you guys for showing me how much I do not know about Morgans and old silver proofs. Seriously.
As a follow up to my earlier reply, here are photos of some of the Proof Franklins I had graded last year that did not receive a Cameo designation. If these coins do not warrant a Cameo designation then I do not think the 1942 Proof Walker shown in this thread warrants a Cameo designation (of course reasonable minds may differ; my opinion is based solely upon the photographs of the coins; and my opinion may change if I saw the 1942 half dollar in hand).
Not thinking that at all. It's a fair question, since it's only really a problem for this era of Proofs. Yes - more pressure and slower speed on a medal press.
Coin Photographer.