Deleted. Waiting For Auction To End.

@FlyingAl said:
@Walkerlover

You could probably revive this thread now.

The coin is lovely, and pretty much every 1937 5c in CAM traces back to this die pair. Generally, the deeper the mirrors with these the earlier the strike, and the frost is fairly stable over the CAMs. I think whoever won this one will be quite happy.

However, collectors with a sharp eye can get the same quality for a fraction of the price. This PR67 outclasses the CAM IMO.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1745938/1937-Buffalo-Nickel-PCGS-Proof-67

Very nice coin. But CAMs are tough to find.

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MFeld said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
@Walkerlover

You could probably revive this thread now.

The coin is lovely, and pretty much every 1937 5c in CAM traces back to this die pair. Generally, the deeper the mirrors with these the earlier the strike, and the frost is fairly stable over the CAMs. I think whoever won this one will be quite happy.

However, collectors with a sharp eye can get the same quality for a fraction of the price. This PR67 outclasses the CAM IMO.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1745938/1937-Buffalo-Nickel-PCGS-Proof-67

Very nice coin. But CAMs are tough to find.

He’s very well aware of that. I think his point was, that although the coin he linked isn’t designated Cameo, it exhibits contrast very similar to the one that was. But despite that, because of the lack of the designation, it will sell for a lot less.

It's nice. But it's not cameo. If you want a cameo, that ain't it. A nice 65 will be even cheaper... but it's still just a 65.

I must strongly disagree.

PCGS PR66CAM:

PCGS PR67:

So you're saying PCGS got it wrong? It doesn't look full cameo to me but I'm not a huge fan of making definitive determinations from photos.

Yes, I am saying PCGS got it wrong. Those two photos are taken in nearly identical conditions, and they are about as perfect of a match you can get.

Alex, you should have posted pictures that didn’t show which coin was designated “cameo”. That way you would have gotten unbiased feedback.

looks like the non-cam has the contrast but not the mirrors

i'm not entirely happy with the snow thickness on the cam

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MFeld said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
@Walkerlover

You could probably revive this thread now.

The coin is lovely, and pretty much every 1937 5c in CAM traces back to this die pair. Generally, the deeper the mirrors with these the earlier the strike, and the frost is fairly stable over the CAMs. I think whoever won this one will be quite happy.

However, collectors with a sharp eye can get the same quality for a fraction of the price. This PR67 outclasses the CAM IMO.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1745938/1937-Buffalo-Nickel-PCGS-Proof-67

Very nice coin. But CAMs are tough to find.

He’s very well aware of that. I think his point was, that although the coin he linked isn’t designated Cameo, it exhibits contrast very similar to the one that was. But despite that, because of the lack of the designation, it will sell for a lot less.

It's nice. But it's not cameo. If you want a cameo, that ain't it. A nice 65 will be even cheaper... but it's still just a 65.

I must strongly disagree.

PCGS PR66CAM:

PCGS PR67:

So you're saying PCGS got it wrong? It doesn't look full cameo to me but I'm not a huge fan of making definitive determinations from photos.

Gasp, and clutches pearls

Do you think that was the first time the 66 was graded? With the majority of these tough-to-make proofs, PCGS gets it "wrong" a dozen times before they get it "right". > @FlyingAl said:

@Walkerlover said:
I think Flying Al is mistaken if he feels these are equivalent, jmo. Obverse definitely not

Please circle the areas of differing contrast on the GreatPhotos. I'm sure not seeing it.

+1, Neither am I.

@flyingal knows his niche better than anyone I've ever known, down to every last die marriage of every issue. Not sure why some cant fathom that a large percentage of currently graded coins will have a different grade 10 years from now. "Frost" doesn't have to be white, and if you dipped the 67, it would look identical but with less contact marks.

@FlyingAl said:

@Walkerlover said:
I think Flying Al is mistaken if he feels these are equivalent, jmo. Obverse definitely not

Please circle the areas of differing contrast on the GreatPhotos. I'm sure not seeing it.

Yes, please do. I’m not seeing it either.

@MsMorrisine said:
looks like the non-cam has the contrast but not the mirrors

That was my feeling. But I don't think i would make a definite determination from photos.

Not a fan of the "either/or" school of thought. Judging from the pictures the subject coin appears to have LESS contrast to my eyes and evidently others' as well. This is both obverse and reverse and not withstanding the bit of toning on the subject coin. Which is not to say none on it, just less.
And of course there is the artifact of photography and adjustments compared to "in-hand" viewing. I would not do it with this coin but interestingly oxidative toning on nickel or CuNi coins can be diminished with appropriate short exposure to (ie 5 minutes +/-) base solutions such as a clean, non-contaminated ammonia.
Even though it may not make a difference to not identify which coins were designated as which, appropriate scientific method would be to remove as much bias as possible.

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MFeld said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
@Walkerlover

You could probably revive this thread now.

The coin is lovely, and pretty much every 1937 5c in CAM traces back to this die pair. Generally, the deeper the mirrors with these the earlier the strike, and the frost is fairly stable over the CAMs. I think whoever won this one will be quite happy.

However, collectors with a sharp eye can get the same quality for a fraction of the price. This PR67 outclasses the CAM IMO.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1745938/1937-Buffalo-Nickel-PCGS-Proof-67

Very nice coin. But CAMs are tough to find.

He’s very well aware of that. I think his point was, that although the coin he linked isn’t designated Cameo, it exhibits contrast very similar to the one that was. But despite that, because of the lack of the designation, it will sell for a lot less.

It's nice. But it's not cameo. If you want a cameo, that ain't it. A nice 65 will be even cheaper... but it's still just a 65.

I must strongly disagree.

PCGS PR66CAM:

PCGS PR67:

So you're saying PCGS got it wrong? It doesn't look full cameo to me but I'm not a huge fan of making definitive determinations from photos.

Yes, I am saying PCGS got it wrong. Those two photos are taken in nearly identical conditions, and they are about as perfect of a match you can get.

But isn't that a different point? Your original comment reads that you can find a 67 non-CAM that "looks just as nice". Now you're saying, it would be better to have a mislabeled 67 that is cheaper. Sure.

I’m saying you should buy the coin, not the holder, and then get that right coin in that right holder. You’re far too fixated on what the plastic currently says.

Not at all. I buy far more raw coins than slabs.

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MFeld said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
@Walkerlover

You could probably revive this thread now.

The coin is lovely, and pretty much every 1937 5c in CAM traces back to this die pair. Generally, the deeper the mirrors with these the earlier the strike, and the frost is fairly stable over the CAMs. I think whoever won this one will be quite happy.

However, collectors with a sharp eye can get the same quality for a fraction of the price. This PR67 outclasses the CAM IMO.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1745938/1937-Buffalo-Nickel-PCGS-Proof-67

Very nice coin. But CAMs are tough to find.

He’s very well aware of that. I think his point was, that although the coin he linked isn’t designated Cameo, it exhibits contrast very similar to the one that was. But despite that, because of the lack of the designation, it will sell for a lot less.

It's nice. But it's not cameo. If you want a cameo, that ain't it. A nice 65 will be even cheaper... but it's still just a 65.

I must strongly disagree.

PCGS PR66CAM:

PCGS PR67:

So you're saying PCGS got it wrong? It doesn't look full cameo to me but I'm not a huge fan of making definitive determinations from photos.

Yes, I am saying PCGS got it wrong. Those two photos are taken in nearly identical conditions, and they are about as perfect of a match you can get.

But isn't that a different point? Your original comment reads that you can find a 67 non-CAM that "looks just as nice". Now you're saying, it would be better to have a mislabeled 67 that is cheaper. Sure.

I’m saying you should buy the coin, not the holder, and then get that right coin in that right holder. You’re far too fixated on what the plastic currently says.

Not at all. I buy far more raw coins than slabs.

So why would you not want to buy a coin that is equal to a graded CAM at a fraction of the price? Chances are when you get it regraded it'll CAM anyways.

I didn't say that I wouldn't. Again, I'm not 100% convinced it is cameo. But it was more confusion about what you said. You didn't say that you could find a 67 non-cam and regrade it as CAM. You said you could find a 67 that was "just as nice", not "just as cameo".