Newly graded 1959 Proof Half.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,925 ✭✭✭✭✭
Your thoughts as to the assigned grade? No peeking.
3
SanctionII
Posts: 12,925 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
I'll go with 67 Cam.....
Unlike the 56 you posted, this one looks like a near miss CAM, but I really struggle with these.
Same as that one. No clue on grade.
“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
The coin graded PF65. IMO it warrants a Cameo designation. Unfortunately the obverse field is impaired and that likely is the reason the coin did not receive the designation.
1959s always get the tough treatment designation wise. It's kinda par for the date.
Coin Photography
Looks a lot like a 66CAM that I have, but I see why they would have gone 65 no-cam.
Collector, occasional seller
Too bad... 1959 Cameo is a tough coin.
The tiny holes in the mirrors behind Franklin’s head might have done it in. There is also a milk spot to the left of the Liberty Bell yoke.
I would enjoy that coin for what it is and not worry about the grading service’s opinion. When I have bought a Cameo graded coin, it’s been in the holder.
I totally get why these imperfections would affect the grade, but don't understand why it then would also alter the CAMEO designation?
It is either CAMEO or not, independent of what else is going on with the coin (pluses or minuses).
If it has a CAMEO than state as such.
(I think it does and is.)
I'm thinking that the obverse contrast isn't strong enough. See how "shiny" Ben looks compared to the bell on the reverse?
At the risk of confusion in the thread, here's a PR66CAM with a relatively awful TV image
Compared to OP
Collector, occasional seller
Here is a PF67CAM 1959 half I have.
Here is a PF67 1959 half I have.
Here is the newly graded PF65 1959 half I have (I agree with the PF65 grade due to impairments in the fields and actually thought it would grade lower than PF65)
All three coins have very similar contrast between the black mirrored fields and the frosted devices. I think all three coins warrant a Cameo designation.
The non-cameo looks stronger than the cameo IMHO.
@SanctionII, I think you should have realized by now that one of two things is true:
- - - PCGS is ultra-strict with grading Proofs from this era and you are wasting your time submitting them.
- - - You don’t know how to grade or assess Cam/DCam qualities and are wasting your money.
I choose to believe the first option. It is part of the reason I “gave up the ghost” and quit. Save your money.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
Maywood.
As usual, you are spot on in your assessment.
I am trending in your direction (Saving my money by simply buying an already graded coin instead of submitting raw coins in the hope of getting the grade and designation I want). This year I have submitted 8 coins on a voucher submission (grades received yesterday) and two other coins (currently in grading).
I can be very stubborn, but eventually the frustration of inconsistent grade results (coins I think should Cameo do not and coins I think will not Cameo do; go figure; plus to a smaller extent numerical grades that seem off) sinks in. It is exceedingly difficult to up grade Registry Sets that I have by submitting raw coins. Most of my upgrades are now coins that have previously been graded.
your recent half seems to be DDR-002
Your pic seems CAM, but could be the TruViews are showing contrast better now