SMS Kennedy

Familyguy · November 14, 2003 10:48AM

Can anybody explain the grading on these to me. Excuse my ignorance but, are they graded as ms or more like proofs. The reason I ask is that I have two 1966 kennedys that look at least cam if not dcam to me but, one has a small mark from another rim and the other has a very small rub on the cheek and one or two hairlines. Thanks for any help. I would post pictures the marks do not show up very well.

Russ · November 14, 2003 10:53AM

They are graded as "MS", but with the use of the cameo and deep cameo designations when warranted. Since they are considered mint state, the technical grading is a bit more forgiving than it would be for a proof coin, although it is just as difficult to get cam or dcam.

Russ, NCNE

RGL · November 14, 2003 10:55AM

Those who know better than I will reply shortly, but the luster and "mirrors" of SMS coins need to be very strong to reflect CAM devices. There are plenty of SMS coins out there with CAMs, but lack the grade because the fields are not reflective/deep enough to provide the needed contrast. A few hits are to be expected/accepted on SMS coins since they received no special handling like proofs. Obviously, the fewer and more hidden, marks, the better ... My signature coin shows the reverse of my 1967 SMS MS-66 DCAM Jeff. This is a 68 coin with a big jaw hit ...

Edited to change PR to MS ... it only looks like a proof.

Familyguy · November 14, 2003 11:01AM

Well I'm glad a few marks are to be expected. The contrast is good on the two I have. I'll see if I can post a picture.

Familyguy · November 14, 2003 12:03PM

Here is a picture. It only took me an hour!

BigE · November 14, 2003 12:10PM

Wow! Thats a nice one, Russ is the expert on these ----------------BigE

XpipedreamR · November 14, 2003 12:13PM

Wow, that's a sharp coin. Might be considered CAM. Nice.

Russ · November 14, 2003 12:17PM

Familyguy,

If the image is an accurate representation, the coin is not a cameo. It lacks the necessary mirror depth in the fields. It is, however, an attractive coin.

Russ, NCNE

Cam40 · November 14, 2003 12:18PM

I would call that a light CAM from the pic.

Nice

Russ · November 14, 2003 12:26PM

Here is one for comparison purposes:

That one did not receive the cameo designation. It's close, but the reverse comes up a bit short in mirror depth.

Russ, NCNE

Familyguy · November 14, 2003 12:34PM

I think what I beleive to be striations are more accented in the picture than whats actually there. The fields are not mirrors but, what about a grade on this one? I was wondering about that rim mark in the upper left. Any opinions?

Familyguy · November 14, 2003 12:47PM

Russ, what did that one grade?

ksteelheader · November 14, 2003 9:15PM

I believe that this is more like what you would be looking for....
....Ken

.

.
.

DHeath · November 14, 2003 10:31PM

Familyguy (FG, I like the initials.

), your coin has some contrast, but not enough to get the designation. It is a nice piece, and I like it's look, but I wouldn't submit it. Were it not for the reed mark, I'd figure the obverse for a 67, but since it unfortunately is in a very prime focal area, I'd say high MS64. Glad to welcome another SMS aficionado. Here's to white devices and black mirrors.

Russ · November 15, 2003 12:52AM

<< <i>Russ, what did that one grade? >>

FG,

It graded MS66.

<< <i>I believe that this is more like what you would be looking for. >>

Or this:

Russ, NCNE

DHeath · November 15, 2003 1:12AM

What a great excuse to post this pic. I found this one raw last year.

Russ · November 15, 2003 1:22AM

Don,

I get weak in the knees every time I see that coin.

Russ, NCNE

DHeath · November 15, 2003 1:31AM

Russ, me too. I don't own it anymore, but every time I see the pic I can't help but be surprised by how killer it really is. Now, if I can just find a 65 like it.

SMS Kennedy

Comments

Leave a Comment