Would this prevent a 68 grade on the Franklin? Full Obverse PIC Added

badger · May 11, 2005 3:19PM

On an otherwise fantastic PR67DCam, I see some pits or something on the cheek and the bell. Cheek is shown. Contrast and mirrors are there for a high eye appeal, green label coin. Does this have a shot at 68? Great coin regardless.

Deadhorse · May 11, 2005 3:29PM

The way moderns are getting hammered, it might not even make a CAM these days.

Whatever you do, don't crack it out!!

clw54 · May 11, 2005 3:36PM

67, 68, it's still the same coin.

FC57Coins · May 11, 2005 3:54PM

I think the rub would prevent it from 68

Ronyahski · May 12, 2005 10:49AM

Pits and rub. It's a happy coin.

CarlWohlforth · May 12, 2005 10:55AM

Is it a 1956? The hair curls are not frosted on some of the dies that made the best cameo coins. It isn't a rub and would still DCAM today, IMO.

It is a great photo, nice job! I'm not sure about those pits and am also not sure how distracting they would be with less magnification. The are a tad distracting in this super closeup.

badger · May 12, 2005 10:58AM

Carl,

The rub and the pits are much more pronounced in the photo blowup than in hand. The coin is a 1957 but looks like a 1956 quality.

Badger

Ronyahski · May 12, 2005 11:07AM

57 is a tough date. Nice grade.

Whether its rub or die strike, doesn't matter, it would affect the DCAM designation and the grade.

LucyBop · May 12, 2005 11:28AM

<< 57 is a tough date. Nice grade.

Whether its rub or die strike, doesn't matter, it would affect the DCAM designation and the grade. >>

I disagree, the areas without frost will not keep this from being dcam, i have owned numerous dcam examples, some i bought, some i made from raw coins. I have seen numerous dcams at shows from 56 and 57. Every single dcam i have ever seen all have this characteristic, notice the same frost breaks on my dcam 57:

same story as my 56:

Now I am not saying that examples that don't have this trait do not exist, they may, I simply have never seen one.

Russ · May 12, 2005 11:33AM

<< The coin is a 1957 but looks like a 1956 quality. >>

I knew it was a 1957 as soon as I saw it. These planchet pits are common for that year and, all things being equal, do not effect the grade - ASSUMING the grader who looks at it knows this is as minted.

Russ, NCNE

Ronyahski · May 12, 2005 1:21PM

<< 

<< 57 is a tough date. Nice grade.

Whether its rub or die strike, doesn't matter, it would affect the DCAM designation and the grade. >>

I disagree, the areas without frost will not keep this from being dcam, i have owned numerous dcam examples, some i bought, some i made from raw coins. I have seen numerous dcams at shows from 56 and 57. Every single dcam i have ever seen all have this characteristic, notice the same frost breaks on my dcam 57:

same story as my 56:

Now I am not saying that examples that don't have this trait do not exist, they may, I simply have never seen one. >>

I think it is a matter of degree. I agree, very few cameo Franklins show absolutely no cameo break. Only the first strikes from well prepared and clean dies would be that perfect. I completed my Proof Franklin set over five years ago, so admittedly my grading may be outdated, but none of my DCAM coins exhibit the degree of cameo break in these pics. Coins with noticeable cameo breaks just didn't make the grade. Here is a pic of a 63 in DCAM I bought years ago and just sold:

You can still see a not so noticeable cameo break in the lower hair. Much more break, and they used to be found in CAM holders.

By the way, that 57 has a triple mirror.

To Russ' point that planchet pits are more common in 1957 coins and don't affect grades. Here is what Tomaska says in his book about Proof Franklins...

"Whether the pitting on a particular coin detracts from its eye appeal or lowers the grade largely depends on its degree and on how distracting it is. A beautifully frosted proof with very minor pitting can grade proof-67, or even proof-68, according to many of today's poplular grading services. However, once pitting reaches a point where it does become distracting, the grade of the coin is lowered accordingly."

JRocco · May 12, 2005 1:55PM

Interesting thread, My 56 shows the same frost break as the example Lucy posted.

badger · May 12, 2005 2:09PM

Thanks everyone for the help on the Frankie. I appreciate it.

Badger

LucyBop · May 12, 2005 2:21PM

<< 

I think it is a matter of degree. I agree, very few cameo Franklins show absolutely no cameo break. Only the first strikes from well prepared and clean dies would be that perfect. I completed my Proof Franklin set over five years ago, so admittedly my grading may be outdated, but none of my DCAM coins exhibit the degree of cameo break in these pics. Coins with noticeable cameo breaks just didn't make the grade. Here is a pic of a 63 in DCAM I bought years ago and just sold:

You can still see a not so noticeable cameo break in the lower hair. Much more break, and they used to be found in CAM holders.

By the way, that 57 has a triple mirror.

To Russ' point that planchet pits are more common in 1957 coins and don't affect grades. Here is what Tomaska says in his book about Proof Franklins...

"Whether the pitting on a particular coin detracts from its eye appeal or lowers the grade largely depends on its degree and on how distracting it is. A beautifully frosted proof with very minor pitting can grade proof-67, or even proof-68, according to many of today's poplular grading services. However, once pitting reaches a point where it does become distracting, the grade of the coin is lowered accordingly." >>

I was strickly speaking about the 56 and 57 Frankie, again, I have never ever seen a dcam without the frost breaks on the pictures I have shown.
When it comes to a 58, 60, 61, 62, 63 ect. I agree that these breaks are seldom found. I to have a 63dcam, 62dcam were these breaks don't seem to exist.

I have seen many green labeled holdered 56 and 57 dcams that indeed have these frost break in all the areas mentioned. In my experience it seems to be isolated to the 56 and 57 Frankie.

Your statement of this 57 not dcaming because of the breaks in frost (your earlier post) doesn't line up with what I have seen holdered or with what I have personally submitted.

Here also is my 63 dcam which doesn't exhibit the areas of weekness found in the 57 and 56:

I made this one from a raw coin.

JRocco · May 12, 2005 2:26PM

Hey Lucy- I value your experience on Frankie's very much- please give me your grading opinion on this Frankie.

LucyBop · May 12, 2005 2:29PM

at a Longbeach show I held in my hand a 56 pr69dcam Frankie. A top pop gorgeous monster stunner that was believed to have been amongst the first coins struck, it also had these frost breaks in the same areas as what i pictured earlier in this thread. I simply believe this to be a characteristic of the 56 and 57 Frankies.

LucyBop · May 12, 2005 2:37PM

<< Hey Lucy- I value your experience on Frankie's very much- please give me your grading opinion on this Frankie. >>

Sure looks like a lovely Cameo thats type 1 to boot.
I can't assign a numermical grade to aproof without getting close and intimate with it, because hairlines (which Frankies are notorious for) are diffulcult to ascertian from a image, as one needs to examine the coin while rotating it and even using various lighting to find these grade killers.

The fields on the Obverse of your coin are concerning grade wise, this coin seems to be a perfect cadidate for a NCS bath and then get it submitted, because if this one goes atleast pr67cam you have a very decent score on your hands being that this coin is a type 1.

JRocco · May 12, 2005 2:44PM

Thanks for the opinion Lucy- I appreciate it and owe you one. Sorry Badger for hijacking your thread-Hijack off.

SanctionII · May 13, 2005 4:19AM

Great pictures of CAMDCAM Frankies and the replies to this thread are very educational. This thread motivated me to pull out my CAMDCAM Frankies and inspect same for pitting anf frost breaks.

The results are:

Pitting - present on the 1960 (slight pitting on both the devices on both sides), 1958 (extremely slight pitting on the obverse devices only), 1957 (noticeable [through a loupe] pitting on the devices on both sides), 1953 (slight pitting on the devices on both sides) and 1952 (exteremly slight pitting on the obverse devices). All other years show none.

Frost break/fade - present in varying degrees on the 1960, 1958, 1957, 1956, 1955 and 1953 (primarily on the obverse bust of Franklin around the ear and the high points of the hair). All others show none.

Ronyahski · May 13, 2005 11:17AM

<< 
I was strickly speaking about the 56 and 57 Frankie, again, I have never ever seen a dcam without the frost breaks on the pictures I have shown.
When it comes to a 58, 60, 61, 62, 63 ect. I agree that these breaks are seldom found. I to have a 63dcam, 62dcam were these breaks don't seem to exist.

I have seen many green labeled holdered 56 and 57 dcams that indeed have these frost break in all the areas mentioned. In my experience it seems to be isolated to the 56 and 57 Frankie.

Your statement of this 57 not dcaming because of the breaks in frost (your earlier post) doesn't line up with what I have seen holdered or with what I have personally submitted.
>>

Lucy - I think you are spot on again. Speaking of only the 56 an 57, I agree that they usually come with some cameo break. I'd throw in the 55 as almost as notorious.

I didn't say Badger's coin would not DCAM. He asked if it would 68, and my reply, based on his pic, was that I did not think it would, because of pits and noticeable rub. (Reflecting on the pic again - Badger, take a pic without the zoom, all coins look worse the closer you get.) I believe that both pits and rub affect grade (eye appeal). 57s are known for pitting, and Badger's coin (picture) looks to me to be too noticeable for a 68. Just MHO.

On designation, I do think that too much cameo break can take a coin out of DCAM, and as I said, I think its a matter of degree.

Here's my 57, which I think is on the less noticeable side of cameo break. The curl has some break, and the rest of the hair is less noticeable. Nothing on the ear. The cheek has some break due to the usual pitting.

Hope that clarifies my comments.

LucyBop · May 13, 2005 11:42AM

Lovely 57!

elwood · May 13, 2005 11:48AM

<< Here is a pic of a 63 in DCAM >>

When I first read this I thought it was graded PF-63 (not a 1963)

and thought WOW that's an amazing coin for a 63

badger · May 13, 2005 1:38PM

Here is the full obverse of the 1957 that started the thread:

badger · May 14, 2005 4:04AM

TTT - PICS added

nankraut · May 14, 2005 4:48AM

GREAT thread......AHH!

solid · May 14, 2005 5:05AM

Here is a pic of a 63 in DCAM I bought years ago and just sold:

Thanks again, Daryl!

Ken

Ronyahski · May 14, 2005 9:16AM

<< Here is the full obverse of the 1957 that started the thread:

>>

Badger - Thanks for the pic. Coin definitely looks very nice. The cameo break doesn't look as pronounced in the non-zoom pic. It still looks like some of the pitting
is a bit noticeable. Is that a milk spot and a mark in the right field? I change my vote on 68 from 'no' to 'possible'.
One thing I learned (at least reinforced my thinking) with this post, and taking pics of my proof Franklins over the past month, grading on
the forum is more about grading quality of pics than it is the coins. I found that polishing the holder can make a proof cameo coin pic go up a point.
Exposure balance with these pics is important. I took your pic and ran it through my software. The only thing I did, which is the only thing I
do on all my pics, is hit the automatic adjustment box. Here is your coin again.

It's not much of a difference, but I think it looks just a tad bit nicer, blacker fields, and a little more frost. Is this more accurate?
I'm no coin pic expert, just passing along an observation.

Ronyahski · May 14, 2005 9:25AM

<< Here is a pic of a 63 in DCAM I bought years ago and just sold:

Thanks again, Daryl!

Ken >>

Ken - Always tough to see old friends leave the roost, but sounds like it found a happy home.
And thank you for allowing me to take some of your friends off your hands.

Would this prevent a 68 grade on the Franklin? Full Obverse PIC Added

Comments

Leave a Comment