A comparison of two coins graded approximately 20 months apart.

Russ · December 23, 2005 9:41AM

The first is in an MS66DCAM holder, and was graded some time in the Spring of 2004. The second is in an MS66CAM holder and was graded within the last month.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Russ, NCNE

DHeath · December 23, 2005 9:45AM

The first coin is clearly superior.....

DHeath · December 23, 2005 9:49AM

OK....joking aside, coin two has a nicer reverse. The TPGs have become pretty picky about the designation.

LindeDad · December 23, 2005 9:49AM

Somebody got real lucky on the first one.

Russ · December 23, 2005 9:51AM

<< Somebody got real lucky on the first one. >>

Or, somebody got real unlucky on the second.

Russ, NCNE

mgoodm3 · December 23, 2005 9:54AM

That second one has a big break in the frost in the middle of his skull - looks like a birthmark.

21Walker · December 23, 2005 9:55AM

I'm agreeing, very unlucky on the second one. The scuffing on the neck of the obverse of the first one and lower shield and upper tail feathers surely make #1 inferior to #2..........Rick

MORGANHUNTER2 · December 23, 2005 9:56AM

I think the 'spot' in the hairline held it down to cam on #2, but then again I can't see why- looks identical.

Russ · December 23, 2005 9:58AM

<< I think the 'spot' in the hairline held it down to cam on #2 >>

Nope. Many of the most fabulous DCAMs ever graded have that, including the MS67DCAM that is in my registry set.

Russ, NCNE

LincolnsRule · December 23, 2005 10:09AM

I'll post my Lincoln Cent comparisons some time next week (probably).

Manorcourtman · December 23, 2005 10:20AM

Seeing a red X on the first coin??

Bubblehead · December 23, 2005 10:23AM

I'm thinking that #2 mighta gone DC around the time the first one was certified...

elwood · December 23, 2005 10:23AM

I think the first one is a tad overgraded.
And you got src3wed on the designation for the second coin.

MikeInFL · December 23, 2005 10:25AM

Two examples does not a conclusion make.

That said, the second coin seems to have better cameo, however that could be partially from photography technique.

The first coin seems to have cleaner fields and more marked up devices in comparison to the second.

I can't see an appreciable difference in these coins, but then again I don't have the coins in hand.

You do -- what's your opinion?...Mike

[edit -- didn't notice the coins were both 66]

DMWJR · December 23, 2005 10:27AM

I just bought a 1955 Lincoln PR66CAM recently graded from Eagle7 that is probably nicer than my 67DC graded a few years back. Maybe I can photo them side by side and post them.

I've got a couple of no-brainers I'm taking to FUN to test the waters with.

JRocco · December 23, 2005 10:30AM

Good example Russ- As to the question of Why ???--- Well., If you remember my really nice Type 1 56 Frankie---well it is at least a CAM, but found a home in a PCGS 67 slab---It's a CAM period, but suffered the sin of mailing it in during these re-establishing times-if you know what I mean. If your not in a rush-sit on coin #2 then try after the muscle flexing slows down.
edited for spelling

Russ · December 23, 2005 10:32AM

<< And you got src3wed on the designation for the second coin. >>

Happily, it wasn't me that got screwed this time. I bought it already holdered.

<< Two examples does not a conclusion make. >>

Very true, but I've handled dozens of examples. This is just one comparison of many.

<< That said, the second coin seems to have better cameo, however that could be partially from photography technique. >>

They were shot back to back at the same time, with no change in method.

<< You do -- what's your opinion?... >>

Both coins are accurately graded at MS66, and both should be in DCAM holders.

Russ, NCNE

eagle7 · December 23, 2005 10:34AM

Not only does the 55 pr66 cam look to be dcam, it also looks much better than pr66. Im shocked by the grade assigned to that coin. Ive been sending 50 thru 64 proof coins of all denominations in to PCGS for grading since 1992 and Ive never seen such a botched grading job as the one on this 55 Lincoln proof. JMHO.

Cameonut · December 23, 2005 10:39AM

Both of those 67 Kennedys should be in a dcam holder. If the first is a dcam, then the second surely is.

TheRaven · December 23, 2005 11:01AM

Look pretty much the same to me.....

lordmarcovan · December 23, 2005 11:03AM

<>

<< Nope. Many of the most fabulous DCAMs ever graded have that, including the MS67DCAM that is in my registry set.

Russ, NCNE >>

Is this the "birthmark" I've heard you make reference to?

badger · December 23, 2005 11:03AM

Have I missed something? What is the reestablishing period regarding grading?

I do think the second coin is a DCAM.

Badger

Russ · December 23, 2005 11:08AM

<< Is this the "birthmark" I've heard you make reference to? >>

It is, indeed.

Russ, NCNE

Longacre · December 23, 2005 11:08AM

The second looks better. Are those spots (water spots?)/haze on the coin or is it just the pic or the holder?

Russ · December 23, 2005 11:17AM

<< Are those spots (water spots?)/haze on the coin or is it just the pic or the holder? >>

Neither. It's planchet ticks. Not unusual on these, and normally little impact on grade.

Russ, NCNE

chloebess · December 23, 2005 11:24AM

I just saw these.

Wow...............it demonstrates that you can get a variance when you would least expect it. It may be me but the second one's cameo is a little "fuller" in that it doesn't have any breaks other than the "birthmark".

All I want is consistency and this is disheartening.

Longacre · December 23, 2005 11:25AM

<< 

<< Are those spots (water spots?)/haze on the coin or is it just the pic or the holder? >>

Neither. It's planchet ticks. Not unusual on these, and normally little impact on grade.

Russ, NCNE >>

I never heard of a planchet tick before. How do you determine the ticks/marks are pre-production? Just curious for my own education. Thanks.

chloebess · December 23, 2005 11:26AM

Russ · December 23, 2005 11:36AM

<< How do you determine the ticks/marks are pre-production? Just curious for my own education. >>

It's really kind of hard to explain; one of those things that come from looking at a lot of these. They tend to be very shallow and, for lack of a better word, "sparkly" looking. If there are many and they are very very tiny, it's also called mint frost on these. Many examples with nicely frosted devices and strong contrast miss DCAM holders because of excessive mint frost in the fields.

Russ, NCNE

fcloud · December 23, 2005 11:45AM

subjectivity in grading. That is why you should buy the coin and not the holder. Unless the coin is better than the holder says, then buy the holder!

Russ · December 23, 2005 11:49AM

<< That is why you should buy the coin and not the holder. >>

Well, I ponied up stupid money to get the second one so I sure wasn't buying the holder. And, it should be noted that it causes me great emotional trauma when I have to pay strong to get a coin instead of ripping it.

Russ, NCNE

SUPERCARCOINS · December 23, 2005 11:59AM

.....grading standards fluctuate; i had sent in the same various Franklins over the years to cross from NGC to PCGS .

a couple would cross here and there. Then one lucky year , i sent 15 to try and cross - most had been tried at least

twice before .............and WHAMMO !!

they crossed 12 of the 15 ! go figure ; or better yet : GO FISH !

tmot99 · December 23, 2005 12:05PM

Russ, just gotta say it's hard to picture you laughing, like getting a rip on a coin, when I look at your icon. Just don't see that laughing.

mozin · December 23, 2005 12:43PM

You modern collectors crack me up. Here you are debating between CAM and DCAM just by looking at two different pictures. No way.

Cameonut · December 23, 2005 8:09PM

<< Well, I ponied up stupid money to get the second one so I sure wasn't buying the holder. And, it should be noted that it causes me great emotional trauma when I have to pay strong to get a coin instead of ripping it. >>

Don't let Russ fool you - he is laughing all the way to the bank!!

MadMarty · December 23, 2005 9:48PM

Russ, you heard David! Grading standards have not changed a bit. You must have juiced the 2nd picture!!!

TorinoCobra71 · December 23, 2005 10:23PM

Gotta be the break in the Frost in the hair on the 2nd coin.

You have stated in the past that they have changed they way they grade DCAM and CAM coins.

TorinoCobra71

OKbustchaser · December 23, 2005 10:40PM

Let me preface my question by admitting that I don't collect cameo/deep cameo proofs and therefore probably shouldn't be commenting on this thread. However, the same rants have arisen over the last few months in series that I do collect concerning the "totally insane tightness" currently being demonstrated by PCGS.

It ALWAYS "My coin MUST be this grade because I compared it to several others in that grade which were graded earlier?" Why is it never "Hey, they FINALLY got one right instead of the overgraded drek they had been putting out?"

In bust material (other than the fact that they STILL seem to think that wear doesn't preclude a MS grade) it definately seems to be the latter not the former.

PCGS...not over tight--just finally getting a clue.

chloebess · December 23, 2005 11:06PM

Bustchaser.............you MIGHT BE RIGHT and, then again, it is possible that PCGS is simply a company run by people making subjective decisions over a long period of time.

Is it possible they may be subject to "mistakes" or "inconsistencies"? Perhaps they moved the line a little here and there to boot, especially on moderns since you seem to think they still don't know how to grade the coins you like to study and collect.

They are subjective and so is Russ and me and every other collector. After all you are certain they don't grade your's properly (overgrading).

I am convinced, for example, that you will get a better grade if you crack out a coin rather than try to cross. Admittedly, this is only from my small sample but I have some pretty good very recent experience with this. IF I am correct, and I emphasize IF, then that would bolster the idea that graders can be influenced.........and I am sure they may not even be consciously(sp?) aware of it.

Great hobby and I, for one, like the angle that TPG's have brought to the table over the last 20yrs or so.

It has added knowledge to all of us.

BigD5 · December 23, 2005 11:16PM

Proves my hunch that they group these modern's together with two sets of dice. One for the grade....67, 68...... the other for the designation cam, dcam.......that's how I'd describe modern coinage grading if asked.

Craps anyone?

JustGotRipped · December 23, 2005 11:18PM

I don't know..the second one sure looks nicer to me.

OKbustchaser · December 24, 2005 2:54AM

<< Bustchaser.............you MIGHT BE RIGHT and, then again, it is possible that PCGS is simply a company run by people making subjective decisions over a long period of time.

Is it possible they may be subject to "mistakes" or "inconsistencies"? Perhaps they moved the line a little here and there to boot, especially on moderns since you seem to think they still don't know how to grade the coins you like to study and collect.

They are subjective and so is Russ and me and every other collector. After all you are certain they don't grade your's properly (overgrading).

I am convinced, for example, that you will get a better grade if you crack out a coin rather than try to cross. Admittedly, this is only from my small sample but I have some pretty good very recent experience with this. IF I am correct, and I emphasize IF, then that would bolster the idea that graders can be influenced.........and I am sure they may not even be consciously(sp?) aware of it.

Great hobby and I, for one, like the angle that TPG's have brought to the table over the last 20yrs or so.

It has added knowledge to all of us. >>

Yes, and my grading is subjective, too. (It is just that my subjectivity happens to be right!

) I did not state that their grading of coins hadn't changed recently. My only comment was merely that just because PCGS seems to now be grading to a higher standard than a year or 2 ago doesn't in and of itself mean that they are currently undergrading submissions. It just as logically could be (and again speaking only of series I do know something about, were) that they were overgrading them in the past.

morgannut2 · December 24, 2005 3:05AM

This is obviously a Presidential review problem--Either they owe you the money for a downgrade reholder, or an upgrade--I don'r see how they can avoid paying you money!!! Oh I forgot-this is PCGS--

BAJJERFAN · December 24, 2005 3:21AM

Is that second one from the LHO collection?

BillJones · December 24, 2005 3:27AM

Coin #2 has better contrast on the obverse, but it also has the break in the frost just below the part in Kennedy's hair. If I were grading the coin, that would knock off a point or two. Maybe that's why it got a "CAM" instead of a DCAM. Both coins have some of that toning haze that seems to plague many Proofs and SMS coins that are removed from their mint holders. As such neither coin could be graded any higher MS-66 IMO.

I love the cameo on both pieces, but neither would be my dream coin for the type beacuse of the white haze. As such I think the grading was consistent. The trouble with numbers and designations like "Cameo" and "Dcam" is that there is no way to note the break in the frost on coin #2 using TPG shorthand.

Russ · December 24, 2005 3:42AM

<< Coin #2 has better contrast on the obverse, but it also has the break in the frost just below the part in Kennedy's hair. If I were grading the coin, that would knock off a point or two. >>

And, you'd be undergrading it. The break in the frost comes from the specific die that struck the coin. As such, it is mint made and does not effect the grade.

<< Maybe that's why it got a "CAM" instead of a DCAM. >>

No, it isn't. As I said earlier, some of the most spectacular DCAMs graded have that break in the frost.

<< Both coins have some of that toning haze that seems to plague many Proofs and SMS coins >>

There is no haze on either coin.

Russ, NCNE

BillJones · December 24, 2005 3:51AM

Two points

When you get above say MS or PR-64 the quality of the strike or breaks in the cameo DO affect the grade. This especially true when you get into distinctions between grades like MS or PR 66, 67, 68, 69 or 70. If this were not true a perfectly preserved coin that was struck from worn dies, with weak devices and indifferent luster, could be assigned a very high grade. PCGS does not assign those grades to them, nor do such coins deserve them.

Second, it sure looks like there is haze on these coins around the eagle's tail on both pieces. If it's on the holder, then I'm wrong, but from what I see in the scans, it looks like cloudy haze to me.

Russ · December 24, 2005 4:00AM

<< When you get above say MS or PR-64 the quality of the strike or breaks in the cameo DO affect the grade. >>

Normally, that would be correct, but in this case you're wrong. The break in the frost on this coin has nothing to do with the quality of the strike or the condition of the die. In fact, the more prominent the break, the fresher the die and the better the strike.

<< PCGS does not assign those grades to them, nor do such coins deserve them. >>

The highest grade for these at PCGS is MS68DCAM. A total of only six have been graded at that level. At least one of them is this obverse die. Might be more, but I only have verification on one. One of the NGC MS68UCAMs is also this die.

The MS67DCAM that is in my set it also struck from this die.

<< Second, it sure looks like there is haze on these coins around the eagle's tail on both pieces. >>

Again, as I stated earlier, you're seeing planchet ticks, not haze.

Russ, NCNE

ajia · December 24, 2005 4:46AM

Russ,

How about an image of your MS67DCAM that is in your set that is also struck from this die for comparison?

Russ · December 24, 2005 4:49AM

Russ, NCNE

Kelerag · December 24, 2005 5:44AM

What`s the difference in retail $$$ from 66 CAM to 66 DCAM? Just wondered, there both really nice coins!

A comparison of two coins graded approximately 20 months apart.

Comments

Leave a Comment