Would this be considered Cameo?

twodrhrdtp · January 26, 2007 12:54PM

lasvegasteddy · January 26, 2007 1:02PM

just curious if you have examples in holders to compare to?

JRocco · January 26, 2007 1:06PM

Most of the TPG's like to see both mirrors AND frost. Here is an old pic of a slab.

twodrhrdtp · January 26, 2007 1:06PM

This is the only one I have and it is in a rattler holder

lasvegasteddy · January 26, 2007 1:11PM

that is a stunning 63 obverse.what does the reverse look like?

Myqqy · January 26, 2007 2:11PM

That could be a cam, but it's hard to tell from those photos- it looks like the obverse may be too weak for a true cam status. Also, are those scratches on the coin, or on a holder it's in?

JRocco · January 26, 2007 2:43PM

<< <i>that is a stunning 63 obverse.what does the reverse look like? >>

The spots on both pics are on the slab--no milkspots on this coin.

lasvegasteddy · January 26, 2007 3:03PM

stunning reverse on that 63 too...i'm too fresh to know why that isn't cam or dcam as it makes me feel foolish for wanting to send mine in if that wasn't a lock.i'd say thats a rip if you got it at pr66 pricing

Cameonut · January 26, 2007 7:08PM

My two cents worth: The reverse looks cam to me, but the obverse does not have enough frost to make cam at PCGS. Mirrors are not especially deep either. The angle of the photos makes it a bit hard to judge cameo contrast.

And JRocco - that is a super '63 Frankie - no wonder '63 is considered the top year for cameo Franklins!

itsnotjustme · January 26, 2007 9:41PM

I don't think so on the 62. If the obverse matched the reverse, CAM.

JRocco, that's super! Strong CAM or shot DCAM if graded today.

ricko · January 27, 2007 1:12AM

Based on the picture, I would say no cameo... in hand, it may be better. Cheers, RickO

segoja · January 27, 2007 1:20AM

No Cam on the 62.

Bear · January 27, 2007 1:26AM

It is my opinion that the questioned half would not qualify for

Cameo designation, at either of the top two TPGs. The Obverse

is no where near cameo and the reverse though somewhat better,

seems too weak to make the cut either. To be designated cameo, both

sides must qualify at a minimum as at least cameo. Sometimes the need to know

for sure is so overwhelming, that is requires the submission cost, just to put one's

mind at rest. You pays your money and you gets your answer.

MadMarty · January 27, 2007 1:36AM

No

19Lyds · January 27, 2007 1:41AM

<< <i>stunning reverse on that 63 too...i'm too fresh to know why that isn't cam or dcam as it makes me feel foolish for wanting to send mine in if that wasn't a lock.i'd say thats a rip if you got it at pr66 pricing >>

lasvegasteddy, PCGS has not always designated CAM and DCAM. I forget when they started but early on they did not. jrocco's coin may have been graded during that time.

Edited to add: And no on the CAM for the 62.

JRocco · January 27, 2007 2:58AM

<< <i>I don't think so on the 62. If the obverse matched the reverse, CAM.

JRocco, that's super! Strong CAM or shot DCAM if graded today. >>

It is a DCAM, just slabbed when they weren't labeling them such. Another example (sorry for the old bad pics)...

Aside from my hijack, the coin in the OP lacks the obverse to CAM--sorry

robec · January 27, 2007 9:40AM

Sorry about the crappy scratched holder.

IRCWCoins · January 27, 2007 9:50AM

Here is a pic of my icon coin. NGC PF-66 UCAM

messydesk · January 27, 2007 10:27AM

<< <i>Most of the TPG's like to see both mirrors AND frost. Here is an old pic of a slab.

>>

That's a "pre-CAM" holder. I'd expect that coin to get at least a cameo designation, and probably DCAM if sent for designation review.

robec · January 27, 2007 10:31AM

Definately a DCam.

Would this be considered Cameo?

Comments

Leave a Comment