Options
1952 PCGS PF 67 CAMEO Franklin W.O.W. !!
PawPaul
Posts: 5,845 ✭
This little jewel just closed on eBAY , purchased by renowned specialist R. Tomaska's firm .
What price level do you think the coin will reappear at ?SUPER CAMEO 1952 FRANKLIN
What price level do you think the coin will reappear at ?SUPER CAMEO 1952 FRANKLIN
0
Comments
So close to DCAM.
Russ, NCNE
U.S. Type Set
i don't think it's a matter of which grading service holders the coin or what the time period it is when it's being graded, if the pictures are accurate in how they depict the frost on the devices it won't grade DCAM. very few coins from this era off a fresh and properly prepared die(pair) retained the total frost, this just isn't one of them, although it's a very beautiful example.
What do I win?
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Bushmaster ; stay between the lines and follow the rules or you will be jerked off this Board so fast it will make your head swim ....
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>I predict it will cost Tomaska $127.50 plus the return postage.
Actually, R&I's usual MO would be to offer their newp in their list at 3X what they paid. In the meantime, the coin would get expressed to PCGS for a futile upgrade attempt. Then when the coin neither upgrades nor sells, return it to Jeff for refund.
Only the seven day return privledge will prevent this diabolical scenario from becoming an actuality. I'm serious.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>Then when the coin neither upgrades nor sells, return it to Jeff for refund >>
This is exactly why Jeff charges a return fee - too many tire kickers - even dealers. (I won't mention that his photos make his coins look much better than they actually are - I bet this is the root cause of many of the returns)
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
<< <i>
<< <i>Then when the coin neither upgrades nor sells, return it to Jeff for refund >>
This is exactly why Jeff charges a return fee - too many tire kickers - even dealers. (I won't mention that his photos make his coins look much better than they actually are - I bet this is the root cause of many of the returns)
Got that right.
I guess after looking at so many of these coins over the years, my eye has sharpened to where it really takes a special CAM/DCAM Frankie (like Skyman's 1958 DCAM) to get me my knickers twisted
<< <i>Actually, R&I's usual MO would be to offer their newp in their list at 3X what they paid. In the meantime, the coin would get expressed to PCGS for a futile upgrade attempt. Then when the coin neither upgrades nor sells, return it to Jeff for refund. >>
They've never asked to return a coin to me, and they've paid strong money for the coins they've won. In fact, so strong that one of my regular bidders complained to me that he can never win anything when R&I is buying.
Russ, NCNE
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Fellow Cameo Lovers
RE: 1952 Franklin PCGS PR 67 CAMEO
I recognized the die variety from the picture. If it is an early strike, as it appears to be, this variety has a fabulous DCAM obverse. The reverse is CAMEO. It's die #14 in "Cameo And Brilliant....", and also referred to on page 21. It most likely is a very early strike, because only the earliest strikes off that die had enough reverse contrast for a "CAMEO" designation.
Before PCGS adopted CAMEO and DCAM standards in early 1992, this kind of '52 was considered ULTRA HEAVY by us (cameo collectors and dealers). We reasoned that while the reverse was not ULTRA, the obverse was the finest known for that date, and the obverse of a coin is usually more important than the reverse when appraising it.
When I sat down with PCGS in 1992 to work on establishing CAM and DCAM standards, PCGS decided they preferred to have the same standard of cameo contrast for obverse and reverse for their CAM/DCAM designations.
Hopefully the contrast in the picture was not "boosted". I have often purchased coins on ebay that came in looking much weaker than the picture. Sometimes they can't be returned. So we sell those coins at a loss.
If this coin is the real deal, it will be among the finest in a PCGS PR67CAM holder in terms of cameo contrast and eye-appeal.
As far as what I would sell it for, if the coin is as nice as I'm hoping, when I get a coin that I think is a good deal I usually split the difference with the new owner - it will be considerably less to him than if I had purchased the coin for what I might have paid on another day in another forum.
Rick T
"Actually R & I's usual mo...."
Bushmaster, I don't normally reply to your emails, as you consistently twist the truth, and I've learned a person cannot win in these circumstances.
I still have on file statements you published several years ago on the internet which were patently false.
RT
Russ, NCNE
I would do this more but I really want to get this darn book done.........................................
I collect neither proofs nor Franklins, but that is one amazing coin. And from what I know of proof Lincolns, I'm guessing this is a very rare piece and a great buy.
<< <i>Hello Russ!
I would do this more but I really want to get this darn book done......................................... >>
I'm working on my part.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Fellow Cameo Lovers
RE: 1952 Franklin PCGS PR 67 CAMEO
I recognized the die variety from the picture. If it is an early strike, as it appears to be, this variety has a fabulous DCAM obverse. The reverse is CAMEO. It's die #14 in "Cameo And Brilliant....", and also referred to on page 21. It most likely is a very early strike, because only the earliest strikes off that die had enough reverse contrast for a "CAMEO" designation.
Before PCGS adopted CAMEO and DCAM standards in early 1992, this kind of '52 was considered ULTRA HEAVY by us (cameo collectors and dealers). We reasoned that while the reverse was not ULTRA, the obverse was the finest known for that date, and the obverse of a coin is usually more important than the reverse when appraising it.
When I sat down with PCGS in 1992 to work on establishing CAM and DCAM standards, PCGS decided they preferred to have the same standard of cameo contrast for obverse and reverse for their CAM/DCAM designations.
Hopefully the contrast in the picture was not "boosted". I have often purchased coins on ebay that came in looking much weaker than the picture. Sometimes they can't be returned. So we sell those coins at a loss.
If this coin is the real deal, it will be among the finest in a PCGS PR67CAM holder in terms of cameo contrast and eye-appeal.
As far as what I would sell it for, if the coin is as nice as I'm hoping, when I get a coin that I think is a good deal I usually split the difference with the new owner - it will be considerably less to him than if I had purchased the coin for what I might have paid on another day in another forum.
Rick T
I am not sure I follow you here Mr. Tomaska ;......... and I do not know what you mean by splitting the difference . But there have been a few threads posted showing you bought a coin for "X" dollars and then attempted to sell the coin for "XYZ" , anywhere from 150% to 500% over your cost . So I see no correlation whatsoever as to you factoring into the selling price of your coins any consideration to your cost . You are entitled to ask whatever you choose for your coins .............but there will always be those like myself watching carefully what you buy and sell . It is up to each individual to decide if your "gouging" your customers or not .
<< <i>Bushmaster, I don't normally reply to your emails, as you consistently twist the truth, and I've learned a person cannot win in these circumstances.
I still have on file statements you published several years ago on the internet which were patently false.
RT >>
Oh, you flatter me!
And for the record: Everything I have ever "said" regarding you and/or R&I, has been truth.
Do you deny that your employee, Jackie, as Ebay user "jfrenchfries" used to schill bid R&I Ebay auctions ?
Do you deny that you usual markup is ~ 300%??
Do you deny that R&I was falsely using the PNG logo in Coin World ads well before you were a PNG member???
BTW, I think the fact that the PNG has added you as a PNG member has eroded the legitimacy and integrity of the PNG.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
1. First of all, I'm going to defend Jackie. I have had 15-20 employees over the past 15 years, most either family members or friends of the family, who needed a job. None had any numismatic experience. Jackie was and is a friend of the family with no numismatic background I hired because she is a good person and a hard worker. Anyone who has worked with Jackie, co-workers and R & I Clients, will agree with me on that. What she did happened early in her employment when she was listing on ebay and had no knowledge of the groundrules for ebay bidding. So the fact that she bid on some of her own lots she listed does not mean she is guilty of what you are accusing her of - which is knowingly breaking the ebay rules. She is an extremely conscientious, honest individual.
2. The PNG logo was inserted by CW by accident with all the other logos when they wrote the ad! I WAS THE ONE WHO CALLED THEIR ATTENTION TO IT - no collector or dealer, or representative from PNG contacted us - which you asserted in a previous post. So what you wrote is in fact a lie - it was pure speculation on your part, where you drew an incorrect conclusion because you are not interested in truth as much as pursuing your own agenda.
3. And our usual markup 300%? I've actually had some coins that I made 500% and MORE on! And I've also had coins I make 5% on. And I've had coins I make nothing on. And I've had coins I have lost money on - lots of them. I sometimes lose money on a coin when I buy it sight-unseen, and am unpleasently surprised when I receive it, that the quality is not what it was represented as, and that it should sell for less. So if you add them all up and average them out, our margin is about 20%.
The 1952 Franklin PCGS PR67CAM I am buying is a perfect example. IF IT IS AS NICE as I am hoping, it could be a coin with HUGE potential for the future owner, as it would rank among the finest for the year in that grade. I might make 50% on it, and the new owner will still be getting a great deal. On the other hand, if it turns out to not be as good as it appeared in the picture, I could end up selling it for my cost. We'll see.
I would not ask ANY collector to sell a coin from their collection for less than what it was worth. If a guy paid $1,000 for a coin, and the coin could be worth $5,000, would I expect him to sell it for $1,200? If you have an original print of the Declaration of Independence you found in a garage sale and bought for $100, should you sell it for $500? When it might be worth $100,000?
Paul -
When I first started handling cameo proof coins in the early 1980's almost every dealer would have said the cameo coins I was selling my clients were a very bad deal for those people. Out of 10 $100 cameos I may have sold a client in 1985, if he sells them today he may have lost $30 each on two, broke even on 4, made $300 each on two, and made $5,000 on one.
I do not claim to bat 1.000 with my picks, but my clients have had some HUGE grand slams over the years.
My focus has always been not what the coin is worth TODAY, but what I think it will be worth tomorrow - several years from now. For those clients who have the same kind of focus, they are very happy with their purchases from me.
Here is my perspective:
1. Superb cameo proof coinage from this era is in my opinion very undervalued at current levels. These coins are NOT BEING CERTIFIED at the rate they once were 10 years ago, because they are NO LONGER AROUND in those quantities. The "well" has about run dry. So I am a very strong buyer of any exceptional cameo proof or SMS coin from the 1950 -1967 era. I emphasize the word "exceptional".
2. As I wrote on another thread, if you were fortunate and bought a coin for $1,000 that might have a market value of $5,000 to the right collector, I would not expect you to sell the coin for $1,200. If I had a client that was willing to pay me $5,000 for your coin, I would be very happy to pay you $4,500 for it for the quick turnaround. And I would not think you were "gouging" me!
3. If the 1952 is as nice as I am hoping it is, I would have paid $5,000 for it, which means I might have sold it for $6,000, as I believe the potential for the coin over the next several years could be double that figure.
So I have no problem selling it for $3,800 - IF IT IS NICE AS I AM HOPING IT IS. If it is not, then it will be sold for less.
Hoard the keys.
I'm the new owner. Its not a PCGS DCAM nor an NGC ULTRA. It is what it is (if the coin is as good as the pic) - a fabulous 1952 off die #14 with the deepest, frostiest obverse you will ever see on a '52.
<< <i>1. First of all, I'm going to defend Jackie. I have had 15-20 employees over the past 15 years, most either family members or friends of the family, who needed a job. None had any numismatic experience. Jackie was and is a friend of the family with no numismatic background I hired because she is a good person and a hard worker. Anyone who has worked with Jackie, co-workers and R & I Clients, will agree with me on that. What she did happened early in her employment when she was listing on ebay and had no knowledge of the groundrules for ebay bidding. So the fact that she bid on some of her own lots she listed does not mean she is guilty of what you are accusing her of - which is knowingly breaking the ebay rules. She is an extremely conscientious, honest individual. >>
Fair enuff. I do agree that Jackie seems like a nice gal. But, as we all well know, ignorance of the law is not a defense. I am glad Jackie has learned that schilling is improper.
When I , as second highest bidder, rec'd. an email from Jackie after an auction closed, and the winning bidder was none other than herself, offering me the coin at my bid... well, you can imagine I was a bit put-off!
<< <i>2. The PNG logo was inserted by CW by accident with all the other logos when they wrote the ad! I WAS THE ONE WHO CALLED THEIR ATTENTION TO IT - no collector or dealer, or representative from PNG contacted us - which you asserted in a previous post. So what you wrote is in fact a lie - it was pure speculation on your part, where you drew an incorrect conclusion because you are not interested in truth as much as pursuing your own agenda. >>
Nope. No lie here. At the time when the ads were running, I actually called PNG prez Ron Bruegemman (sorry if I am butchering the sp. Ron!) myself to inquire whether or not PNG could arbitrate a dispute you were having at that time with another collector. It was then that Ron told me you were not a PNG member, and that if you were indeed using the PNG logo in your ads he would put a stop to it. So yes, I did "speculate" that the PNG did indeed make contact with you, a logical conclusion, as the logo ceased appearing in your ads shortly thereafter
Seems a bit of a stretch that you happened to "notice" those logos at almost the precise same time. I suppose it is possible.
At any rate, thanks for coming on and addressing these issues. I am willing to call a truce. Let us shake hands and move on.
I hope the 52 is as nice as the pix. But you may be disappointed. As others have pointed out, JWCameo has a real talent for enhancing the cameo contrasts of his ebay lots.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Bushmaster -
Jackie is a very good person. She's learned a lot in the 5+ years she's been here, though I wouldn't call her a numismatic expert quite yet. As I wrote, she is especially good with our clients, always tries to help them out. She's always pleasant - no matter what's going on in her personal life. And she always tries to do the right thing.
I am all for shaking hands and calling a truce, but I have to point out...
You just admitted that PNG contacting me was speculation on your part. Just because you called PNG does not mean that I talked with them, or was aware they were contacted, whether or not the timing seemed too coincidental by you. I don't even know how long the logo had been in there. At this point in time, many years later, whether it was I who discovered the logo or an employee who pointed it out to me, is irrelevant.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE FOLLOWING:
In your original thread on this issue you intimated the logo was put in intentionally by me to deceive readers into believing that I was a PNG member, with your conclusion in that thread that "In my opinion, RT is about as unethical as Bill Clinton". THAT WAS WAY OVER THE LINE!
Because The FACT, the SALIENT POINT is that I NEVER ASKED Coin World to put the PNG logo in, nor did I wish it were in our ad, as I was not a PNG member at that time.
THE RELEVANT FACT is COIN WORLD placed the logo in the ad themselves by accident - as they often err when meeting deadlines. (Just as I discovered a few months back they had mistakenly dropped the PCGS logo from our ads for who knows how long.) They make mistakes. I want to be the FIRST to have a logo removed if it should not be there.
If you wanted to be a good guy, when you discovered the error, why didn't you contact me first? Then, if you didn't get the needed response, you could have called PNG.
Bushmaster, I am an easy guy to get along with. I am not out for blood. Numismatics benefits if we both put our best foot forward, but you have written threads that suggest I was intentionally trying to deceive people when it is NOT TRUE, and you have made a recent comment in one of your latest threads that my PNG membership "has eroded the legitimacy and integrity of the PNG" - again, WAY OVER THE LINE.
We have to be accountable for our words. If I were to have made similar comments about you, and had some possible incorrect assumptions I made pointed out to me, I would feel I owed that individual an apology.
So, Bushmaster, if you are willing to admit you may have gone too far in some of your comments, and that you were perhaps making some assumptions, and will do your best in the future to refrain from doing so (I'm not even looking for a guarantee - I know how passionate you can get about your coins - you sleep with them under your pillow - of course that's a joke, not meant to be taken literally), then yes, we can shake hands, and maybe even be friends.
But if you can't do that, then you are in effect sticking by the above comments, and we cannot shake on that.
RT
Please do us a favor and let us know if the coin is as nice as you expect.
My experience with that seller is that his pictures exaggerate the contrast.
Good luck - I hope it is a nice one.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
Cameonut -
Definitely. I will post the picture. I am aware of what you are talking about. Jeff W. takes very good pictures that give his coins the best possible look.
My experience with that die variety is that it has to be a very early strike for the coin to have enough reverse contrast to merit a "Cameo" designation from PCGS. I had such a coin about 10 years ago in a PCGS PR66CAM holder. So we'll see......
<< <i>Cameonut -
Definitely. I will post the picture. I am aware of what you are talking about. Jeff W. takes very good pictures that give his coins the best possible look.
My experience with that die variety is that it has to be a very early strike for the coin to have enough reverse contrast to merit a "Cameo" designation from PCGS. I had such a coin about 10 years ago in a PCGS PR66CAM holder. So we'll see...... >>
Did the coin "pan out" ?
<< <i>Bushmaster -
Jackie is a very good person. She's learned a lot in the 5+ years she's been here, though I wouldn't call her a numismatic expert quite yet. As I wrote, she is especially good with our clients, always tries to help them out. She's always pleasant - no matter what's going on in her personal life. And she always tries to do the right thing.
I am all for shaking hands and calling a truce, but I have to point out...
You just admitted that PNG contacting me was speculation on your part. Just because you called PNG does not mean that I talked with them, or was aware they were contacted, whether or not the timing seemed too coincidental by you. I don't even know how long the logo had been in there. At this point in time, many years later, whether it was I who discovered the logo or an employee who pointed it out to me, is irrelevant.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE FOLLOWING:
In your original thread on this issue you intimated the logo was put in intentionally by me to deceive readers into believing that I was a PNG member, with your conclusion in that thread that "In my opinion, RT is about as unethical as Bill Clinton". THAT WAS WAY OVER THE LINE!
Because The FACT, the SALIENT POINT is that I NEVER ASKED Coin World to put the PNG logo in, nor did I wish it were in our ad, as I was not a PNG member at that time.
THE RELEVANT FACT is COIN WORLD placed the logo in the ad themselves by accident - as they often err when meeting deadlines. (Just as I discovered a few months back they had mistakenly dropped the PCGS logo from our ads for who knows how long.) They make mistakes. I want to be the FIRST to have a logo removed if it should not be there.
If you wanted to be a good guy, when you discovered the error, why didn't you contact me first? Then, if you didn't get the needed response, you could have called PNG.
Bushmaster, I am an easy guy to get along with. I am not out for blood. Numismatics benefits if we both put our best foot forward, but you have written threads that suggest I was intentionally trying to deceive people when it is NOT TRUE, and you have made a recent comment in one of your latest threads that my PNG membership "has eroded the legitimacy and integrity of the PNG" - again, WAY OVER THE LINE.
We have to be accountable for our words. If I were to have made similar comments about you, and had some possible incorrect assumptions I made pointed out to me, I would feel I owed that individual an apology.
So, Bushmaster, if you are willing to admit you may have gone too far in some of your comments, and that you were perhaps making some assumptions, and will do your best in the future to refrain from doing so (I'm not even looking for a guarantee - I know how passionate you can get about your coins - you sleep with them under your pillow - of course that's a joke, not meant to be taken literally), then yes, we can shake hands, and maybe even be friends.
But if you can't do that, then you are in effect sticking by the above comments, and we cannot shake on that.
RT >>
VERY interesting post.
My question to you is, why did you wait so long to address his accusations, which have been going on for a long time?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>This little jewel just closed on eBAY , purchased by renowned specialist R. Tomaska's firm .
What price level do you think the coin will reappear at ?SUPER CAMEO 1952 FRANKLIN >>
Was this coin a breakout from another TPG.. ?..or was this coin floating around raw ?
<< <i>Cameonut -
Definitely. I will post the picture. I am aware of what you are talking about. Jeff W. takes very good pictures that give his coins the best possible look.
My experience with that die variety is that it has to be a very early strike for the coin to have enough reverse contrast to merit a "Cameo" designation from PCGS. I had such a coin about 10 years ago in a PCGS PR66CAM holder. So we'll see...... >>
No problems with your coins ..keep up the fine effort
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
He did say that he will post the pix of the 1952 Cameo PF 67 half soon !