$12 for a 1962 proof set, boy an I a sucker!!!

MadMarty · June 28, 2007 5:47AM

Darn Dealer made me pay $12 for this proof set! Maybe I should have passed, but I'm such a sucker!

TheRaven · June 28, 2007 5:47AM

PURTY

dan8402 · June 28, 2007 5:48AM

Send it back, the bell has a crack in it.

grabba · June 28, 2007 5:49AM

Nice counterfeit copy. Excellent photoshop skills of removing the word COPY from it.

MadMarty · June 28, 2007 5:53AM

<< Nice counterfeit copy. Excellent photoshop skills of removing the word COPY from it.

>>

Just wait until my 64 Kennedy order posts!!!

CarlWohlforth · June 28, 2007 6:03AM

Wow! Looks DCAM for sure. Great find.

grabba · June 28, 2007 6:08AM

<< 

<< Nice counterfeit copy. Excellent photoshop skills of removing the word COPY from it.

>>

Just wait until my 64 Kennedy order posts!!! >>

You almost had me on that one.

I just found your original picture before photoshopping

jmski52 · June 28, 2007 6:20AM

I never knew they made'em that nice in '62. Nice find! Now a slightly more serious question, and please don't take this negatively - but how much of a detraction are those two spots (one obverse, one reverse)?

AskRaq · June 28, 2007 6:24AM

Very pretty coin! I do have a question (because I'm not all that familiar with these), is the '9' in the date usually filled in like that?

Russ · June 28, 2007 6:25AM

<< but how much of a detraction are those two spots (one obverse, one reverse)? >>

They'll soon be gone.

Russ, NCNE

swest · June 28, 2007 6:26AM

Was the set sealed?

Or did you actually get to lay eyes on this first? I have tried a few "sealed" sets and my luck has been pretty poor. Stunning coin!

Swest

Russ · June 28, 2007 6:26AM

<< is the '9' in the date usually filled in like that? >>

It's a milk spot. Common in that location on these.

Russ, NCNE

cladking · June 28, 2007 6:27AM

<< Darn Dealer made me pay $12 for this proof set! Maybe I should have passed, but I'm such a sucker!

] >>

That's almost bid, isn't it.

Oh well, just figure he owes you one.

MadMarty · June 28, 2007 6:31AM

<< Was the set sealed?

Or did you actually get to lay eyes on this first? I have tried a few "sealed" sets and my luck has been pretty poor. Stunning coin!

Swest >>

I picked it and a 56 Type 1 set from the dealers stock, I haven't even cracked open the blue box sets yet! But picked some nice 69s, 70s and 71s also.

grip · June 28, 2007 6:39AM

I wish I had dealer friends like that

Al

CarlWohlforth · June 28, 2007 11:00AM

<>

'56 and '62 are the most common years for DCAM Frankies. That is not to say that DCAMs are common. Only that it is easier to find DCAM Frankies in '56 and '62 than other years. However I have never, ever, found one in a $12 set!!!!!

Russ · June 28, 2007 11:03AM

<< '56 and '62 are the most common years for DCAM Frankies. >>

Actually, 1963 is more common than 1962.

Russ, NCNE

jmski52 · June 28, 2007 11:04AM

Although I never paid much attention to Cameos, now I know why - you can't identify one until you see some nice ones. duh

PocketEasyTreasures · June 28, 2007 11:06AM

I hate that you got ripped, can I make a mercy buy for, say... $12? This way you get your money back and rid yourself of a 1962 DCAM Franklin that you obviously don't really want. Do I have to say the magic word?

FatMan · June 28, 2007 11:11AM

Yep, your a sucker. No doubt about it.

Looks like you hooked a good there MadOne.

21Walker · June 28, 2007 11:21AM

SWEEEEEEEEEEEET..........Rick

SUMORADA · June 28, 2007 12:01PM

AREA MAN ARRESTED IN COIN THEFT,.................................after checking with everyone involved it seems as though it was consensual...............this time

SkyMan · June 28, 2007 12:16PM

<< 

<< '56 and '62 are the most common years for DCAM Frankies. >>

Actually, 1963 is more common than 1962.

Russ, NCNE >>

I'm a gonna' have to disagree with you Russ. '62's are the most common date of the series for DCAM.

Sweet coin MM... ESPECIALLY for $12.

Man that dealer either must like you or must be totally out of the loop.

Russ · June 28, 2007 12:35PM

<< I'm a gonna' have to disagree with you Russ. '62's are the most common date of the series for DCAM. >>

I know that PCGS has granted the DCAM designation to more 1962's, but there are Deep Cameos, and then there are Deep Cameos. The 1963 issue has produced more of the latter. For drop dead contrast the 1963 and the 1956 Type 2 are the top of the heap, with the 1962 marginally behind.

Russ, NCNE

coindeuce · June 28, 2007 1:12PM

You bought an incomplete Proof set for $12? What a maroon! Go back and get the other four coins before it's too late...

GoldenEyeNumismatics · June 28, 2007 1:44PM

Unbelievable!

Edscoin · June 28, 2007 1:48PM

<< You bought an incomplete Proof set for $12? What a maroon! Go back and get the other four coins before it's too late...

>>

What did the other four look like?

Myqqy · June 28, 2007 2:02PM

DANG!!!!

coinsarefun · June 28, 2007 5:02PM

Awsome another give away....

That is one beautiful Franklin

LucyBop · June 28, 2007 5:04PM

<< 

<< I'm a gonna' have to disagree with you Russ. '62's are the most common date of the series for DCAM. >>

I know that PCGS has granted the DCAM designation to more 1962's, but there are Deep Cameos, and then there are Deep Cameos. The 1963 issue has produced more of the latter. For drop dead contrast the 1963 and the 1956 Type 2 are the top of the heap, with the 1962 marginally behind.

Russ, NCNE >>

I have to concur.

I have made some deep Cameos with PCGs in 56, 62 and 63...

The 56 and 63's tend to be slam dunk no questions asked deep mirrored heavily frosted Cameos...
The 56 Type 2's probably being the most heavly frosted of the series....

Cameonut · June 28, 2007 8:59PM

<< 

<< I'm a gonna' have to disagree with you Russ. '62's are the most common date of the series for DCAM. >>

I know that PCGS has granted the DCAM designation to more 1962's, but there are Deep Cameos, and then there are Deep Cameos. The 1963 issue has produced more of the latter. For drop dead contrast the 1963 and the 1956 Type 2 are the top of the heap, with the 1962 marginally behind.

Russ, NCNE >>

I agree - it is much harder to find a Dcam++ '62 than '56 or '63.

In any event, Marty made a nice pickup for $12, I'd buy 'em at that price all day. Seeing it gives me hope that there are still nice dcams out there to be found. But they sure are getting hard to find!!

fivecents · June 28, 2007 9:22PM

Awesome cherrypick Marty!!
Did you find that DC frankie or was it the chicken who saw it first?

SanctionII · June 29, 2007 2:45AM

Great pick up Marty. A truely stunning DCAM Frankie.

I saw a 1962 proof set with a DCAM half like the coin pictured a few years ago at a Santa Clara show. For some idiotic reason I was preoccupied with looking for other coins at the time and did not buy the set. A couple of hours later I went back to the dealer table to buy the set and it was gone.

I kick myself everytime I think about what a dunderhead I was on that day.

Marty do you thnik the spots will come off and if wo, what grade do you think the half will receive when slabbed?

ccmorgan · June 29, 2007 3:06AM

Marty since you got screwed I'll give you $13 for it and pay shipping.

SkyMan · June 29, 2007 4:01AM

<< 

<< 

<< I'm a gonna' have to disagree with you Russ. '62's are the most common date of the series for DCAM. >>

I know that PCGS has granted the DCAM designation to more 1962's, but there are Deep Cameos, and then there are Deep Cameos. The 1963 issue has produced more of the latter. For drop dead contrast the 1963 and the 1956 Type 2 are the top of the heap, with the 1962 marginally behind.

Russ, NCNE >>

I agree - it is much harder to find a Dcam++ '62 than '56 or '63.

In any event, Marty made a nice pickup for $12, I'd buy 'em at that price all day. Seeing it gives me hope that there are still nice dcams out there to be found. But they sure are getting hard to find!! >>

Folks, you've CHANGED the definition here. If you define DCAM as DCAM+, then yes I would agree with you. However, if you are just counting your garden variety DCAM I would not, NOR would EITHER NGC or PCGS. In any event, I quite like Marty's '62. Here's mine, (the light haze you see is an artifact of imaging, it does not exist).

Russ · June 29, 2007 4:06AM

<< However, if you are just counting your garden variety DCAM I would not, NOR would EITHER NGC or PCGS. >>

You have enough experience that I'm sure you've seen plenty of coins labeled DCAM in NGC and PCGS holders that really don't qualify. I know I have. If we went back to the beginning and had the opportunity to view all the sets issued in 1962 and 1963, I'd guess we'd find that overall 1963 is a better year.

Russ, NCNE

SkyMan · June 29, 2007 4:14AM

<< You have enough experience that I'm sure you've seen plenty of coins labeled DCAM in NGC and PCGS holders that really don't qualify. >>

I absolutely agree with this statement. I would also agree that NGC seems to be overly slanted in their '62 vs. '63 population numbers.

$12 for a 1962 proof set, boy an I a sucker!!!

Comments

Leave a Comment