I'm Usually Not One For Classic Proof Coinage but WOW I love this:
ChuckC
Posts: 1,600
0
ChuckC
Posts: 1,600
Comments
-Randy Newman
Interesting that the PCGS Slab does not contain a Cameo designation. From the pictures it appears that the obverse devices have sufficient frost and one of the reverse pictures shows the reverse devices with frost. Maybe the fields are lacking in mirror depth and/or the smaller devices (lettering, etc.) lack sufficient frost to warranted a PCGS Cameo designation.
Anaconda advertises the coin as a Cameo, even though PCGS has not awarded that designation. The coin pics tempt me to give a Cameo designation.
This particular coin and the advertising of same for sale by Anaconda is merely evidence of the differences in "Opinion" over a coin's grade; and that a coin's grade is always a matter of subjective opinion.
-Paul
<< <i>Yep it's a beauty and another shameless plug for Anaconda....lol. >>
Ha! not intentional!
Bruce Scher
<< <i>You know Chuck i like your icon better than that proof merc..Its a pretty example but not a "monster" from here..
Bruce Scher >>
Thanks Bruce. I bought that from LucyBop and it's still my favorite. It has "Wayte Raymond" album toning.
<< <i>Nice coin.
Interesting that the PCGS Slab does not contain a Cameo designation. From the pictures it appears that the obverse devices have sufficient frost and one of the reverse pictures shows the reverse devices with frost. Maybe the fields are lacking in mirror depth and/or the smaller devices (lettering, etc.) lack sufficient frost to warranted a PCGS Cameo designation.
Anaconda advertises the coin as a Cameo, even though PCGS has not awarded that designation. The coin pics tempt me to give a Cameo designation.
This particular coin and the advertising of same for sale by Anaconda is merely evidence of the differences in "Opinion" over a coin's grade; and that a coin's grade is always a matter of subjective opinion. >>
Personally I think that Anaconda's description is deliberately obfuscatory. It is not a PCGS PR67 Cameo Proof Mercury Dime. It may have distinct cameo contrast, but to advertise it the way that Anaconda does is inappropriate in my opinion. It should not have Cameo directly after the PCGS PR67 as PCGS PR67 Cameo means something.
As to the coin itself, it sure looks pretty. However, I suspect that if you placed it next to a 1939 graded PCGS PR67 CAMEO you would notice the difference in the frost/mirror contrast from the one displayed.
U.S. Type Set
<< <i>
<< <i>Nice coin.
Interesting that the PCGS Slab does not contain a Cameo designation. From the pictures it appears that the obverse devices have sufficient frost and one of the reverse pictures shows the reverse devices with frost. Maybe the fields are lacking in mirror depth and/or the smaller devices (lettering, etc.) lack sufficient frost to warranted a PCGS Cameo designation.
Anaconda advertises the coin as a Cameo, even though PCGS has not awarded that designation. The coin pics tempt me to give a Cameo designation.
This particular coin and the advertising of same for sale by Anaconda is merely evidence of the differences in "Opinion" over a coin's grade; and that a coin's grade is always a matter of subjective opinion. >>
Personally I think that Anaconda's description is deliberately obfuscatory. It is not a PCGS PR67 Cameo Proof Mercury Dime. It may have distinct cameo contrast, but to advertise it the way that Anaconda does is inappropriate in my opinion. It should not have Cameo directly after the PCGS PR67 as PCGS PR67 Cameo means something.
As to the coin itself, it sure looks pretty. However, I suspect that if you placed it next to a 1939 graded PCGS PR67 CAMEO you would notice the difference in the frost/mirror contrast from the one displayed.[/
>>
It was actually graded NGC PF67 CAMEO. It was accidentally crossed without retaining the designation and I bought it from the colllector for well over 1k. I think my title and description describe THE COIN, not the plastic and is in no way unclear about what the coin really is. Just because PCGS is dropping the ball lately, I'm not going to change how I view, buy, or sell coins. While you may find my title "inappropriate" I, and many others who have complimented me on the coin, find it suitable. We are all entitled to our own opinions, however, mine are simply not driven by drums beating in Newport Beach.
Poorguy, although I fully buy your explanation, at least one reader has percieved that you are being "obfuscatory". Just one way to look at it.
--Jerry
Is the PCGS designation review officially over? Do you have to get a regrade to try and get it back?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Nice coin.
Interesting that the PCGS Slab does not contain a Cameo designation. From the pictures it appears that the obverse devices have sufficient frost and one of the reverse pictures shows the reverse devices with frost. Maybe the fields are lacking in mirror depth and/or the smaller devices (lettering, etc.) lack sufficient frost to warranted a PCGS Cameo designation.
Anaconda advertises the coin as a Cameo, even though PCGS has not awarded that designation. The coin pics tempt me to give a Cameo designation.
This particular coin and the advertising of same for sale by Anaconda is merely evidence of the differences in "Opinion" over a coin's grade; and that a coin's grade is always a matter of subjective opinion. >>
Personally I think that Anaconda's description is deliberately obfuscatory. It is not a PCGS PR67 Cameo Proof Mercury Dime. It may have distinct cameo contrast, but to advertise it the way that Anaconda does is inappropriate in my opinion. It should not have Cameo directly after the PCGS PR67 as PCGS PR67 Cameo means something.
As to the coin itself, it sure looks pretty. However, I suspect that if you placed it next to a 1939 graded PCGS PR67 CAMEO you would notice the difference in the frost/mirror contrast from the one displayed.[/
>>
It was actually graded NGC PF67 CAMEO. It was accidentally crossed without retaining the designation and I bought it from the colllector for well over 1k. I think my title and description describe THE COIN, not the plastic and is in no way unclear about what the coin really is. Just because PCGS is dropping the ball lately, I'm not going to change how I view, buy, or sell coins. While you may find my title "inappropriate" I, and many others who have complimented me on the coin, find it suitable. We are all entitled to our own opinions, however, mine are simply not driven by drums beating in Newport Beach. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Nice coin.
Interesting that the PCGS Slab does not contain a Cameo designation. From the pictures it appears that the obverse devices have sufficient frost and one of the reverse pictures shows the reverse devices with frost. Maybe the fields are lacking in mirror depth and/or the smaller devices (lettering, etc.) lack sufficient frost to warranted a PCGS Cameo designation.
Anaconda advertises the coin as a Cameo, even though PCGS has not awarded that designation. The coin pics tempt me to give a Cameo designation.
This particular coin and the advertising of same for sale by Anaconda is merely evidence of the differences in "Opinion" over a coin's grade; and that a coin's grade is always a matter of subjective opinion. >>
Personally I think that Anaconda's description is deliberately obfuscatory. It is not a PCGS PR67 Cameo Proof Mercury Dime. It may have distinct cameo contrast, but to advertise it the way that Anaconda does is inappropriate in my opinion. It should not have Cameo directly after the PCGS PR67 as PCGS PR67 Cameo means something.
As to the coin itself, it sure looks pretty. However, I suspect that if you placed it next to a 1939 graded PCGS PR67 CAMEO you would notice the difference in the frost/mirror contrast from the one displayed. >>
Hey skyman, just a quick question. If I have a 1967 Lincoln cent thats an obvious PROOF coin, but labeled as PCGS MS67, dont I have an "obfuscatory obligation" to list such a coin as a PF67 if I were selling such a coin?
<< <i>The saving grace here is that, this is Anaconda, their buyers are typically educated and there is a return policy.
Is the PCGS designation review officially over? Do you have to get a regrade to try and get it back? >>
I appreciate your comments. I'm not aiming the following response to you, but in general. I didn't want you to think I was retailating against your comment.
I'm not sure. However, why would I want to get it re-graded when my clients know I will pay cameo price for this coin if they ever want to sell it. I might submit it in the future, but right now there is no need. The coin speaks for itself. Would you like sticker on it?
Notwilight, good information about the nuclear power industry. However, there is a much greater concern for public safety surrounding the regulations of the nuclear industry as there should be. An overgraded/undergraded coin is nothing compared to 3-mile island or chernobyl.
Poorguy, although I fully buy your explanation, at least one reader has percieved that you are being "obfuscatory". Just one way to look at it.
I've learned that there is at least one person like this in every crowd. I can't and won't please everybody but I'll do my best to please the majority, not the minority. However, If someone has a problem regarding a coin I have for sale, I'll definitely do my best to present my point of view and engage in constructive discussion with them.
Personally, however, unless the coin reads different in hand from how it appears in those photos, it looks a little 'conserved' for my taste.
No disrespect intended towards Brandon or anyone.
Artist
>>>My Collection
<< <i>Hey skyman, just a quick question. If I have a 1967 Lincoln cent thats an obvious PROOF coin, but labeled as PCGS MS67, dont I have an "obfuscatory obligation" to list such a coin as a PF67 if I were selling such a coin? >>
If you have a '67 Lincoln proof that would really be something!!
>>>My Collection
<< <i>That certainly is a nice looking Merc - I can see what people are so enthused about.
Personally, however, unless the coin reads different in hand from how it appears in those photos, it looks a little 'conserved' for my taste.
No disrespect intended towards Brandon or anyone.
Artist >>
None taken. I appreciate your comments. It obviously has been dipped (just from the look, not a personal account) but in my opinion, the removal of typical modern proof haze is completely fine in my book.
<< <i> I've learned that there is at least one person like this in every crowd. I can't and won't please everybody but I'll do my best to please the majority, not the minority. However, If someone has a problem regarding a coin I have for sale, I'll definitely do my best to present my point of view and engage in constructive discussion with them. >>
good point. That's one of the liberties you earn when you manage to escape from ebay. --Jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>Hey skyman, just a quick question. If I have a 1967 Lincoln cent thats an obvious PROOF coin, but labeled as PCGS MS67, dont I have an "obfuscatory obligation" to list such a coin as a PF67 if I were selling such a coin? >>
If you have a '67 Lincoln proof that would really be something!! >>
Ok, lets say a '62 Lincoln proof. Good catch, I dont collect moderns, but you certainley get my point.