Home U.S. Coin Forum

What am I missing here??? Ebay Item..

1959 Franklin PCGS PR67 PQ+ PCGS FAILED TO NOTE (CAMEO Item number: 360055479972


I'm not good at uploading the pics to this one, but I can see why it was not labeled as a cameo.

Anyone else care to chime in?

Is the seller a member here????

Comments

  • direwolf1972direwolf1972 Posts: 2,076 ✭✭✭
    I'll see your bunny with a pancake on his head and raise you a Siamese cat with a miniature pumpkin on his head.

    You wouldn't believe how long it took to get him to sit still for this.


  • rgCoinGuyrgCoinGuy Posts: 7,478
    Link

    94% feedback, enough said. image
    imageQuid pro quo. Yes or no?
  • The coin does have some cameo contrast but certainly not enough frost to warrant the designation image

    Ebay Link
  • It looks like a drive by on the links........they were sprayed everywhere only seconds apart....image
  • tmcsr69tmcsr69 Posts: 1,307
    Appears to me that there are a few milk spots starting to grow on the coin. Hard to photograph coins and show the true cameo effect, but I don't see it.
    Crazy old man from Missouri
  • BECOKABECOKA Posts: 16,960 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Appears to me that there are a few milk spots starting to grow on the coin. Hard to photograph coins and show the true cameo effect, but I don't see it. >>



    He probably did not wash off all of the E-Zest trying to get this to CAM the first time. And now he is paying the price. Ooops.
  • thanks for the lin guys.

    I tend to agree with the comments about the certain lack of frostiness to warrant a cam designation, and I being a nice guy(buyer) made the seller a righteous offer ($80.00), I know somewhat high for a 67, but seller is adamant that its a cam and worth at least 429 !?

    I told him flat- resubmit and IF you get the cam on it I would buy it at his ask price of 429. Instead I get the usual blah blah blah. I saw the 94 feedback and took this into consideration as well. but for some reason I have seen this seller post here or on the BST before. (at least my mind said so).

    I'm still thinkin its a solid 67 no cam.
  • BlindedByEgoBlindedByEgo Posts: 10,754 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Marketing hype, end of story. You would need cataracts to see that as a cameo.
  • 19Lyds19Lyds Posts: 26,490 ✭✭✭✭
    Looks like a lampshade shot to me otherwise the coin would have cameo'd IMO.

    Lampshade thread 1

    Nuther one.

    This Kennedy Cameo'ed. BTW, it looks much nicer in hand than this scan.

    image

    The whole point being that if that Franklin qualified for a cameo, PCGS would have given it therefore I could only conclude that the coin was photographed under conditions that specifically optimize the contrast between the devices and the fields.
    I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.



    The name is LEE!


  • << <i>Marketing hype, end of story. You would need cataracts to see that as a cameo. >>



    I agree with the hype part, but dammit man- my glasses aint that foggy!

    I'm waiting for a response from the seller- hell maybe he will come here and discuss why it should be a cam. He sent me his biz number mebbe I'll call him later to hear his BS.
  • cmerlo1cmerlo1 Posts: 7,910 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I would pass just based on his feedback alone...
    You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
  • coindudeonebaycoindudeonebay Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭
    The fact is that the coin in question has cameo contrast but is not a cameo. There is too much shine on Franky's dome and too much shine in the upper wood of the yoke on the reverse.

    I've personally seen this guy try to sell a lot of coins as "Failed to Note" or other words to that effect. And tends to start the bid as if the coin had the designation. The mirrors are nice though and the frost is decent... just not enough. If you want a coin of the same quality, I have one you can buy for 30 bucks. Nice cameo, but not enough to get the grade. Of course, 59 halves are very rare in cameo and considered to be a semi key.

    And yes, to agree with another poster, the right lighting will make a lot of coins look like a cameo even with minimum contrast.
  • coindudeonebaycoindudeonebay Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭
    Here's a nicer one for less money!
    1959 near cameo half!
  • By the pics it does look Cameo to me. But I don't trust them. His feedback..... Geez!! Even his Positive transactions have a negative tone to them. I would stay away for sure.
  • Bummer- he no respond to my offers

    Guess i'm much better off with how I choose quality coins from a numistmatist/dealer/buyer/seller/collector.

    It sucks when ya call out a scumbag- I hate being a jerk at times.

  • sweetwillietsweetwilliet Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭
    The seller has an 1882-cc pcgs ms64dmpl morgan for sale for over $3500.00.
    Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    Will’sProoflikes
  • I agree, I don't think it is a Cameo as there are too many breaks on the reverse and some on the obverse. It might get the * at NGC but not 100% sure about that either.
  • vplitevplite Posts: 1,385 ✭✭✭
    This seller has been discussed before on this board. $80 is a very generous offer for that coin IMHO.

    I hate those milk spots that seem to be starting, as another crazy old man from Missouri noted.
    The Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file