Cam or DCam Frankie?

Nice coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I agree it is a nice looking Franklin and I would say it just made cameo (although a grading company might not agree). The thing that might go against this coin is that the 1956 is fairly common in cameo (it is the easiest of all the 1950s coins to find in cameo), so the standards for getting a cameo designation can be tougher.

 

I can't tell if y'all are joking, or smoking crack.

The cameo on that coin is spectacular. It is a no questions asked CAM at the very least, and I see no reason at all why it wouldn't be UCAM. The general perception is that PCGS is stricter on proofs, so DCAM might be trickier - but it compares quite favorably to many of the coins in the Heritage Archives: https://coins.ha.com/c/search-resul...66&Ntt=1956&ic4=Refine-CoinDesignation-102615

I think y'all are being way too harsh on the OP's coin, which is gorgeous and has a very strong cameo.

 

Not me ..

 

That is quite possible. Looking through some of the heritage examples, I see some of the same features as on the OP's coin. I will stand at calling it a Cameo (and agree that there is dcam potential depending on the grader).

 

I'd go with Cam at the very least. Yes there are a couple spots that appear with little frost but I've seen coins with those dark spots with apparent similar lack of frost but if you tilt the coin another angle you can actually see the frost is there.

I mean look at this ones obverse from the examples @physics-fan3.14 linked to. Similar dark spots and it garnered a DCAM old green label holder to boot.

 

I'm inclined to agree after the second set of photos.

 

By frosted, he is referring to cameo contrasts. He is right that if the coin does have a break in frost that large, it doesn't belong in a cameo holder. Of course as you and others suggest, lighting and photography can also make a big difference.

 

This is a DCAM quality Franklin. (Any scratches are on the plastic holder).

The OP's coin is also one of the most common for cameo/deep cameo contrasts, so the services will be also be tougher on it than they would a 1959 for instance regardless of whether it is fair or not.

 

This set of images looks more promising. Is there a break or is that an artifact of lighting? Cameo proof coins can be a bear to photograph.

 

I understand, I'm just from the old school, just down the block ...

 

Here's a 59 I picked up last night, cruising through one of my favorite sellers stores, checking out the Franklin he had listed and this one stuck out like a sore thumb . At least compared to his other listings of Franklin .


Not bad for 20 bucks and can't wait to take new images ....

 

I also think it's Coneca DDO-001 too ....

 

Could go either way. There's a chance they would give it CAM if it would have otherwise been DCAM, but my guess would be it would get neither. Being a type 2 should help it, the premiums to strong on the type 1s to overlook such a big missing spot

 

pictures in plastic holders are useless for accuracy

 

where do you see that?

Just asking...

 

Light spread on liberty Frank and I put a couple of arrows on the " L " and " E " . It's also a class 2 .

 

Nice cam, but not deep cam...frost needs to be thick and bold, no sign of break in frost. These are rare coins in d Cam. Compare with examples for sale on E-bay...Arizona Franklins, R&I Coins, and others. This is borderline D Cam, but I,ve seen a bunch just like this one with D-cam des...If it has no harilnes, then have it graded.

What?

 

Great coin! So you're saying they would more easily turn a sixty dollar coin into a six hundred dollar coin rather than a 150 dollar coin into a 259 dollar coin? I think you may be speculating. If its the most common for cameo then logic would dictate it would have the easiest time getting cameo, not the other way around. But great coin!

 

What if it has hairlines!?!?!