I have an 1867 Proof half dime that has some neat toning and, possibly, might qualify as a cameo coin. I was going to send it in for grading, until I looked at it under a higher magnification scope. There appear to be light scratches, enough to persuade me to just put it in my Dansco half dime album and not have it graded (for now). Below are the pics -- would appreciate your opinion on whether the scratches appear to be from cleaning (ugh, on a proof coin), bad handling (wiping a cloth across the coin?), or die polishing marks (personally, I don't think so), and whether it's worth sending in to get graded/certified. The scratches are more visible on the reverse, where there is less toning in the fields. fwiw - I already have another 1867 proof half dime - NGC slabbed PF-65, so I don't have an urgent need to get the coin below slabbed.
I have one seated half dime , I think it is a 1858. It was graded ms 61 or 62 ( I don't have it handy}. I have always been surprised when I looked at it under magnification the scratch marks it has on the left obverse. I never noticed these looking at it without magnification. Surprised it graded as high as it did.
They are quite possibly die polishing marks, they appear to be confined to the fields and don´t cross over the raised devices.
It seems like I've seen worse than that on photos of other clean-graded classic proofs. On the positive side: I don't see the marks on devices, only on fields, which argues against post-mint damage. I also know that blowing up images of a coin this small really emphasizes every little mark. On the negative side: I expect die polish lines to be parallel, in swaths, not at random angles like these. Die scratches, I'm not so sure about. But, again, I've seen worse on photos of cleanly-graded coins. I can't really tell whether these marks are incuse or not. It looks like you've shot the coin with diffuse or circular lighting. Can you shoot it again with oblique lighting?
A proof such as this does not belong in an album. That's just asking for more hairlines. I would send it to PCGS or NGC. It's worth the cost to get their opinion and having it in a slab for the protection. No matter what they say, It's still a pretty coin that many would wish to own.
I cannot make any definitive judgement unless you can tell me that the parallel lines are raised above the fields. That said, I think you have several things going on with that coin: First, there are what appear to be die polishing marks. These won't affect the issue of a straight grade versus a details-it will straight grade. Second, there are some non-parallel marks that look like they could be hairlines or worse. Depending upon how prevalent these are, it could affect whether or not the coin straight-grades. If it straight-graded, it could affect the final grade, typically hairlines or even minor scratches netting it down a grade. Cameo? I think it's on the bubble. I've seen less cameo on coins in cameo holders. My opinion: Send it in for grading. I'm with @ldhair - the coin is too nice to put it in a holder. I think it will straight-grade and garner a PF-63 or on a really good day, 64.
That was the point I was trying to make, but didn't. After me seeing mine, I would certainly sent this one in to be graded. t would certainly send it
While no means an expert in anything, what I see appears to be die polishing marks, based upon other coins that have been posted here at CT. I think they would be ignored by TPG.
I apologize, Jeff, for my inferior photography skills and equipment. Below are some additional photos where I tried to tilt the coin under the scope (not too well). Nevertheless, based on the oberservations and recommendations of some of the posts to this thread, I will send it in to get graded. You all saved it from a doomed life in a Dansco album. I did pay special attention to the devices while I had the coin under the scope. I could not see scratches or marks on the devices.
While I had the scope out taking photos for the 1867 proof half dime, I decided to take photos of an 1847, 7 over small 7, large cent that I had packed away for inclusion in my the Large Cent Dansco album. Total bummer -- realized when I had it under the scope that it's not a 7 over a small 7 variety. More of someone tinkering (notching) with the "4" and "7" in the date, unless it's another Newcomb variety that I'm not aware of (there are so many for the 1847 Lg Cent). But definitely not a Newcomb 2, 18, or 31 variety. Now on the hunt for an 1847, 7 over 7 variety, if you have one or know of a decent one for sale - raw or slabbed.
LOL, nothing inferior here! It's just that the way the scope lights the coin makes it a little harder to tell what's going on, whereas a strong light coming in from one side would make it easier. All the same, in your first reverse close-up, that line passing just to the right of L looks pretty clearly incuse (a scratch) -- but considering the magnification, I'd call it a "hairline" instead, and probably one that's pretty subtle unless you get the lighting just right. It does look like it might cross the serif in M, instead of passing under like a die-polish line would. Again, though, that's only visible at VERY high magnification. Bottom line, yes, send it in!
Followed your recommendation and sent it to PCGS, and they graded it Proof 64 Cameo, so I'm really pleased with the outcome. Now, my dilemma is that I have it and a NGC Proof 65 counterpart. I don't need both for my collection. Which do I keep? I think the Proof 64 Cameo is visually nicer than the NGC Proof 65 coin, so I'm leaning towards keeping the PCGS graded coin.
Congratulations on the outcome. In the absence of any other considerations, were I in your shoes I would keep the one that gave me the most satisfaction. OTOH, I happen to be one of those who thinks you can't have too many half dimes.
The line looks like it misses all the devices except for this one spot. I’m not sure if this couple of nicks on the M are from the line or a couple of other hits.
That's really cool. Did PCGS image the coin for you? It's tough to image or grade proofs. Your images are actually pretty good.
