Well, I've been using the old method of, "buy the coin, not the holder"...but the OGH did help me out a little. I am personally a big fan of the OGH and Gold CAC combo. Got a little planchet flaw on the obverse and reverse but nothing the eyes go directly to when its in hand. 1912 5C Proof 63 Gold CAC. Or...Proof 64DCAM? Pop reports show 0 graded in DCAM. Here is an 1897 Proof65DCAM for comparison: Thought and opinions on the coin?
This was back when neither PCGS or NGC designated classic proof coins as cameo or deep cameo. I fully feel this would go deep cameo if cracked. Congrats.
Play the crackout game on this one, especially since this received a CAC gold bean. Whenever CAC gives a gold bean, the coin is undergraded by at least a point.
I would do that but I paid good for it. If it came back a 64CAM, it would be worth less than I paid. I would rather keep it in the holder its in that case.
Its a beauty for sure...this would be one of those cases where I totally ignored the numerical grade on the plastic regardless of the bean
Depending on the angle of lighting, one can make many non-CAM classic proof coins look to approach DCAM.
I handled the coin at the Baltimore show this past weekend. When I originally saw it, I didn't think it was for sale. Its a pretty memorable coin. I contacted him when I saw it posted on his website and bought it.
The coin is absolutely stunning! While many have commented that it deserves a cameo designation, I would warn that you need to closely examine the coin to be sure. ALL of the devices (even the small letters) must be completely frosted to qualify. If there is a small patch of brilliant surface on ANY of the letters or devices, then the superlative would not apply. Personally, I'd be proud to own this coin, designation or not.