1912 Proof V-Nickel

gold bean... well played

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here's my main thought that if a Dealer like Glen sold it and if he thought it would DCAM it would not be in its current holder, as he would of upgraded it already.

That said its a nice coin and should cam but it would be worth more as it is presently

 

Can't necessarily judge things like that all the time. He had the coin only for a couple days before I bought it. It was a quick flip. Dealers need to weigh out the risk, money and time aspects of having a coin. Time is money. With the money I spent on the coin, he may have been able to do multiple more quick flips within the past week that would yield him the same profit, with little risk. Can't always tell what people have in mind when making decisions like that.

 

Well, got the results today. They're sending it back in the original case. PR64CAM, which I do not agree with at all. The fact that there are no DCAM's seems to have influenced their decision. I'll probably end up giving it another shot before I try NGC.

 

I'd keep it as is and save the pcgs label too I don't think dcam is out of the question beautiful coin!!

 

I know my words will fall on deaf ears but, that coin won't D cam! Why because of the light cameo on the left corn husk and most the letters are too lightly frosted.

 

Whatever PCGS says, it's a stunning coin with tons going for it. I'm sure you're proud to own it, as anyone would be.

 

So, it's still in the PR63 gold CAC holder, but they told you they would have given it a PR64CAM?

 

I would continue to enjoy it in the OGH. Beautiful coin!

 

I told them to only crack it if it DCAM's because its worth more to me in the OGH Gold CAC than a new holder with a cam designation.(yes, I called them to confirm the day they registered my order) The cert# is the same and it says PR64CAM, so I am guessing they followed my request.

I hear you loud and clear and understand what you are saying. Your opinion is not falling to def ears; however, after comparing many examples of DCAM's, it is very interesting to me how some one these already graded DCAM's lack substantial amount of frost on the devices--many are arguably just CAM. With as much positive reinforcement I have received(on here and in hand evaluations) when throwing the DCAM idea around, I feel as throwing in the towel after a single "no" from PCGS would be giving up to early. After all, many top-pop coins do not receive their top-pop grade upon their first submission.

I feel as though they did not designate this coin as DCAM not because it is not a DCAM coin, but because the pop report is zero. It can not be denied that some grades are simply not given. A fellow collector in my area has a 1920 $20 gold in a PCGS MS64 holder-CAC'ed. There is no reason it shouldn't be in a 65 holder, but Don Willis was quoted saying the only 1920 worth 65 money is the Eliasberg coin and no others would receive a 65 grade.(check out that price spread)

 

It's a beautiful coin. Good luck getting it D-Cam'ed.

 

Typical games pcgs plays. Why I'm becoming a much bigger fan of ngc

 

Sorry to keep bringing this thread up. I have one more question!

Does anyone know if NGC offers some type of cross-over reconsideration service? In which I could send them this(a PCGS coin) and say "don't crack it unless it DCAM's"...?

 

It is gorgeous; I love it. It is obviously cameo at a minimum; I would have no problem calling a full deep cameo piece.

 

I don't think you can ask for a higher minimum grade/designation than is already on the slab. It wouldn't hurt to ask them. They have a section on their own coin forums that allows you to ask them questions directly.