Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Weston, post: 2042387, member: 58878&quot;]I told them to only crack it if it DCAM&#039;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.[ATTACH=full]373081[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>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&#039;s, it is very interesting to me how some one these already graded DCAM&#039;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 &quot;no&quot; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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&#039;ed. There is no reason it shouldn&#039;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)<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie101" alt=":woot:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in