Old Fattie - 1883 Proof Indian - Cameo Possibility ??

[jgrinz]

Does this coin look like a cameo possiblity under a regrade/designation review ??

Half of My 1883 Proof set was in old 6 digit fattie holders when I first got them and 50% cameo'd under designation review.

 

Do you think this has a chance ... Seller is asking way too much for it though and is my only drawback ...

 

[Oldtrader3]

By the cert. #, I can't tell if that is after NGC started putting Cameo grades on classic proofs or not. It might be worth the money to find out. I can't see the coin well enough to grade it but it does look cameo.

[jgrinz]

By the cert. #, I can't tell if that is after NGC started putting Cameo grades on classic proofs or not. It might be worth the money to find out. I can't see the coin well enough to grade it but it does look cameo.

 

YES it is Before they did ...

 

[dean1345]

I do not think it would be certified as cameo. It is a nice proof but I do not think it has the contrast between the devices and the fields that are required. Mark would good a good source as well. Here is a designated proof that maybe you could compare.

 

 

 

Dean

 

[kryptonitecomics]

hard to tell from the photos so I will go with a solid maybe.......it would be worth a shot if the price is right which you said it isn't

[jgrinz]

hard to tell from the photos so I will go with a solid maybe.......it would be worth a shot if the price is right which you said it isn't

 

Yeah he is way high ... I awaiting his response on if it is negotiable. I just can not tell if the lettering is frosted or not ....some is ... the rest may be the angle of the picture ...

 

 

[michael]

impossible to tell from the photos

 

but.......................

 

my quesstimate from the photos is NO CAMEO FOR YOU TODAY

 

it does looks like a super nice eye appealling coin though

[Glossy]

Looks like a finger print on the obverse just under "States".

[EZ_E]

impossible to tell from the photos

 

but.......................

 

my quesstimate from the photos is NO CAMEO FOR YOU TODAY

 

it does looks like a super nice eye appealling coin though

 

That's exactly how I feel. The reverse wreath rocks! But it doesn't seem that the lettering is.

[jgrinz]

Well I found the purchase on Heritage and the close up viewer shows the fingerprint clearly.

 

The Coin is more toned than it appears and the toning is overtaking some of the frost on the Lettering. That should not detract from that dsignation though.

 

I will post Heritages pictures later or you can look for your self and add your input here - It was in January and he initiall was looking for a 100% mark up - DOOFUS

 

 

[Coindude]

From the first pictures I would have said no because of the obverse. The second pictures I think it's possible but not definite. It's a shame it has that fingerprint.

[jgrinz]

Its in a NGC PF65RB Holder

[dean1345]

I thought this 1895 IHC proof had a chance at cameo but no cigar. BTW a IHC proof with toning is more unlikely to be awarded cameo. I looked up some cameo's on NGC registry and there were very few RB's. Almost all of them were RD's.

 

 

 

Dean

[jgrinz]

1883 is exactly 3 REDS and 2 RB

[dean1345]

Your right! NGC has graded 485 proofs of 1883 and 2 rb's were designated cameo. I say go for it. The odds aren't that bad. Let us know how it turns out. Hope to see it in your 1883 registry with the cameo designation.

 

Dean

[jgrinz]

Your right! NGC has graded 485 proofs of 1883 and 2 rb's were designated cameo. I say go for it. The odds aren't that bad. Let us know how it turns out. Hope to see it in your 1883 registry with the cameo designation.

 

Dean

 

It is the ONLY one left to get - I did purchase it as he has a 7 day return policy

 

 

 

[TomB]

It has been my experience that a rather large number of IHCs look to possibly be cameo upon initial viewing, but that when looked at closely these coins do not deserve the designation. I don't know how to explain that observation.

[jgrinz]

It has been my experience that a rather large number of IHCs look to possibly be cameo upon initial viewing, but that when looked at closely these coins do not deserve the designation. I don't know how to explain that observation.

 

As usual TomB is correct the coin looked just okay and not even worth the submission for an attempted STAR designation but that is not WHY I sent it back - Between the "STATES" and the indians forehead that IS A FINGER PRINT arrgghhh why did I not see that in the pictures and is so obvious ...

Well I am still looking to finish out my proof set with a cameo Indian ... If any one hears or sees one that WILL NOT break the bank let me know.

Thanks for listening.