Let's see how this CAM PF 1950 Franklin works out

[JIM F.]

I bit on it.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/290605670916?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

 

I'll crack it out and see what happens. In any event it is the last date needed in my collection. Even if it does not come back CAM (but I hope it does) it at least will fill a hole.

 

The price is not much over a non-CAM price so what the heck.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I like the contrasts, but what is going on in front of Mr. Franklin's nose on the obverse?

[Coindude]

Jim, I'll have to tell you, there is no way that the reverse of that is anywhere near cameo. I don't even think the obverse has much contrast, there might be a little, but the shine is way too shiny. On another note, if PCI graded that coin at 63, it's most likely a 61 and even more likely an impaired proof. I'd return it and save yourself money and pain.

[physics-fan3.14]

Jim, I'll have to tell you, there is no way that the reverse of that is anywhere near cameo. I don't even think the obverse has much contrast, there might be a little, but the shine is way too shiny. On another note, if PCI graded that coin at 63, it's most likely a 61 and even more likely an impaired proof. I'd return it and save yourself money and pain.

 

Pretty much what I was going to say.

[JIM F.]

Well, I guess that's what return policies are for. I will hold out hope that the pictures are just crappy. Granted PCI is/was inconsistent and in general liberal but they didn't get them all wrong (did they?). I guess I'm getting impatient about completing my PF CAM Franklin set and this date is the last needed for completion and a lot harder to find than I had thought.

 

You never know.

 

 

[Coindude]

Jim, I wish you the best of luck, but this coin will not holder into NGC or PCGS as a cameo and I'll back that statement up with $100 of my money. Everyone always says put your money where your mouth is, well, there it is.

[bsshog40]

I hope it looks better in-hand Jim. By the pics shown, doesn't quite look cameo. But I will add, it's sometimes pretty hard, unless your a professional, to always be able to get the full cameo in a picture. I've been experiencing this myself trying to pic these 59's I've been buying. I've had to really play with angles in order to pickup the cameo. Some of my pics I just took of the Roosie I posted in the recent aquisitions didn't even look like it had any cameo at all. I've noticed if my lighting was just a little too dark on one side, that it made the cameo just look like a business strike. Hopefully it will be a surprise and be full cameo.

[JIM F.]

Jim, I wish you the best of luck, but this coin will not holder into NGC or PCGS as a cameo and I'll back that statement up with $100 of my money. Everyone always says put your money where your mouth is, well, there it is.

 

OK. You think it will holder at all?

[Buffalo Head]

I have bought a few PCI holdered coins and I hate to say this but they're all are over graded, at least it's been my experience, and I don't bother with them anymore. Who knows for sure how bad the images are. You'll know right away when you receive this piece. Please let us know how it works out. Good luck......Joe

[coinman_23885]

I bit on it.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/290605670916?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

 

I'll crack it out and see what happens. In any event it is the last date needed in my collection. Even if it does not come back CAM (but I hope it does) it at least will fill a hole.

 

The price is not much over a non-CAM price so what the heck.

 

 

The old green holders (10 digits holders) are accurate and usually will cross with little problem. The PCI gold holders, on the other hand, often have issues. Few will cross and many have problems including problems not noted on the holder. With regards to PCI Proof Franklin cameo half dollars, I have personally seen examples that cross within a point or two of the original grade with no cameo designation. I did see one mid 1950s in a DCAM holder that did make it to NGC in a CAM holder.

 

With this said, I agree with the majority here that the reverse isn't cameo and there is little or no hope that it will receive a cameo designation from NGC or PCGS. I also question the obverse fields in front of Mr. Franklin's nose, and you could easily end up with an impaired proof. I hope I am dead wrong, but I don't have a good feeling about this one, but after all, you are 100% correct that this is why we have return periods.

[brg5658]

It's really hard to tell from the picture what that mark is by Frankie's nose. Could even be a scuff on the holder. Nonetheless, good luck Jim.

[Coindude]

Jim, I wish you the best of luck, but this coin will not holder into NGC or PCGS as a cameo and I'll back that statement up with $100 of my money. Everyone always says put your money where your mouth is, well, there it is.

OK. You think it will holder at all?

Holder? Maybe, but might be at a grade that's unacceptable to you. Even at 63, I've seen some of the coins you collect, and I would expect that grade to be unacceptable to you. To be perfectly honest, once you go below PR64, that means there are many visible flaws and with highly reflective fields, which this coin seems to have, that means it will most likely be undesirable in hand.

[noow]

Best of luck..

[mkman123]

keep us updated! By the way can you post pictures of your cameo franklin collection?

[JIM F.]

You can click on the link below my signature to see my cam PF collection.

 

 

[Coindude]

Jim, if you want to spend that kind of money on a 1950 Franky, might I suggest this one in the Marketplace? I have no affiliation with the coin whatsoever, but it looks like it has very nice contrast and I am very surprised it didn't at least get a star.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=5102493&gonew=1#UNREAD

[WoodenJefferson]

Good luck with this Franklin Proof...I hope it's graded PR-63 for other reasons than being mishandled once outside the Mint or once it was removed from the cello and put into a collection...one has to remember, this coin was around for 36 years prior to the invention of encapsulated plastic.

 

Anyway, the contrast seems to be there, that's a graders call, but I think the cameo is going to be the least of your worries.

 

May the collectors force be with you.

[JIM F.]

well got this today. It's not cam. Also the "tick" by the nose looks to be on the coin. .

 

[coinman_23885]

well got this today. It's not cam. Also the "tick" by the nose looks to be on the coin. .

 

You could return it, no?

[JIM F.]

well got this today. It's not cam. Also the "tick" by the nose looks to be on the coin. .

 

You could return it, no?

 

I plan to, the listing states:

 

7 days Item exchange only. Buyer pays return shipping. There is a 15% restocking fee for all returns, unless there was an error on my part.

 

Although the statement sounds onerous, He has a 5 star rating, so I am hopeful he's going to work with me in someway.

 

I'm disappointed because the pic seemed to show at least partial CAM on the obverse, but it's not there (maybe it was cold when he took the pic).

 

I don't like the mark next to the nose at all....I would call it an impaired proof due to it, but I'm not a grading expert.

 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[jom]

I never would have bid...restocking fees are . I can see charging you the original outgoing postage (from the seller to you) but that should be enough. 15%?! That's nuts...

 

jom

[braddick]

eBay and Paypal will make him whole regardless of the seller's policy.

[coinman_23885]

well got this today. It's not cam. Also the "tick" by the nose looks to be on the coin. .

 

You could return it, no?

 

I plan to, the listing states:

 

7 days Item exchange only. Buyer pays return shipping. There is a 15% restocking fee for all returns, unless there was an error on my part.

 

Although the statement sounds onerous, He has a 5 star rating, so I am hopeful he's going to work with me in someway.

 

I'm disappointed because the pic seemed to show at least partial CAM on the obverse, but it's not there (maybe it was cold when he took the pic).

 

I don't like the mark next to the nose at all....I would call it an impaired proof due to it, but I'm not a grading expert.

 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

If the pictures were truly that misleading, then I would neg him and force his hand to take back the coin absent the restocking fee by filing a dispute with Paypal (this is provided that he resists your return effort or insists on a large restocking fee).

[JIM F.]

Not happy with this.

Here is what he says after I request refund:

 

 

"No problem. This is why I started charging the restocking fee of now 15%. 10% wasn't enough to deter people from using me as a preview service. Also, picture comment is BS. One can clearly see on the reverse that in has no chance of getting the cameo designation from PCGS or NGC. All you had to do was ask me"

 

What a total jerk and ripoff.

 

 

 

 

[JIM F.]

I want to end this thread, and continue it here.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=5115744#Post5115744

 

Thank You.