2 UltraCam 1967 SMS Kennedys. 1 original, 1 conserved. THOUGHTS PLEASE!

[AHFreak]

Hello all,

 

As of late, I have been super crazy about the SMS Kennedys, mainly the ones with all the frost!!!! Super Deep liquid black mirrors against heavily white frosty devices just make me very very happy inside. UltraCam/DeepCam SMS Kennedys that are well preserved (67 or better) just make me feel all happy and good inside!

 

I had a mint original box of 10 - 1967 SMS setscome in earlier this week, and to my lucky surprise there were 2 UC Kens (Cameo/UltraCameo is pretty subjective, so my assessment is only my opinion). Both had some haze, one of them I had conserved, the other has original skin.... I love original skin and this one here is no exception. With that said, I cant help but feel like the market will penalize the original coin for having "haze" but I am only guessing as I really don't know.... I believe both of these to be technical 67's. I am not 100% positive, but I cant help but feel like if I sent them both as is.. that the original would come back lower... I have no doubt the haze free coin will come back MS67. Here is a picture of both sides of both coins...

 

 

 

 

 

All that said, I just wanted all yalls thoughts if you don't mind sharing.

 

#1) Do you prefer the original or the conserved and why?

 

#2) What about the grades? (Assuming they are technically the same grade) do you feel one should or would grade higher or lower than the other? If so, which one higher or lower and why?

 

#3) Once they are in holders, assuming they did have the same grade, would or should the market value them differently? If so, Why and how different would the values be in you opinion?

 

 

****The coin that was conserved was not "dipped' or treated with any sort of acidic chemical that strips metal. Also, I feel like it turned out nice, as it was worse than the one that still has original skin.*******

 

 

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

All that said, I just wanted all yalls thoughts if you don't mind sharing.

 

#1) Do you prefer the original or the conserved and why?

 

The conserved piece. The original piece looks hazy and has negative eye appeal to me. Also, for whatever it is worth, eye appeal is also a major component of mint state grading, so the piece might not have done as well grading wise.

 

#2) What about the grades? (Assuming they are technically the same grade) do you feel one should or would grade higher or lower than the other? If so, which one higher or lower and why?

 

There is no way that I would attempt to grade those based on the photographs. But I do think the eye appeal on the first one would preclude a grade higher than MS64 for me.

 

#3) Once they are in holders, assuming they did have the same grade, would or should the market value them differently? If so, Why and how different would the values be in you opinion?

 

Eye appeal is very meaningful, so yes, it matters. I am all for attractive original pieces. A coin can be original and unattractive, in which case, I believe conservation is warranted. Originality is a spectrum anyway. The holy grail for me is a coin that is both original and attractive. When this is not possible, coins at the extreme can be problematic either way, so there would be a trade-off. Sometimes we must settle for something in the middle of the spectrum.

[Coindude]

Hard to tell grades from that size of pictures and even with larger pictures it will be almost impossible to give a grade due to the fact that when a cameo coin picture is taken to grab the mirrors and maximize the cameo it will hide most and possibly all imperfections.

 

Which one do I prefer? Like Kenny I like the conserved coin. The hazy one has negative eye appeal and the other makes me drool! But I think you already knew that about me!

[michael]

from the photos I like the original un-conserved piece better

and also it has a stronger cameo both sides with really good eye appeal for an original coin-- superb and in the future will be rarer and be more appreciated

 

the dipped piece will slightly haze over in time and have a golden/brownish cast

and might have even picked up a hairline two with the dip--- only gets worse with age

 

 

[coinman_23885]

the dipped piece will slightly haze over in time and have a golden/brownish cast

and might have even picked up a hairline two with the dip--- only gets worse with age

 

 

He said he didn't use a standard dip, and even if he had, rinsing should remove any residue that would turn later. I also think it is more likely that any "new" hairlines would likely have been there all along and masked by haze.

[wdrob]

 

I like the after conservation piece better, however I am much more curious as to what method you used to get those results, if not acidic?

 

My guess is going to be boiling water .... Are you willing to share?

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I like the after conservation piece better, however I am much more curious as to what method you used to get those results, if not acidic?

 

My guess is going to be boiling water .... Are you willing to share?

 

 

My guess would be either acetone or MS70.

[19Lyds]

My guess would be E-Z-Est

 

I prefer the conserved piece since the whole point behind UCAM is the contrast between the devices and the fields.

 

The Haze, eliminates the negative eye appeal.

[RWB]

The original looks damaged and ugly to me....but that's also what I see in the mirror when I shave....soooooo.

[coinman_23885]

My guess would be E-Z-Est

 

I thought E-Z-Est was an acidic dip. The OP said he did not used a standard dip/acid.

 

The Haze, eliminates the negative eye appeal.

 

Are you saying that the haze improves eye appeal to you?

[physics-fan3.14]

For modern coins like this, the haziness kills the eye appeal. It may be "original," but that doesn't necessarily mean its better. Even if they were the same grade based on marks, strike, luster, etc., the negative eye appeal will mean the hazy one comes back at least one point lower. If you conserved the other coin with a method that doesn't damage the coin, I would say that one is definitely preferred (and, if you used something like acetone to remove it, then the "haziness" isn't actually toning at all, it is surface contamination and should be removed on both of them).

[AHFreak]

I appreciate the thoughts so far. Please keep them coming. I decided that if there were a few more people who said they like the original/hazy piece better, that I would grade them both as-is... partly to see what happened in terms of how they grade out (I believe them to be identical twinners if both were conserved, meaning they'd grade the same) but send as is, because if there are folks out there who look for 100% original pieces, even when it means hazy proofs/SMS coins with real nice frost, equaling subdued contrast, than I would love to be able to at least make available a coin or coins like that to the collectors who appreciate them.

 

 

To clarify on a couple things... As Kenny pointed out, I did not use EZEST. I do believe Ezest has a place and can come in useful, but I personally use it just about next to never..... I am talking maybe a few times times per year. Most of what I deal with are proofs, and SMS which have similar surfaces, and I have just seen sooooo many times that even the shortest dip in Ezest done completely properly will have negative effect on the surface of the coin, either now, or down the road, and sometimes both. So, I only use Ezest as a last resort.

 

Kenny is also correct when he said it was either acetone or ms70

 

Also, to Kenny, about the grade, I am genuinely curious what you see that gives you the feeling that there is no way you would grade either of these coins? Admittedly, I was a little surprised by that statement, just because I have graded enough of these SMS Kens, to absolutely know without a doubt that the conserved coin is an easy, in fact IMO an automatic 67 with a halfway realistic shot at 68. Literally the only defect I can see is one very small and light hairline, in the reverse field, which not in a prime focal area either. It has zero bag marks, and after looking again at the pic, the little specs that could be interpreted as bagmarks/dings are actually very small thread/fiber strikethroughs, and a couple of them just catch the light in such a way that they beam like marks would. These strikethrough threads/fibers are common on these coins for whatever reason, and IMO do not seem to affect grade.... Ive graded easily over 50 SMS Kens in the last year or so -mainly cameo's and UC/DC's. It almost never makes sense to send one if its lower than MS66 unless it is a no questions asked DC/UC. Majority of them have graded 67's, with several coming back 68's, and relatively few 66's and Ive never sent one that came back 65 or lower.). These SMS coins are given more leniency than proofs for instance, because while proofs were individually handled after being struck meaning they never came in contact with one another, These SMS coins were struck similiarly to proofs, but then after being struck they were simply tossed into huge bins on top of each other, just like business strike coins. My point is, that finding one without bag marks/dings is not necessarily easy, and when you do, as long as it doesn't have excessive hairlines, contact marks, or other hits to the surface, it will usually grade 67.

 

 

One other thing, to the guy who mentioned that the frost is heavier on the original piece, its actually not, I took these pics very quickly, and didn't notice the apparent difference at the time I posted this. The reason they look different is because I must have held my camera (phone) closer to the conserved piece, which meant less light flowed in through the sides to illuminate the frosty devices. These 2 pieces are definitely Ultracam/Deepcam. I can only think of one 1967 that I have ever found/seen that was better in terms of the frost/mirrors... It was only a couple months ago, and that one came back 67UC. -Coindude gots pics of that one, the day I found it, and also the day I got it back from our hosts here... These two here are in the same league as that one, in terms of cameo.

 

 

Can anyone tell I enjoy discussing frosty SMS pieces? -not just halves either, I have all sorts of cameo SMS fractionals.... except cameo SMS cents, I have sent 6 or 8 that I thought were possible cameos, and NOPE, not once has one of my SMS cents came back cameo.. those are proving to be about as difficult as it gets to find in the wild.

 

 

[AHFreak]

For modern coins like this, the haziness kills the eye appeal. It may be "original," but that doesn't necessarily mean its better. Even if they were the same grade based on marks, strike, luster, etc., the negative eye appeal will mean the hazy one comes back at least one point lower. If you conserved the other coin with a method that doesn't damage the coin, I would say that one is definitely preferred (and, if you used something like acetone to remove it, then the "haziness" isn't actually toning at all, it is surface contamination and should be removed on both of them).

 

Yes, as stated PF3.14, I did not/do not use acid dip or Ezest. Which now that you say it I remember reading it, about how if acetone removes it, it wasnt toning. So yeah, to me I think it would be safe to call it surface contamination of some sort, but definitely not toning.

 

Many of these SMS have hazy-ness like that, some much worse than others, but rarely do I find any that do not have at least very minor haziness on the surface... I do not know much about PVC, but assume it is in this 1960's made plastic holders that all SMS originally come in. Physics-fan, do you know for sure what this haze is or isn't? Is it PVC contamination? I see very similar looking haze on most of the 1964 and earlier proof sets, the ones that came in flat packs... is that PVC that has leeched out from the cellophane they were packaged in?

 

Thanks in advance.

[coinman_23885]

Also, to Kenny, about the grade, I am genuinely curious what you see that gives you the feeling that there is no way you would grade either of these coins? Admittedly, I was a little surprised by that statement, just because I have graded enough of these SMS Kens, to absolutely know without a doubt that the conserved coin is an easy, in fact IMO an automatic 67 with a halfway realistic shot at 68.

 

 

I apologize if my comments were vague. I did not mean that the pieces wouldn't grade; I meant that I wouldn't venture to guess a grade based on the smaller images. Also, as Sam said, like proof coins, the mirrors can easily hide hairlines that might only be visible upon an in hand inspection.

[coinman_23885]

Yes, as stated PF3.14, I did not/do not use acid dip or Ezest. Which now that you say it I remember reading it, about how if acetone removes it, it wasnt toning. So yeah, to me I think it would be safe to call it surface contamination of some sort, but definitely not toning.

 

Then I don't see this as an issue of making the coin less original. An original piece wouldn't have surface contamination. I personally would remove any surface contaminants for fear that they could react in the future to the detriment of the coin's surfaces.

 

Many of these SMS have hazy-ness like that, some much worse than others, but rarely do I find any that do not have at least very minor haziness on the surface... I do not know much about PVC, but assume it is in this 1960's made plastic holders that all SMS originally come in. Physics-fan, do you know for sure what this haze is or isn't? Is it PVC contamination? I see very similar looking haze on most of the 1964 and earlier proof sets, the ones that came in flat packs... is that PVC that has leeched out from the cellophane they were packaged in?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

I don't think it is PVC, but I also don't know what to call it either. In any event, I recommend conservation. Good luck with whatever you decide to do with the second piece!

[AHFreak]

Oh, Yes Kenny, Now I can see/understand what you meant by saying that... sorry I misinterpreted my friend....

 

 

I definitely wouldn't expect anyone to be able grade a coin based on a picture like that... SMS/PROOFS are IMO next to impossible to grade via pics anyways, and that is when someone like coindude or one of the many others are the photographer.... Outside of a guesstimate, or a "ballpark" range, grading proof/SMS coins by pictures just isn't really all that possible most of the time... IN my opinion.

 

Anyways ,thanks again for all the shared thoughts.

 

 

[AHFreak]

Just got grades on these two coins. Both graded MS67UltraCam.. so that is cool!

[coinman_23885]

Congratulations! Did you conserve both before submitting?

[AHFreak]

Thanks Kenny. I did conserve both.

 

[bsshog40]

I like the one conserved better myself. Haze is really hard to remove. I've tried ez-zest to remove haze and it did not work. Curious as to what you used to remove it.

[physics-fan3.14]

Just got grades on these two coins. Both graded MS67UltraCam.. so that is cool!

 

Congrats on your surprising result.

 

If I were in the market for one of these, I would pay significantly more for the un-hazed one (or, from a different perspective, I'd offer significantly less for the hazy one).

[coinman_23885]

Just got grades on these two coins. Both graded MS67UltraCam.. so that is cool!

 

Congrats on your surprising result.

 

If I were in the market for one of these, I would pay significantly more for the un-hazed one (or, from a different perspective, I'd offer significantly less for the hazy one).

 

Both pieces are haze free now; he took the advice that was given in this thread.