1972 s uncirculated penny cam 1 1

[Tridmn]

Could there be a 1972s with a CAM? I do believe so. Pics were taken with phone only. Sorry for the distortion.

[Tridmn]

[Woods020]

Again it’s a proof. And the reflective surfaces do just that and reflect the light. It’s hard to tell much from those pics. 

[Tridmn]

40 minutes ago, Woods020 said:

Again it’s a proof. And the reflective surfaces do just that and reflect the light. It’s hard to tell much from those pics. 

It's not a proof, mint set only

[Tridmn]

Where do you even see dcam at? Mint set, not proof set

[Tridmn]

I will take pics with scope with all lights off, plus have a friend of mine who has a much better scope take pics and I will submit them. However with pics available, there should be no doubt. I will try and satisfy that doubt though.

[Woods020]

9 hours ago, Tridmn said:

Where do you even see dcam at? Mint set, not proof set

It sure looks like a proof from the poor pictures, but I may be mistaken. You are mistaken if you are under the impression DCAM is a requirement for a proof. CAM much less DCAM is additive on better and earlier strikes while the dies are fresh, but by no means a requirement for a coin to be a proof. Until fairly recently cam was much less common on proofs. 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Woods020

[Woods020]

9 hours ago, Tridmn said:

I will take pics with scope with all lights off, plus have a friend of mine who has a much better scope take pics and I will submit them. However with pics available, there should be no doubt. I will try and satisfy that doubt though.

How in the world can you state there should be no doubt with the pictures posted? You are talking about an unknown variety you think should be readily agreed upon with this? Believe me there is doubt. 

[Tridmn]

8 hours ago, Woods020 said:

It sure looks like a proof from the poor pictures, but I may be mistaken. You are mistaken if you are under the impression DCAM is a requirement for a proof. CAM much less DCAM is additive on better and earlier strikes while the dies are fresh, but by no means a requirement for a coin to be a proof. Until fairly recently cam was much less common on proofs. 

 

[Woods020]

5 minutes ago, Tridmn said:

 

I was incorrect. It is a mint set. My apologies it sure looked like a proof. I have to stop looking on my phone at all these pictures haha. I shoot myself in the foot. That’s a nice mint set for what it’s worth.

 

Does the AM spacing differ on the cents from the one you think is CAM versus the others in the same set? The reason I wanted to see better pictures, other than I thought it was a proof 🥴, is to see if there is MD that makes it look closer. There are also several DDOs for that one but none seem to effect AM. I am trying to think of a logical reason why they may appear closer than normal. 
 

 

[Woods020]

7 minutes ago, SlickCoins said:

So sorry woods, I thought he asked questions, I didn't notice it was you

He has a question. Or thinks he has a variety. I was just arguing it was a proof when it clearly isn’t. But his question still stands. 

[Tridmn]

Upom further inspection with scope and not phone, it is in fact a WAM. My apologies.

[Lem E]

2 Lincoln cents in one set? Nevermind. One is the S mint coin. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Lem E
Figured it out.

[Woods020]

1 hour ago, Lem E said:

2 Lincoln cents in one set? Nevermind. One is the S mint coin. 

That’s a big part of the reason I thought the S cent was a proof was I forgot they did this in the early 70s. I thought if it’s San Francisco and well struck it must be a proof set he is looking at and not a mint set if it’s government packaging. I’m too young for Alzheimer’s to be setting in 😂

[Lem E]

I haven’t seen very many old proof sets. Had to look it up and answer my own dumb question. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[James Zyskowski]

Perhaps your right because I see an ms.  Listing and a proof. What do you think of that🙀

[Woods020]

35 minutes ago, James Zyskowski said:

Perhaps your right because I see an ms.  Listing and a proof. What do you think of that🙀

San Fran made both proofs and business strikes at this time. Someone here can quote when SF quit producing business strikes. I want to say 82. But I have embarrassed myself once so sure not promising that’s right. But there were a few years, not sure how many, that the mint sets included an S penny. I think that stopped on 75, but again not going to swear to it. I don’t collect mint sets myself and generally think they are a waste of money unless it’s some of the very earliest ones so I am clearly not a mint set expert in the slightest.

But when you see the blue and red striped cellophane packaging that means one thing….P&D mint set. The OP was right. Even in the last pictures he posted the fields don’t look mirrored. He was for sure right. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Woods020

[Conder101]

San Francisco struck cents for circulation form 1968 to 1974 (These are with mintmarks. They struck cents in other years as well without mintmarks).  They struck nickels for circulation in 68, 69, and 70.  All of these were included in the mint sets for those years as well.

[KarenHolcomb]

On 7/8/2021 at 5:12 PM, Conder101 said:

San Francisco struck cents for circulation form 1968 to 1974 (These are with mintmarks. They struck cents in other years as well without mintmarks).  They struck nickels for circulation in 68, 69, and 70.  All of these were included in the mint sets for those years as well.

You da man, Conder.

[RWB]

The first photos show no "cameo" contrast between relief and field. To qualify there must be clear, uniform texture differences between relief and fields on both sides of the coin. I see nothing resembling that on this coin.

[Just Bob]

On 9/2/2021 at 4:31 PM, RWB said:

The first photos show no "cameo" contrast between relief and field. To qualify there must be clear, uniform texture differences between relief and fields on both sides of the coin. I see nothing resembling that on this coin.

Um, I think he meant "Close AM," not "cameo." 

[VKurtB]

On 9/2/2021 at 5:52 PM, Just Bob said:

Um, I think he meant "Close AM," not "cameo." 

Ding, ding, ding!  The OP doesn’t even know what cameo is. He lives in a “minor varieties” universe. He’s doing the “AM” thing.

[RWB]

On 9/2/2021 at 6:52 PM, Just Bob said:

Um, I think he meant "Close AM," not "cameo." 

Oh. That's not what the OP wrote.

[J P M]

At any point there is no cam that I can see or is there any reference to a 1972 Close or wide AM that I can find. It is a good looking 72 for a album .