Any distinctions that would make modern dimes worth slabbing? 1 1

[DedKatCollections]

I've got a stack of modern proof dimes with varying states of toning, CAM, DCAM, various minor varieties, etc. Any help on when a specimen is worth slabbing versus trying to sell raw?

Heres some examples:

1985-S Proof Roosevelt Dime

• toned, improperly annealed, or a mix of both

 

1968-S Proof Roosevelt (CAM?)

• S/S error

[J P M]

Welcome,,,,,,,I would not send in these coins. The 1985 is toned in a odd way and it may get a  ART Tone Label  and the 1968 looks normal and I would need to see the reverse also to guess at it.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

Very tough to make these submissions worth it.  They really need to be PF70 for you to turn a profit.  A missing S proof would also be worth it in almost any grade (yours are not).  

The coins you have with cello toning and minor varieties (not an error), are still only worth the price of admission if it grades 70 (even 69 leaves you underwater).  Also, I am unsure if your 1968 is an RPM from the pics.  Here is the link to variety vista:  http://www.varietyvista.com/07 Roosevelt Dimes/RPMs 1968S.htm

You may have other reasons for submission beyond the monetary - and only you can answer questions around sentimental value and the right approach with those coins.

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by The Neophyte Numismatist

[DedKatCollections]

On 10/6/2023 at 4:02 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Very tough to make these submissions worth it.  They really need to be PF70 for you to turn a profit.  A missing S proof would also be worth it in almost any grade (yours are not).  

The coins you have with cello toning and minor varieties (not an error), are still only worth the price of admission if it grades 70 (even 69 leaves you underwater).  Also, I am unsure if your 1968 is an RPM from the pics.  Here is the link to variety vista:  http://www.varietyvista.com/07 Roosevelt Dimes/RPMs 1968S.htm

You may have other reasons for submission beyond the monetary - and only you can answer questions around sentimental value and the right approach with those coins.

 

Sorry guys, maxed out the attachment size on the first one; here's the back of the 1968-S as well as the closeup of (what, in my uneducated opinion is) the S/S. 

Hope this is more helpful.

Also, any good links on learning types and definitions of toning? I was thinking that. '85-S would be a "bullseye" on the reverse. The "cello" would be the obverse toning?

[Coinbuf]

The 68 proof does look to match FS-502, so that coin would be worth the cost to have certified.  The caveat to that is it could still be a tough sell as varieties are a thin market dominated by collectors that prefer to find these varieties themselves vs buying them already certified.   As I type this there is an NGC certified PF67 of this variety for sale on Great Collections listed at $400 but no bids, I'm not sure how long that coin has been listed by GC.   And to add to that PCGS just delisted many varieties from its registry and database, I'm not sure but I think this was one of those PCGS delisted.   

The 85 is a mess and is not eye catching or appealing at all to me, it looks like a victim of environmental damage.  While the appetite for toned coins surprises me all the time, I doubt there are many collectors that would pay anything, much less a premium, for that look.

[DedKatCollections]

On 10/6/2023 at 5:11 PM, Coinbuf said:

The 68 proof does look to match FS-502, so that coin would be worth the cost to have certified.  The caveat to that is it could still be a tough sell as varieties are a thin market dominated by collectors that prefer to find these varieties themselves vs buying them already certified.   As I type this there is an NGC certified PF67 of this variety for sale on Great Collections listed at $400 but no bids, I'm not sure how long that coin has been listed by GC.   And to add to that PCGS just delisted many varieties from its registry and database, I'm not sure but I think this was one of those PCGS delisted.   

The 85 is a mess and is not eye catching or appealing at all to me, it looks like a victim of environmental damage.  While the appetite for toned coins surprises me all the time, I doubt there are many collectors that would pay anything, much less a premium, for that look.

Thank you for verification on the '68-S; I tend to be in agreement on the '85-S being a mess...it simply caught my eye as strange to have the stark contract of the proof alongside....whatever the underlying reason for the toning is. 

$400 sounds insane! No way that will sell. Or maybe it will, once inflation catches up with their asking price enough :lol:

Soooo basically, I could get some of the CAM and DCAM varieties graded but, even asking a reasonable amount, shouldn't expect any to sell at a reasonable pace?

[Coinbuf]

On 10/6/2023 at 2:54 PM, DedKatCollections said:

Thank you for verification on the '68-S; I tend to be in agreement on the '85-S being a mess...it simply caught my eye as strange to have the stark contract of the proof alongside....whatever the underlying reason for the toning is. 

$400 sounds insane! No way that will sell. Or maybe it will, once inflation catches up with their asking price enough :lol:

Soooo basically, I could get some of the CAM and DCAM varieties graded but, even asking a reasonable amount, shouldn't expect any to sell at a reasonable pace?

I did not do a deep dive on this coin, and I'm not a variety or rossie collector, but in general yes, it looks to me that this is a coin that might take time to find the right buyer.   And I suspect that the sale price may not be one to take your breath away. 

[J P M]

Thanks for the other pictures, I am not sure it is a FS-502. I do not see the extra line on the top of the S. ?? 

[powermad5000]

Typically, with the modern proofs, and the collectors expectation that they should be perfect by the process with which they are made, they would need to grade out at PF 70 UC. Just take a look at any of the online price guides and you will see the cliff that PF 69's fall off of. Submitting these 1965 and post year proofs is also a shoot when it comes to the returning slab. Imho, it is just not worth the risk as the losses on submitting a large number of these can be staggering. I am not sure there is even a niche market for any of the varieties that would pay a healthy premium for them. Toned proofs as well, I do not see a big market worth submitting. I have seen some kind of wild toning on some proofs but it almost looks like it developed from improper storage and some possibly from PVC damage on sets that were cracked out. I think for the one or two you might get back graded out at PF 70 UC, you will have a much larger loss number of those that return as PF 69 or even less. Even business strikes of modern coins need to grade extremely high for them to be worth any kind of a premium.

[RWB]

"Any distinctions that would make modern dimes worth slabbing?

Nope -- unless you find a nearly perfect one.

[Mike Meenderink]

A PF 70 UCAM Would look like this. Perfect reflective surfaces proof details perfect to the eye and no visible marks at 5x magnification. Find one like this and its worth grading. Good luck! 

[Mike Meenderink]

[Conder101]

The 1968 might have a chance of some value if it get a CAM rating.  CAM and DCAM proofs before 1973 are unusual not the norm.  After 1973 proofs that AREN'T CAM are the unusual ones, but they aren't in demand because  people like the CAM better.