Older Slab- Definitely CAMEO IMO, but was PCGS designating Cameo yet???

This 1893 Proof Barber Half certainly must be Cameo, even Deep or Ultra Cameo, at least to my eyes. (Perhaps the toning adds complexity?) Please provide your opinions as to whether this is indeed Cameo, as seems obvious to me, AND was PCGS even designating "Cameo" on their labels at the time of this slab?
Thanks.



Comments

  • Peace_dollar88Peace_dollar88 Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks cameo to me. Absolutely stunning barber proof.

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 19,386 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2019 3:06AM

    That looks like a Gen 3.0 OGH holder, circa 1990-1993. I did a brief look but didn't run across any cameo Barber OGH holders from that era. I did find some OBH holders in Heritage starting in 2002. I'm also not sure their online records go back further than 1997.

  • Thanks for the time and effort

  • OuthaulOuthaul Posts: 6,491 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A real beauty!

    Never take a front row seat at a Bris.
    Proud recipient and founding member of the "YOU SUCK" Club since 8/31/04 - USAF Retired: 1974 - 1994

  • Timbuk3Timbuk3 Posts: 10,590 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wow, very nice !!! :)

    Timbuk3
  • LuxorLuxor Posts: 103 ✭✭✭

    PCGS should have had the cameo designation by that time. While the obv certainly looks cameo, they may have felt the rev didn't qualify going by your pics.

    Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.

  • AlexinPAAlexinPA Posts: 805 ✭✭✭✭

    Definitely a nice coin.

  • WaterSportWaterSport Posts: 5,617 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I recall a lot of discussion log ago about how "resistant" PCGS was to designate cameos. Not sure what if all series, or any thing in particular. The search engine lights up when you type in a search on the subject.

    WS

    Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
  • rickoricko Posts: 67,808 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Based on your pictures, it certainly looks CAM....Cannot determine if deep cam or not...Might be worth a reconsideration submission... Cheers, RickO

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 903 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 19, 2019 1:31PM

    Regardless of whether the "Cameo" designation was being awarded at the time, the coin looks to be Cameo. However, if it were mine, I'd leave it in its current holder, and that is whether I planned to keep or sell it.

    Mark Feld of Heritage Auctions

  • robecrobec Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I know Franklins were being given Cameo and Deep Cameo designations during that time period.

  • CameonutCameonut Posts: 6,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice coin! No they were not designating cameo at that time.

    “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson

    My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 903 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Cameonut said:
    Nice coin! No they were not designating cameo at that time.

    An image of only one side of a coin (with the lower portion of the portrait appearing weak in the frost department) doesn't necessarily answer the question.

    Mark Feld of Heritage Auctions

  • Bigbuck1975Bigbuck1975 Posts: 750 ✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @Cameonut said:
    Nice coin! No they were not designating cameo at that time.

    An image of only one side of a coin (with the lower portion of the portrait appearing weak in the frost department) doesn't necessarily answer the question.

    I thought the weakness at the bottom may be a lighting effect Mark.

  • privatecoinprivatecoin Posts: 623 ✭✭✭✭


    Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 903 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Bigbuck1975 said:

    @MFeld said:

    @Cameonut said:
    Nice coin! No they were not designating cameo at that time.

    An image of only one side of a coin (with the lower portion of the portrait appearing weak in the frost department) doesn't necessarily answer the question.

    I thought the weakness at the bottom may be a lighting effect Mark.

    It very well might be. Be even if both sides were obviously "Cameo", that wouldn't definitively answer the question.

    Mark Feld of Heritage Auctions

  • robecrobec Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2019 11:20AM

    I bought this from R&I in 1992.

  • robecrobec Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Cameonut said:
    Nice coin! No they were not designating cameo at that time.

    Your slab is a different generation slab from the Franklin I posted and the Barber in the OP. The numerical font is different.

  • CameonutCameonut Posts: 6,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    To clarify comments on the coin I posted.
    I took a quick snap shot with a cell phone a long time ago.
    Trust me, both sides are cameo if not deep cameo.
    It was my example of an OGH with no designation.

    “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson

    My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 17,753 ✭✭✭✭

    I would need to see the coin as the lettering- an important qualification for making a true cameo- don't appear to be so.

  • CameonutCameonut Posts: 6,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here is some more information pertaining to this issue.
    Attached is a pdf file that I believe was an insert to Rick Tomaska's Cameo book when originally published in 1991. I bought one a long time ago. Paragraph four states the following "To illustrate my point, witness the very low number of cameos graded by PCGS as of July, 1993 in the following tables. PCGS has now been grading cameos for 1 1/2 years."

    This suggests that PCGS designated cameos started in early 1992, on all denominations.

    But that is not the whole story.

    I kept copies of a two part article that Rick wrote for the Coin Dealer Newsletter (Monthly Summary for August 1990 and September 1990). I won't reproduce the whole article here as it talks about cameo Franklins and Kennedys. (and surely was a little hype for the upcoming cameo book which was published in 1991).

    Anyway, a paragraph is of interest here (from CDN Monthly Summary - August 1990):

    "Fortunately, three major grading services - NGC, ANACS, and HALLMARK - now offer a cameo designation for the Franklin proofs which they feel merit this superlative; Hallmark also offers the designation for Kennedy Proofs. The "Cameo" designation now gives the novice a valuable reference point for appraisal of these coins that was not available before. As with any grading standard, each service has slightly different criteria for determining what level of contrast is sufficient for a coin to be designated "Cameo". …….At this point, the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation standards appear to this author to be the strictest of the three."

    This suggests that as of August/September 1990, PCGS was not designating cameos at all. It also seems that the other grading companies were just getting started with the Franklins. PCGS was probably not far behind.

    Lastly, I cannot explain the 1995s nickel I posted. I no longer have it (or at least haven't seen it for years) - I recall it as a solid two sided deep cameo with no designation. But heck, memories fade over a long time.

    “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson

    My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!

  • RonyahskiRonyahski Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Cameonut is correct with the timeframe. I have a run of PCGS pop reports. The "moderns" - Franklins -Wash-Roos-Jeff-Lincoln, started then. The older series started with CAM/DCAM in 2003.

    Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
  • THANK YOU all very much

Sign In or Register to comment.