Options
1940 Mercury dime proof - is this a Cameo?
gscoins
Posts: 288 ✭✭✭
I am primarily a world coin collector, but have always had a warm spot for the Mercury dime (going back to my days as a customer of Hal Kritzman at Olde Towne Coin Company in the 1970's). I got a proof 1940 for a bit of a premium in the David Lawrence sale this past Sunday. I bought it in the hopes of it being a cameo (PCGS has never graded a 1940 Mercury proof as cameo). Here are the Lawrence photos for the coin. Are they good enough to form a judgment about it being a cameo? If so, do you good folks think it would be worthwhile getting it reconsidered by PCGS for cameo status?
Here's the obverse:
And, the reverse:
Thanks for any opinions!
3
Comments
Imo no, but my opinion is not the one that goes on the label. I think the obv lacks enough contrast from this photo.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
It looks to have some cameo characteristics, but probably not enough. That said it is virtually impossible to assess from photos. In hand exam would be necessary to have even a small degree of certainty.
I can see it as a poor pic of a cameo, or a good pic of a non-cameo. There’s definitely contrast, but I’m not sure if there’s enough.
I don't think the obverse frost is strong enough, especially on the lower part of the neck and the lettering. Two things to consider:
1- It is very easy for photos of proofs with even faint frost to appear close to or fully cameo based on how the light hits them. This isn't a photographer being deceptive--I sometimes have to work really hard to not have this effect, and if someone isn't paying attention, it's very easy for it to happen.
2- This would be a really rare coin in cameo. DLRC knows what they're doing, and while no dealer can be perfect or lucky all the time, odds are if they thought the coin was cameo, they'd send it in a few times. That means they either didn't think it close enough to be sent in at all, or it's been in multiple times and the grading company is pretty set on not calling it cameo.
Would be a good candidate for a star at the other grading company but it’s a stretch for a CAM, imo.
Always buying nice toned coins! Searching for a low grade 1873 Arrows DDO Dime and 1842-O Small Date Quarter.
I don't think DLRC would have left a cameo on the table. It is a premium looking example though.
Collector, occasional seller
That is a very nice Mercury Dime, and certainly borders on cameo.... Though, IMO, from the pictures, I do not think it would get the CAM designation today. Image is weak on frost and the fields not deep. Cheers, RickO
Nice contrast on the reverse but not the obverse. I'd be more worried about the milk spots on the reverse. I theorize that it had obverse toning and was dipped in hopes of revealing a cameo obverse that matched the reverse. jmho
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
CAC?
Successful BST transactions with: Cameonut, Rob41281
I don't think a sticker would do much for that coin. It should sell itself, just fine, without one.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well I had the same dilemma with a 1938 Proof Washington Quarter. The Obverse of mine is a CAM and some of the reverse. So I decided to send it in for reconsideration. It was a PR67 CAC and it came back as a 67. So nothing changed, but I did get a great True View which to me saw worth more than what I paid for the reconsideration.
Here is a photo of the coin in the original holder and then the True View at the end.
So again that coin may look great with a True View, so I would send it in just for that reason.
Here is my Washington Quarter Variety Registry Set
This is my Washington Quarter Proof Variety Registry Set
obv looks CAM, rev does not.
with the Dime, I think the frost is too weak and the contrast insufficient due to the flow lines. as for the Quarter, it has been my experience that PCGS tends to not really like toned coins for the Cameo/Deep Cameo designation.
I very much appreciate everyone's advice and thoughts. Not sure what I'll do. BTW, the coin does have a CAC sticker now.
Is that dip residue at the obverse periphery around 11-1 o'clock? This is a coin that really needs to be seen in hand. I lean towards a possible star designation with NGC if you submitted it there, although this isn't guaranteed as NGC is very inconsistent. I don't think it would cameo at either service because the frost appears weak at the base of the neck. The cameo designated examples I have owned had strong frost over the entirety of the devices. I would leave the coin alone. Allow yourself plenty of time to sell the coin and do not auction it when the time comes to sell it. There are buyers that will pay a premium for frosted examples that miss a star or cameo designation.
If the designation wasn't binary, (well, trinary if you count DCAM) It would receive a high percentage for the issue.
Nice example.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Maybe for 1939 and to a much, much less extent 1942, but not for the other years.
Notwithstanding the "miss" comments about the lack of obverse cameo contrast, I do see the reverse having that contrast. No label though with only the reverse.
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
Problem with these is that chances of getting an early strike from new matched dies is nearly zero. That explains why there are no cameo quarters. Here is a couple of mine.
Well, this coin arrived and I must say I doubt very much that it would make a Cameo designation. It is a very pretty coin, with incredible fields, so I have no problem owning it. I do not believe the DL photos were as accurate as they might have been, as the reverse (which the photo would lead you to believe is a no-question-about-it cameo) doesn't seem to have much cameo effect at all. In fact, the obverse seems to have more contrast than the reverse.
Thanks to all who posted photos and commented!
IMO ... no.
Without trying to be the guy who say I told you so (okay, maybe a little
), I'll refer to my original reply:
I say this more as a lesson for buying proofs than anything else. There's something about the nature of classic proofs that leads them to look frosted when it by almost any light, particularly when it's coming from more than one angle. What that means is you might not see much frost when moving the coin about under one light, but when lit from both sides (most photographers use 2 or 3 lights) non-existent frost can still pop in an image. Yes it's still on the seller to accurately describe the coin, but there have certainly been coins I've shot where it was nearly impossible to both illuminate the coin decently and prevent it from looking at or near cameo. For that reason, when I've been in the market for such a proof, I always asked the seller point blank when I thought the coin looked frosty. When I bought my proof walker, I found it easier to just have someone I trusted find the right coin in person. Yes, I still looked online, but interpreting images of these coins can be hell.
Anyway, sounds like you still got yourself a pretty coin. I'm a big fan of mercs and walkers, and they're both series where the nice proofs come really nice.
That's a pretty dime!
My YouTube Channel
In looking at the jawline where it meets the neck, I think I see brightness. I think that does 2 things. It shows "some cameo contrast" elsewhere but sets the bar pretty low for that contrast.