Great looking, unusual proof TrueView

Zoins

Usually, I see color or black mirrors on TrueViews, but not both!

crazyhounddog

That’s different for sure.

braddick

I'd love to own that coin.
Is it available?

CentSearcher

Wow, that's really cool! Hardly looks like the same coin

LanceNewmanOCC

the obv/rev were imaged differently.

the reverse appears to be just a standard method of imaging while the obv is the over-exposed/diffused style, which is usually done to show color. (by in large, most TVs are the latter)

Zoins

@LanceNewmanOCC said:
the obv/rev were imaged differently.

the reverse appears to be just a standard method of imaging while the obv is the over-exposed/diffused style, which is usually done to show color. (by in large, most TVs are the latter)

How common is it for proofs to have color on just one side?

I’ve seen a lot of TrueViews of proofs with black mirrors, more so recently on both moderns and classics.

Generally, I like both looks and would like to pay for and keep both TVs up if possible.

SanctionII

I have multiple proof coins from the mid 20th century that have toning (one color and multi color) on only one side.

They are attractive and interesting.

LanceNewmanOCC

@Zoins said:

@LanceNewmanOCC said:
the obv/rev were imaged differently.

the reverse appears to be just a standard method of imaging while the obv is the over-exposed/diffused style, which is usually done to show color. (by in large, most TVs are the latter)

How common is it for proofs to have color on just one side?

I’ve seen a lot of TrueViews of proofs with black mirrors, more so recently on both moderns and classics.

Generally, I like both looks and would like to pay for and keep both TVs up if possible.

i'd say a lot do naturally occur but it is also possible and easy to make them. when i say make them, if you have a one-sided monster with some rollover toning on the opposite (common), just dip the weak side to get a look like the coin in the op. not saying that is what happened here, just that it is easy to do if done carefully and tbh, is probably preferred in several scenarios. i've seen a few handful of coins posted here and in tvs where i'd have dipped one side which has quite undesirable toning color/pattern on proof and business strikes. mostly this is for unc condition.

it is kinda odd when it comes to cam/dcam proof toners. if you image them like a normal business strike with the X pattern of lighting, it sometimes is virtually impossible to see the toning. (just depends on toning and lighting) and this is where the diffused/overexposed method comes into play (although i have seen setups that can achieve this result WITHOUT diffusing); depends on the lights and type of bulb and i'm sure camera settings come into play.

to accurately answer how often one sided toners naturally happen is virtually impossible to know unless we know everything that has happened in that coin's past. sure, some people well-versed in finding/buying/selling massive amounts can get some feel of averages if they buy a lot of coins in albums/proof sets etc., but i'd say logically, one-sided toners are the exception, not the rule just based on how often i see one-sided nice toners that have toner "creep" onto the rims/edge/opposite side. just my experience.

edited to add: i'd say there are exceptions to all that i said. imaging/techniques/toners etc.

fiftysevener

No longer Cameo though

cameonut2011

I’m not a fan. It looks like rust. For those that name their coins, I’d call this one “Rust Bucket.”

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:
I’m not a fan. It looks like rust. For those that name their coins, I’d call this one “Rust Bucket.”

Looks too reflective to be rust!

I’m thinking Mars!

alaura22

@cameonut2011 said:
I’m not a fan. It looks like rust. For those that name their coins, I’d call this one “Rust Bucket.”

Me either, I'll pass to Braddick

leothelyon

One side toned, the other, cleaned!

Leo

Zoins

@fiftysevener said:
No longer Cameo though

Actually, it is!

PCGS PR69 DCAM

69 is an amazingly high grade for a toned coin, and still Deep Cameo.

The PCGS graders must have really liked it.

https://www.pcgs.com/cert/35891473

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I’m not a fan. It looks like rust. For those that name their coins, I’d call this one “Rust Bucket.”

Looks too reflective to be rust!

I’m thinking Mars!

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I’m not a fan. It looks like rust. For those that name their coins, I’d call this one “Rust Bucket.”

Looks too reflective to be rust!

I’m thinking Mars!

I know it isn’t rust (silver doesn’t rust). It just has that orange brown color.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@fiftysevener said:
No longer Cameo though

Actually, it is!

PCGS PR69 DCAM

69 is an amazingly high grade for a toned coin, and still Deep Cameo.

The PCGS graders must have really liked it.

https://www.pcgs.com/cert/35891473

I can’t grade at that level from the photos, but DCAM or even CAM designation is sketchy. If it is that thickly toned, you would have no way of knowing for certain even though the odds of it being DCAM if dipped are greater than 99%.

cameonut2011

I wonder how the True View of the obverse compares to how the coin looks in hand. Axial lighting?

MsMorrisine

Going from what isn’t toned, I’m saying mismatched photos

davewesen

@cameonut2011 said:

I can’t grade at that level from the photos, but DCAM or even CAM designation is sketchy. If it is that thickly toned, you would have no way of knowing for certain even though the odds of it being DCAM if dipped are greater than 99%.

Without having the coin in your hand, how can you make such a claim?

Steven59

@cameonut2011 said:
I wonder how the True View of the obverse compares to how the coin looks in hand. Axial lighting?

Probably looks like a normal proof in hand. I know I can position the lighting and camera angle slightly to make proofs show black fields - getting them "Glamour Shots" isn't that hard to do.

cameonut2011

@davewesen said:

@cameonut2011 said:

I can’t grade at that level from the photos, but DCAM or even CAM designation is sketchy. If it is that thickly toned, you would have no way of knowing for certain even though the odds of it being DCAM if dipped are greater than 99%.

Without having the coin in your hand, how can you make such a claim?

Most coins with toning over the devices aren’t awarded CAM or DCAM designations by PCGS. Field to device contrast could be obscured or even artificially enhanced by color. This is why, for instance, PCGS has historically not awarded the CAM or DCAM designation to proof Indian Head Cents in RB or BN. Most 19th century and early 20th proof silver is graded similarly with toning that covers a significant portion of the devices precluding a designation in most cases. Toning can distort a lot when it comes to field to device contrast.

coinsarefun

I started doing a toned Silver Eagle proof set. It’s slow as it’s very difficult to find nice toned proofs.
But, I’m enjoying it. I only have one that has color on the obverse and the others have some color on the reverse.
Link to my registry album. I hope to be adding a few more once PCGS is done grading and imaging.

.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/silver-gold-platinum-eagles/silver-eagles-proof-1986-present/album/278634

alaura22

How about this
The coin was graded back in 87 and given the 69DCAM grade. Then years later it developed the toning. Then the owner sent the coin in for re-holdering and to get the gold shield and TV. PCGS would have had to put it in a new holder and keep the grade.
What do you all think?

coinsarefun

And, I have one toned Reverse Eagle Proof that seams to tone on one side and a brownish on the reverse of it.
These toned totally different than any other proofs.

.

coinsarefun

And this one I sold years back. Its toned on the reverse only,

.

bolivarshagnasty

That looks like a business strike obverse with a proof reverse. Proofs tone differently than what I see on the obverse. Detail is weak around the head as well compared to Stef's photos. My guess, mismatched photos.

ricko

There certainly is a radical difference between obverse and reverse on that coin (OP). Unusual for sure. I will have to check my ASE collection. Something may have transpired over the decade since I looked at them. Cheers, RickO