How common or uncommon is it for BN and RB Proof Lincoln Cents to receive a CAM designation?
SanctionII
Posts: 12,285 ✭✭✭✭✭
I currently have some 1950's era BN and RB proof Lincolns in the mail to me from PCGS that have deep mirrored fields and heavily frosted devices underneath the color.
When I submitted them for grading I was uncertain if any of them would warrant a CAM designation.
Your thoughts please.
0
Comments
I am of the understanding that only RD proofs can receive a cameo designation.
Does it make sense? Not really, not to me anyway.
Collector, occasional seller
I recall that some Indian Head BN and RB Proof Cents have been given a CAM designation.
I thought that NGC recognized RB and BN Cameo's, but that PCGS didn't. Did you check the pop report?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In looking at some (but not all) of the Coin Facts photos of Cameo Proof Lincolns from 1936 to 1964 I have not seen any that I would consider to be BN or RB in color.
I also see that for BN Proof Lincolns of this era the top grade appears to be PF 66 or maybe PF66+.
Op, the post above reflects the official policy of both services. If there are BN or RB designated cameo coins in the PCGS population report, it is a mechanical error.
If the policy of PCGS is to not recognize BN and RB as Cameos, that creates a divide between BN and RB proof Lincolns that are 100% brilliant in appearance and those "Unicorns" that are not only BN and RB in color but also have deeply mirrored fields and heavily frosted devices (I have 6 of these "Unicorns" currently being mailed back to me by our host and will post Trueviews of same when they are available).
What do you mean by “Lincolns that are 100% brilliant in appearance” with respect to RB and BN examples?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mr. Feld.
By 100% brilliant I mean a proof Lincoln that has no frost on any of the devices of the coin. The appearance of the coin is the same on both the fields and the devices.
However, as I gave your question some thought I realized that "brilliant" is not completely accurate since to me that term means a mirrored appearance.
As we know, some proof Lincolns from 1936 - 1964 have been struck by worn dies that do not produce a mirrored appearance on the coin. Those coins have a uniform appearance (no contrast) but can be described as satin or MS in appearance.
Thank you and please feel free to call me Mark, even if I’m old.😉
I asked my question because I was thinking in terms of reflectivity, rather than lack of contrast between fields and devices, so was confused.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I do hope this policy changes. A cameo appearance is a characteristic that is created upon striking and toning cannot change that, just the contrast that is visible. There are certainly RB and BN coins that can earn the designation, and to rule out a coin from a strike characteristic because of toning that may or may not affect the visibility of that characteristic is very interesting to me.
I wonder why this only applies to copper, as a lot of 19th century silver proofs would have never earned the designation if this policy was adopted for them.
Coin Photographer.
FlyingAl.
You make a very good point about toned silver coins receiving a Cameo designation (same thing for toned nickel coins). Why the different treatment of copper?
The rationale of PCGS's policy is that toning can accentuate field to device contrasts and make it difficult to assess the true degree of cameo contrasts versus toning differences that can enhance or even create the false appearance of cameo contrasts (i.e. field to device contrasts that wouldn't be there without the toning and are not true cameo contrasts). A heavily toned silver or nickel coin will similarly be denied a cameo designation under normal practices. Of course you will find a few examples of toning over the devices that make it into designated holders, but it is all an issue of degree. Unfortunately copper is the most reactive metal, hence the policy.
For what it is worth, I can justify designating a RB coin as cameo when there is a substantial amount of original red contrast. (My experience is that PCGS will just throw the coin into a RD cameo holder but YMMV). I cannot make the same argument for a coin at or near the BN end of the spectrum.
Cameonut2011.
Interesting post by you; and a cogent explanation of the rationale of our host's policy.
Since things in life often turn one way or another on "a matter of degree", the application of that dynamic to the topic discussed in this thread creates "Unicorn" coins that stand out from the crowd.
Those Unicorn corns are (to a collector with a Jones for such coins) objects that are often viewed as "must have".