Do any of these coins warrant a Cameo designation?

SanctionII

New purchases ftom a local show.

Raw early 50's proofs; and SMS coins do not often receive a Cameo designation.

Your thoughts please.

gumby1234

The 51 dime looks cameo. Dcam if the reverse looked better.

johnny9434

What gumby said

dunkleosteus430

Those are pretty nice. I think that some of them could get a star at NGC, but I don't think they're cameo. If any of them are Cameo I would expect it to be the nickel (which doesn't seem to have enough frost on the lower neck) or the dime (which has weak spots on the torch, leaves, and some letters.) The quarter also comes close, but lacks frost on the lower neck.
These are just my amateur opinions.

FlyingAl

At PCGS now?

I don't think so.

santinidollar

The grading services are stingy with that designation. Wouldn’t take a thing away from this very nice set!

bsshog40

I'm seeing the possibility of a couple one sides being cameo, some not at all but definitely not both sides of one coin.

SanctionII

Interesting replies so far.

The cell phone photos of the coins are not very good. In hand each coin looks much better much better.

I will give my opinions of these coins tomorrow.

As far as PCGS awarding a Cameo designation in 2023 goes, I have a pending submission that just went into QA. In that submission there are 15-20 1950-1963 proofs, some of which warrant a CAM. Will be interesting to see how I do.

jesbroken

This may help.
Jim

ChrisH821

That's going to be a solid maybe from me.

Maywood

Maybe the quarter but the picture quality isn't good enough to tell.

SanctionII

Here are better photos of the dime.

ricko

The quarter and the dime look as if they could CAM..... not the nickel or cent. Of course, that is based on the pictures.... in hand could be different. Cheers, RickO

SanctionII

TTT.

I was out of town yesterday and today. Just got back and thought I would update this thread

As noted above, the cell phone photos of the coins are of poor quality. They do not show what the coins actually look like in hand.

All of the coins have heavily frosted devices on both sides of the coin and mirrored fields. The fields on the 1951 nickel, 1951 dime and 1967 quarter are deep, watery and black. The fields on the 1951 cent are slightly impaired and thus not as good as the fields on the other three coins.

The frost on the cent and dime is fully present on both sides of the coins and of equal quality on both sides.

The 1951 nickel on the reverse (on building immediately to the right of the domed portion of Monticello [from the perspective of the person looking at the reverse of the coin]) has slight frost fade that is apparent when on rotates the coin under lighting. Other than this frost fade the frost on both sides is of equal quality.

The 1967 quarter has heavy, even frost on both sides of the coin (except on the reverse to the immediate right of the eagle's right leg [from the perspective of the person looking at the reverse of the coin]) at the bottom of the wing feathers there is a very small patch of frost fade.

Even though PCGS is very strict on giving out Cameo designations, I think that all four coins warrant that designation (especially the 1951 nickel, the 1951 dime and the 1967 quarter).

I will attempt to take and post better photos of these four coins that show the how the coins look in hand under good lighting.

These four coins will definitely be submitted for grading sometime in 2023.

Maywood

Why knowingly post poor images which don't accurately represent the coins, ask for an opinion and then follow that with a "disclaimer" about the images as though another opinion could be offered based on the worded description??

I guess I understand you're hurriedly taking pictures with a cell phone but if you want better responses I think you should get a camera. It's a lot of work but yields better feedback. JMHO.

johnny010

Video?