4 Coins, 1 Die Pair - GTG *REVEALED, My Point Made*
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,499 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here's a little weekend fun for you guys - one of these might be familiar to you if you've read some of my posts recently, but the other three are probably not. Also - no CoinFacts for you guys. Yes, I know it's impossible to grade proofs from pictures so don't focus on the number so much (that's your only hint). Please - no cheating.
@ElmerFusterpuck and @cameonut2011 if you would refrain from guessing for the time being that would be great. 
I'm sure you'll know why here if you scroll down.
1)
2) 
3) 
4)
Coin Photographer.
0
Comments
Looks like the same coin under different lighting.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
All pieces are taken under different lighting conditions making grading and determination of contrasts among the four impossible to differentiate. I will refrain from commenting on #1 and #3.
Coin 2 I’ll guess PF66. Coin 4 PF64 unless the marks are on the plastic. Is there any frost on the sun in hand? Both have nice field to device contrasts.
PR65.
PR66.
PR64.
PR64.
I cannot speak to coin 2, but coin 4 has no sun contrast. The rays, however, are fully frosted.
Coin Photographer.
I stand by my guesses of PF 66 and PF64 with no modifiers.
They are four different coins.
Coin Photographer.
Just guesses really:
PR65
PR66
PR64
PR63
And yes I did grade these before reading Maywood’s guesses.
65
66
64
65
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
As @cameonut2011 stated, it's hard to judge things based on different lighting, different technique by the photographer(s) and different size images. Heck, it's hard enough to just grade from images so this is that x two or three. Of all the coins I think I prefer number four.
I don't think there will be many more guesses so I'll reveal and make my point.
1) PR64CAM (CoinFacts Plate)
2) PR66 (Gold CAC) (owned by @ElmerFusterpuck)
3) PR65CAM (owned by @cameonut2011)
4) PR65 (my coin)
As I stated in the title, each one of these coins are from the same die pair (and die state). I'd expect if you put them side by side at a show, they might all be nearly identical, or so close to each other contrast wise the average collector would never notice the difference.
If seen in hand, I think the order of contrast on these coins would go:
1) PR65CAM
2) PR66
3) PR65
4) PR64CAM
I expect the differences you see in the coins in the OP are due to photography choices and differences as @Maywood pointed out. Essentially, it comes down to same dies (and die state) = same contrast. Of course minor differences will be there, but in this situation there are none of those differences.
This points out some shortcomings in the current grading standards for these 36-42 cameos. How can these coins be so close to each other in terms of contrast and be split 50-50 on the designation?
I propose a better way to start designating these proofs. If the grading services used a die catalog of each cameo proof of these years (there are only 30 die pairs, and they have all been cataloged already), then the grading would become a lot more consistent and easier to teach to graders. Having a set of three or four photos for graders to compare to for each die pair would allow for consistency in the CAM designation for these coins (which I don't think has ever happened).
Here's the example die catalog for these coins, which are all CA-29.
1939 Proof Half Dollar
CA-29
Use Date: February 6th.
Die Markers: Weak upright of D in GOD. Weak RU in TRUST. Fourth from left solar ray is polished short. Strong AW, full eagle wings. Die wear “starburst” is present in the obverse and reverse fields.
Figure One: Weak fourth from left solar ray. This has been polished from the die, though it is interesting similar areas of relief seem unaffected.
Figure Two: Weak D in GOD and U in TRUST
Figure Three: Full eagle wings. Note how a section of the wing appears behind the eagle’s head, this is an extreme low point on the die and this die pair is the only proof die that ever left this part of the die visibly intact with detail.
Figure Four: Full AW. The reverse die maintained an exceptionally high level of detail while still showing contrast. The AW was among the first parts of the die to be polished away, as it was raised on the die.
Image:
Description and Coins Possible: This die pair shows particularly weak contrast. Buyers are encouraged from avoiding any designated cameo proof from it. Mirrors are likely to be weak, and the sun appears to have minor frost. Very few designated proofs will likely ever exist, but up to twenty contrasted coins from the die pair are expected to still be in collector hands. Coins from this die pair and state are a good option for the collector who wishes to own a high quality example of a proof Walking Liberty half dollar and is highly suggested for type collectors. Since many near cameo coins have no designation, the knowledgeable collector can buy one such proof for the same price as a coin with no contrast.
Here's how I see the process being implemented - a verifier or perhaps the first base grader would indentify the coin as a potential cameo. If the verifier noticed it, they could include a link to the catalog for that particular date and denomination. If a grader noticed it, they would pull up the catalog and then assign or pass on the designation. They would then forward the link to the rest of the graders. It would take maybe 30 extra seconds for a grader to pull up an online catalog, check a potential cameo die pair, and say yes or no. (I just did it and it took me 52 seconds from possible cameo to final determination). I expect there would be some streamlining that could cut that down considerably.
Sure, it would double grading time for the coin, but how often would this happen? Once, maybe twice a week? It would take away what I consider to be the most inconsistent application of a designation the TPGS give for the cost of 2 minutes total. PCGS or NGC could really make this work for them.
Anyways, rant over.
Coin Photographer.
It depends on how the coin looks in hand. Some photos don’t accurately capture contrast obscuring contrast while some people (e.g. R and I Coins) have managed to find ways to exaggerate contrast IMHO. Based on the images alone, I wouldn’t have guessed a cameo designation on any of the coins. I haven’t seen the 64 cam in hand, but I suspect there is frost on the sun that does not show well in the True View. Mechanical errors and grading mistakes happen, but this one would seem too obvious. The images of the 1939 65 cam are not very good IMHO and do not represent the coin or contrast well. Rotating it in hand, there is frost including on the sun that doesn’t show.
That said, just as there are variations in grade, there are also subtleties and variations of cameo contrasts as well. Skyman’s 1938 sticks out on the far end of the spectrum and I’d call it cameo plus.
Unless imaged using similar lighting and photography set up, I don’t know how you can be confident in ranking them at all.
I disagree. Cameos are likely to result when a die is first used and after it is repolished. This is independent of the die and die state. A die can produce a strong cameo and then a very weak one or a non cameo coin a few strikes later.
Again, I’m not confident in any comparison based on these images. Nonetheless there is just as much subjectivity in designating coins as there is in grading. This is hardly limited to this niche area.
I don’t think the die pair is particularly relevant. Moreover, how the other coins look is immaterial (or should be IMHO to a grader). The coin should rise or fall based on its merits or lack there of.
>
@ElmerFusterpuck - I like your coin and the appreciable frost on the devices and nice mirrors very much. There is definitely a lot of value in cherry picking coins like yours.
Rick Tomaska suggested a 10 point scale for 'frosty devices' long before DCAM/CAM was started being used on proof coins.
You are really good if you feel you can grade proof coins from pictures. The major difference for the gems is the number and frequency of hairlines (or were you concerned only about designations?) which is difficult to determine with pictures.
A side by side comparison of those 4 coins would help determine the 'liners' (ones that could go either way), undergraded and overgraded.
Another area that has some controversial 'liners' are Jefferson nickels and FS (full step) designation.
I was simply concerned about the designation (CAM in particular).
Coin Photographer.
Dies don't wear as quickly as many authors have stated. There was a 1942 cent die that struck upwards of 150 cameo coins before the contrast dipped below the level of acceptable contrast for the designation (the die was chrome plated). Of course that was an outlier, but the average was around 30-40 cameo coins a die. It's not simply two or three coins coming off the die as CAM and then it just stops.
In addition, the polishing of this era only allowed for only the first die pairing to produce cameo coins - the additional repolishings removed the original die surface and removed the frost.
I do believe the die pair is highly relevant here - it can add consistency to the grading. I don't think that judging a coin based on it's merits is working well, as we see a lot of inconsistency in what is in CAM holders and what doesn't make the cut.
Last point - I am extremely doubtful that the 64CAM example has any trace of frost on the sun. I hope there is, but I don't think it's there.
Good discussion!
Coin Photographer.
It’s highly variable and depends on a number of factors including how often the die was polished. Die geometry including relief of the coin and size of the coin are also relevant. Ask yourself, is it easier to polish the devices to a brilliant sheen of a small diameter coin or a larger one? Similarly, lower relief areas on a die are harder to polish than shallow issues. Some dies produce a decent number of cameos, some produce far fewer, and some may produce no cameos at all. It is not necessarily a neat process than can be predicted with any regularity.
Polishing of a die can regenerate the ability to produce cameo coins. I’m not sure where this is coming from but it doesn’t make sense.
How is a die catalog going to help? Are you just going to call the first X number of coins (if it were even possible to identify the first X coins with any certainty) cameo coins? It wouldn’t be a cameo designation then. It would be a “first strike” like designation that only creates more issues.
As to your first point, I agree it is highly irregular, but repolishing did not add frost. That is only true for 1950-later proofs, when an extra acid dip or wire brushing was done before repolish. That is why it can bring back frost. This is not true for the 36-42 proofs.
Effectively, the cameo designation is a first strike designation. That's the goal of many cameo collectors - to get the earliest possible strike off of frosted dies. It could create more issues, but it could also solve a lot of issues.
Anyways - I think we can both agree that the designation is applied highly irregularly, and something needs to be changed to get it more consistent. There's got to be a better way than the current process.
Coin Photographer.
I agree the process of this era and the very early 1950s are different from the mid. 1950s, but repolishing should be capable of polishing the fields enough to produce at least some field to device contrast. I’ll have to reach out to RWB.
And we agree 100% that not all cameos are created equally. Auction records also bear this out some, although you could argue that very weak cameos are not great values worth a large premium while truly exceptional pieces like Skyman’s 1938 WLH are worthy of very strong premiums. This is the same argument that plays out here in a general grading context as well. There can be large variations within grades and designations.
Yes, I absolutely agree that not all cameos are equal and you and I both understand this. There are some good coins out there in CAM holders, and some that aren't the best. It's ultimately up to the buyer to determine whether or not the coin they are buying is the former or the latter.
Feel free to reach out to RWB, but he and I have discussed this at length and I am fairly certain he will tell you something similar to what I've said (repolishing never aided contrast 1936-42, it only removed it.) The problem with the dies of this era was that the die sinkers and assistants were unable to constrain the polish the solely the fields and inevitably polished the devices as well (cameo dies being the exception).
Coin Photographer.
Also, thanks for the excellent discussion!
Coin Photographer.
I did not go through your die catalog FlyingAl but am curious how many 'die pairs' you have documented for 1939 proof walking liberty halves? How did you differentiate a 'die pair' from different aging stages of the same die? I am curious as the Redbook says there were less than 9K minted.
I documented one single die pair that produced cameo coins for 1939 halves. As you can see, both of the cameo coins that have been attributed are above in the post and are from the same die pair. One can track the cameo die pairs due to their distinct appearance, and not being repolished. This documentation was in one of my posts on this thread, you can see the die markers used to identify the die pair and you can apply them to the four coins in the OP if you want to.
I did not track dies that did not produce cameo coins, as that would be a nearly impossible task. Mint die records show four different obverse and reverse dies were used for 1939 halves, but these were often reused on multiple dates and repolished, making tracking them very difficult to impossible.
Coin Photographer.
you say the dies have 'not been repolished' but also the sun ray near the L has had its tip polished off - why would they do that? do you not see a flaw in your logic? This one is in coinfacts ... with full ray
The flaw in your logic is that you forget that there has to be an initial polish. The ray was polished off during that initial polish.
Coin Photographer.
Amazing you can not ever admit you could 'possibly' be wrong or do not know.
When was the ray section above the L re-engraved on the following in your progression of CAMs?
It’s certainly possible I could be wrong - but you didn’t ask that. You asked if there was a flaw in my logic. Regardless, attacking a person’s character does not make you right.
The ray was never re-engraved. You are looking at one of the other three obverse dies used for 1939 halves (the reverse is different too) that did not produce cameo coins. As such, that die pair was never cataloged.
Coin Photographer.
I apologize if you feel I attacked your character
This is from the first picture of the great coin in your thread, I thought this die pair is what you were talking about. What would you call the area the yellow arrow points to?
You're looking at the wrong ray:
The ray your arrow points at does appear to have recutting, but this was done routinely after the first polish before the die was ever used, after a repolish, or at any time It was needed.
Coin Photographer.
The reason I showed the following is because it is present on the first 2 and I can't tell on the 4th (yours?), which strongly suggest to me they are later die states than the 3rd. So how can 1 and 4 have more frost than 3 which is an earlier die state? Does thickness of planchet or pounds pressure when striking have any effect on resulting frost?
I can see it on all four, which strongly suggests to me they are all the same die state. I suspect slight photography differences are accounting for the slight change in appearance you are seeing. I don't expect slight changes in placket or pressure would cause a distinct contrast change, but photos will slightly change how it is seen.
Coin Photographer.
I do not see it on this one and the right edge of the sun ray is closer to straight. I am not saying they are different dies, but definitely differing die states as re-engraving on a die would not go away unless polished out. What does yours (#4?) look like, do you have it handy?
It's there, but there is some serious glare there from the photo, so you have to look really closely. As to my coin, here's a photo through my loupe of the area in question:
I believe that is an exact match.
Coin Photographer.
Yes, 3 and 4 are the same and 1 and 2 are the same.
It also looks like 1 and 2 have more polished off and re-engraved deeper, making them a little later die state don't you agree?
With your die theory 3 and 4 should get CAM before 1 and 2 because they were struck later.
Only 8 Walking Liberty halves have been given CAM by PCGS so far, but if I ever buy one I will keep all of this mind.
No, all four are about as close to exactly the same as you'll ever get for this era. I'd wager they were all struck by the same dies within 40 strikes of each other.
In addition, based on die records we can narrow down this die's first use date to February 6th. 1,346 coins were struck that day before the dies were even pulled from the press, which means that it is impossible for these coins to appear so close to each other in contrast, but have the minor differences you are seeing be caused by a repolish. Those are caused by photography, not a different die pair. Again, all of these coins are from the same die pair, which no repolish in-between when they were struck.
Coin Photographer.