SMS 1965 Kennedy, Cameo? NEW PICTURES!

joeykoins

Hi guys,
Just received this in a Giveaway!
Could it actually have a Cameo appearance?
Thanks guys 😕

SanctionII

Need better photos. However I would say no (given the impaired fields on the coin and insufficient frost).

Here is my best 1965 SMS half dollar (it graded SP66CAM in mid 2021).

cameonut2011

@SanctionII said:
Need better photos. However I would say no (given the impaired fields on the coin and insufficient frost).

>

I agree with this 100%.

Steven59

Picture quality again - no way to actualy tell. Are you using flash instead of proper lighting?

PeakRarities

It's hard to tell with your images, grainy/blurry and theres a lot of glare. I think diffused lighting might help, that said, Im not seeing a ton of cameo contrast with the current photos.

joeykoins

Thanks guys.
I'll try to retake pics.

joeykoins

@SanctionII said:
Need better photos. However I would say no (given the impaired fields on the coin and insufficient frost).

Here is my best 1965 SMS half dollar (it graded SP66CAM in mid 2021).

That is an awesome example, dude!

Cocoinut

I'm assuming your coin is from a Special Mint Set. Regardless, it has a lot of chatter and scuff marks in the obverse fields. These are pics of my SP66CAM.

joeykoins

You Two guys, took me to school!

Thanks
Beautiful, just Beautiful!

alaura22

Here's mine albeit only aSP64Cam

joeykoins

Now, I know guys, my Kennedy does have some scuffs/marks. Just trying to find out if it may have a Cameo.

Here are my new shots!

Thanks again.
🙂

privatecoin

Here's my 66cam

jmlanzaf

Based on those pictures, I vote "chocolate".

BuffaloIronTail

I dunno.

Doesn't look like it has enough frosting compared to the other coins pictured.

The reverse looks more cam than the obverse.

Where did that coin go to get so banged up? Actually I shouldn't ask, because how would you know what happened before you got it.

Pete

ricko

@joeykoins... Based on the pictures (both sets), I would say it will not get CAM...Cheers, RickO

Kliao

I would say no too. Just not enough frost to get the designation.

ChrisH821

I don't think so. If you have to fiddle with multiple pictures to show contrast then it is not.
Not a bad coin for free!

gumby1234

Doesn't appear to be Joey.
Here's one of my SMS CAM.

gumby1234

The areas that don't look CAM in my photo are just in the shade from my phone.

SanctionII

Here is a 1965 SP67DCAM half (from Coinfacts).

privatecoin

@SanctionII said:
Here is a 1965 SP67DCAM half (from Coinfacts).

Beautiful coin.

One of my targets is a dcam. hopefully I find one in a sms set some day.

olympicsos

Every time I look at the SMS or older proof coins before dies were sandblasted, I have to say that I like the alcohol/nitric acid dipped dies look on proofs. Sure cameos may not be guaranteed on all coins, but they look very watery and not fake. Modern laser cameos look very fake.

SanctionII

Privatecoin.

I look at SMS sets also. I have found and acquired some coins in these sets that are gorgeous, with mirrored fields and frosted devices. I think that the frost on my pictured 1965 SP66CAM is of DCAM quality. However the fields are not quite DCAM quality.

I found my coin, raw, at a local show. It was severely hazed over and ugly. However I could see under the haze that it was really nice. I paid $10.00 for the set it was in. I took it home, gave it a bath and was amazed at how nice it turned out to be.

Jimnight

Don't look cam.

cameonut2011

There looks to be some frost to me, but not enough for a designation.

FlyingAl

@olympicsos said:
Every time I look at the SMS or older proof coins before dies were sandblasted, I have to say that I like the alcohol/nitric acid dipped dies look on proofs. Sure cameos may not be guaranteed on all coins, but they look very watery and not fake. Modern laser cameos look very fake.

I believe there’s significant evidence to suggest some Proof Liberty nickel dies were sandblasted, and it’s quite obvious Sandblast Proofs themselves were sandblasted. I’m addition, Matte Proofs from the early 20th century had their dies sandblasted.

These coins are prized by collectors for their beauty, so I’d say the sandblasting results in highly attractive proofs. The laser frosting is quite ugly in contrast and results in a reduction of visible detail.

I know that the purpose of your post wasn’t to say sandblasting made coins look bad (you older proofs) but the wording of your post could result in some confusion.

olympicsos

The sandblast proofs of 1908-1916 do look very nice. Actually that's what the original artists intended as all of them objected to the polished finish as they felt it cheapened the design. I was talking in the context of the modern 1936-date series. Acid dipping ended in 1971 and there began a process of sandblasting the dies that resulted in more cameos throughout the 1970s which is what I was talking about.

olympicsos

Basically in my opinion 1960s Ultra Cameos are much nicer in terms of the frost than modern Ultra Cameos.

jesbroken

I have a couple of NGC 1966 SMS Proof 66 Kennedy's. Next time I run across them, I will compare them to these. Curious now.
Jim

dunkleosteus430

It looks better than average, but I'd still say no, if the photos are accurate. Still, there are many photos of SMS halves on eBay listings that are in cameo holders that don't appear contrasted at all, so it could still be.