Post Your Toned Lincoln Proofs!

tjrarecoins

Hey Everyone! Post your toned Lincoln proofs. Monster's Preferred! Here's one of mine
PR68RB Top Pop 2/0

fiftysevener

A truly superb coin in hand, carbon spots keep it in the 65 grade.

oih82w8

Here is my toned 1967 1C SMS.

AlanSki

renomedphys

Eldorado9

giorgio11

robec

ChrisH821

Of all my 1936-42 proof coins, this one might be my favorite.
Mostly red obverse with a nicely toned reverse and very good cameo contrast. I think it would be very difficult to replace this one.
PR66RB

FlyingAl

@ChrisH821 said:
Of all my 1936-42 proof coins, this one might be my favorite.
Mostly red obverse with a nicely toned reverse and very good cameo contrast. I think it would be very difficult to replace this one.
PR66RB

I think PCGS copped out on this one. Their policy with RB coins not being CAM is completely stupid. That's a PR66RB CAM IMO.

gumby1234

The color of the coin shouldn't determine if its cameo or not.

FlyingAl

@gumby1234 said:
The color of the coin shouldn't determine if its cameo or not.

PCGS disagrees with that.

tjrarecoins

@FlyingAl said:

@ChrisH821 said:
Of all my 1936-42 proof coins, this one might be my favorite.
Mostly red obverse with a nicely toned reverse and very good cameo contrast. I think it would be very difficult to replace this one.
PR66RB

I think PCGS copped out on this one. Their policy with RB coins not being CAM is completely stupid. That's a PR66RB CAM IMO.

I agree with this. This coin is not RB. This is a CAM. I've handled multiple dates that have full color on one side of the coin and it's still called CAM.

FlyingAl

@tjrarecoins said:

@FlyingAl said:

@ChrisH821 said:
Of all my 1936-42 proof coins, this one might be my favorite.
Mostly red obverse with a nicely toned reverse and very good cameo contrast. I think it would be very difficult to replace this one.
PR66RB

I think PCGS copped out on this one. Their policy with RB coins not being CAM is completely stupid. That's a PR66RB CAM IMO.

I agree with this. This coin is not RB. This is a CAM. I've handled multiple dates that have full color on one side of the coin and it's still called CAM.

I think calling it RB is fair, but I can see it both ways. The CAM designation needs to be that label though, and it's not.

For those wondering, you can't tell contrast from that TrueView. I was judging off of Chris's pics from his old thread:

coinguy96

Just graded yesterday.

coinguy96

The true views on some of the other coins have me concerned though. Check out these two Trueviews. The first was graded yesterday and looks like too much brightness was applied. The second was early November and looks much better in my opinion.

gumby1234

@FlyingAl said:

@gumby1234 said:
The color of the coin shouldn't determine if its cameo or not.

PCGS disagrees with that.

Yes, but they shouldn't . Cameo is cameo whether or not the coin has color. What if a coin was graded cameo and then toned over 40 years. Would it not be a cameo anymore?

FlyingAl

@coinguy96 said:
The true views on some of the other coins have me concerned though. Check out these two Trueviews. The first was graded yesterday and looks like too much brightness was applied. The second was early November and looks much better in my opinion.

One was taken by Phil Arnold before he left. The other was taken by the replacement photographer (this is the top photo).

Phil is now at GC and PCGS TrueViews will no longer be of the quality they were when Phil was there. I’d stop opting for them if possible.

tjrarecoins

@gumby1234 said:

@FlyingAl said:

@gumby1234 said:
The color of the coin shouldn't determine if its cameo or not.

PCGS disagrees with that.

Yes, but they shouldn't . Cameo is cameo whether or not the coin has color. What if a coin was graded cameo and then toned over 40 years. Would it not be a cameo anymore?

A coin should be designated BN when it has dark surfaces/toning, just like a RB coin have some of it's full red surfaces left and color. Sure a coin can be CAM, but if it has full color it's either a BN or RB.

FlyingAl

@tjrarecoins said:

@gumby1234 said:

@FlyingAl said:

@gumby1234 said:
The color of the coin shouldn't determine if its cameo or not.

PCGS disagrees with that.

Yes, but they shouldn't . Cameo is cameo whether or not the coin has color. What if a coin was graded cameo and then toned over 40 years. Would it not be a cameo anymore?

A coin should be designated BN when it has dark surfaces/toning, just like a RB coin have some of it's full red surfaces left and color. Sure a coin can be CAM, but if it has full color it's either a BN or RB.

Right. Gumby is saying that there can be BN CAMs, but PCGS won't designate a BN CAM. So that BN CAM is just a BN in a PCGS slab.

This policy is dumb, because the color of the coin has no factor on if it has contrast. I think you guys are agreeing, but just didn't catch that.

Goldbully

Wish I still owned her.

---

PR64RB

edited to add: Definitely taken by Phil.

gumby1234

Maybe PCGS will come around someday. Used to be coins that weren't Morgan dollars couldn't get a PL designation.

coinguy96

This graded

@FlyingAl said:

@coinguy96 said:
The true views on some of the other coins have me concerned though. Check out these two Trueviews. The first was graded yesterday and looks like too much brightness was applied. The second was early November and looks much better in my opinion.

One was taken by Phil Arnold before he left. The other was taken by the replacement photographer (this is the top photo).

Phil is now at GC and PCGS TrueViews will no longer be of the quality they were when Phil was there. I’d stop opting for them if possible.

I understand Phil left... But the drop off is that drastic 😵 That's brutal.

robec

@coinguy96 said:
The true views on some of the other coins have me concerned though. Check out these two Trueviews. The first was graded yesterday and looks like too much brightness was applied. The second was early November and looks much better in my opinion.

A basic levels adjustment would help bring it closer to Phil's image. It does appear the light was too bright, especially in the fields. I think with more work the department will get the lighting ironed out, which is the basic problem with the photo. The devices were well defined. It shouldn't take too much effort to correct the amount of light coming in.

Zoins

davewesen

@coinguy96 said:
The true views on some of the other coins have me concerned though. Check out these two Trueviews. The first was graded yesterday and looks like too much brightness was applied. The second was early November and looks much better in my opinion.

Are you not comparing apples with oranges?

Unless these are the same coin, how can you compare? and what do the coins look like in hand?

FlyingAl

@davewesen said:

@coinguy96 said:
The true views on some of the other coins have me concerned though. Check out these two Trueviews. The first was graded yesterday and looks like too much brightness was applied. The second was early November and looks much better in my opinion.

Are you not comparing apples with oranges?

Unless these are the same coin, how can you compare? and what do the coins look like in hand?

Those are the same coin, and I suppose this post would prove the point that the pics are wildly different.

coinguy82

robec

@FlyingAl said:

@davewesen said:

@coinguy96 said:
The true views on some of the other coins have me concerned though. Check out these two Trueviews. The first was graded yesterday and looks like too much brightness was applied. The second was early November and looks much better in my opinion.

>

Are you not comparing apples with oranges?

Unless these are the same coin, how can you compare? and what do the coins look like in hand?

Those are the same coin, and I suppose this post would prove the point that the pics are wildly different.

Maybe the coin changed between imaging. The reverse markings, both spots and toning pattern, don’t line up at all.

FlyingAl

@robec

You’re right. There are also a lot of areas on the obverse that line up though. Very interesting.

robec

@FlyingAl said:
@robec

You’re right. There are also a lot of areas on the obverse that line up though. Very interesting.

Strange indeed. I suppose it’s possible the reverse images were accidentally switched with another coin having very similar toning. Something is definitely amiss.

robec

@FlyingAl said:
@robec

You’re right. There are also a lot of areas on the obverse that line up though. Very interesting.

I sold this one years ago. It has very similar obverse markings as well.

SanctionII

robec

OldIndianNutKase

I think 1961 Lincoln proofs were minted already toned........
PR67BN

OINK

Ripnrun

SanctionII

Here is one of my favorite Lincolns. It graded PF66 RB. If any RB PF Lincoln Wheat cent deserves a Cameo designation it is this one.

Here is another Lincoln wheat cent that graded PF66RD CAM, for comparison purposes.

IMO there is not a lot of difference in these two coins and I think both warrant a Cameo designation.

ChrisH821

@FlyingAl said:

@tjrarecoins said:

@FlyingAl said:

@ChrisH821 said:
Of all my 1936-42 proof coins, this one might be my favorite.
Mostly red obverse with a nicely toned reverse and very good cameo contrast. I think it would be very difficult to replace this one.
PR66RB
![](https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.net/pcgs/cert/47949620/medium/264117003.jpg "")

I think PCGS copped out on this one. Their policy with RB coins not being CAM is completely stupid. That's a PR66RB CAM IMO.

I agree with this. This coin is not RB. This is a CAM. I've handled multiple dates that have full color on one side of the coin and it's still called CAM.

I think calling it RB is fair, but I can see it both ways. The CAM designation needs to be that label though, and it's not.

For those wondering, you can't tell contrast from that TrueView. I was judging off of Chris's pics from his old thread:
-images removed for length-

Alex I may need to send this one(and maybe a couple of others) to you for some photos and in hand viewing. The color is somewhere between my photo and the Trueview, the Trueview does highlight the toning well but the color is quite a bit darker than it shows. I fully agree with RB on this coin.

OldIndianNutKase

PR65BN

coinguy96

@davewesen said:

@coinguy96 said:
The true views on some of the other coins have me concerned though. Check out these two Trueviews. The first was graded yesterday and looks like too much brightness was applied. The second was early November and looks much better in my opinion.

Are you not comparing apples with oranges?

Unless these are the same coin, how can you compare? and what do the coins look like in hand?

These are not the same coin and that doesn't matter here. The point is I've had 15 true views taken over the past few months of very similar 1961 proof toned cents. 14 of them had the same True View look.. and the 15th looked as shown above.

coinguy96

8 is the newly imaged coin... All 7 other are in the past few months.

davewesen

@coinguy96 said:

These are not the same coin and that doesn't matter here. The point is I've had 15 true views taken over the past few months of very similar 1961 proof toned cents. 14 of them had the same True View look.. and the 15th looked as shown above.

I would think it would matter, depending on what the coins ACTUALLY looked like, but they are your coins and you have seen them.

OldIndianNutKase

@coinguy96 said:

8 is the newly imaged coin... All 7 other are in the past few months.

Impressive inventory of 1961 Lincoln toners. Only EDM would have more........but his may not be certified.

OINK

bolivarshagnasty

Submitted this one raw from a proof set where all of the coins had some level of toning. Sold later that year.

ldhair