What is the True Definition of “Cameo”
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,109 ✭✭✭✭✭
I’ve recently been thinking about this, as the standard of “cameo” is probably the least clearly defined designator.
How would you, as a numismatist, define “Cameo”?
Coin Photographer.
0
Comments
Interesting question.
I will give it some thought and post a follow up reply with my definition.
Is it the contrast seen between the fields and the devices? The deeper the mirrors are in the fields, the whiter the devices become, it seems. Although the devices may have been abraded in some way or sand blasted to make them appear white or frosted. I really don't have the vocabulary to put together a definition in its best light. But I do know, having seen enough of them, how deep I want the mirrors in the fields to be when selecting coins for my collection. I spend a great deal of time comparing all my proof coins together in hand before accepting a new possible addition. A great number of collectors just don't know if the coins they buy have been cleaned and that's unfortunate for them.
The early proof Jeffs I have, 1938 to 1942-P, I have compared their mirrors and frost to those on the cameo graded proofs I have for the later dates 1951 to 1959 before deeming them to have a cameo obverse or reverse, 1or 2 both sides. How else can it be done without your eyes on the coins. I don't just sit back, write big checks for high labeled coins and enter the slab numbers to see how it raises some gpa.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I would say the fields need to be consistent. For example. this coin only has a Cameo appearance (JA thought it was a cameo; but, he was overruled by his team : ) ).
A reverse image might be helpful.
What do you mean by “the fields need to be consistent”? You’re hereby warned that I may use your answer against you.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks for asking, Mark.
The areas around 1912 and D STATES OF are the most consistent. The area in front of the face lacks consistency. In hand, the coin appeared cameo; but, the effect wasn't consistent and it really became apparent with the "TV."
I use the term "cameo" loosely on Morgan's. I like a little contrast between the fields and devices.
In technical terms I am wrong but I can't afford a cameo proof so I need to make due with what I have.
@Floridafacelifter could definetly tell or show us what a true Morgan cameo looks like.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo
I’m still not sure what you mean. I’ve seen a lot of Cameo’s that ranged anywhere from color-free to rather deeply toned. And the color and depth of toning wasn’t necessarily “consistent”. Typically, a coin is labeled “Cameo” if there’s adequate frost over the devices and it contrasts enough with the fields.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just gonna make a quick little appearance in this thread
Morgan dollars don’t need to be Proofs in order to exhibit obvious cameo contrast. It’s just that PCGS and NGC don’t use the “Cameo” designation for non-Proofs. ANACS does, however.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Three markedly different Morgans but all with frosted devices
68DCAM
68+CAM
68+CAM
Got this information on the PCGS Website.... Grading Standards Designations.
PCGS Link
While for some Proofs the choice is obvious, for others it gets much harder.
For example, is this coin a CAM? It certainly meets PCGS's definition.
Coin Photographer.
What about the sun?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have yet to see a graded cameo 1942 Walker that shows more frost on the sun than the current coin. In fact, there's a PR66CAM CAC coin I recently saw that shows almost precisely the same amount of sun frost. I'd be happy to PM you an image.
Coin Photographer.
I appreciate the offer but that’s not necessary - I believe you. What about the sun on other dates of Cameo examples?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I've seen one fully frosted sun on a 1938. The coin can only really be described as Deep Cameo from what I've seen.
From what l have seen all CAM 1939s have fully brilliant suns.
Coin Photographer.
Here is the reverse of that 1912. It would be nice if CAC would turn the slab picture upside down. Anyway, 2/3s of the reverse field appears consistently dark and the other 1/3...actually, looks like somebody scuffed the slab. By the way, this was a nicely toned proof - nothing spectacular though. I wish it looked like Floridafacelifter's posted 1881 silver dollar.
@DisneyFan
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
IMO Cameo designation is complete bs, another way for a coin to sell for more. Sure it is about eye appeal and a coin with wonderful eye appeal is special and should sell for more and true cameo designation can look excellent. But there are other characteristics that show eye appeal without any designation attributed to such, so are we to designate one for every scenario.
However most of the time the true designation is again incredibly subjective as is grading and it becomes a moving target. I ignore cameo designation and when a coin has it on a holder typically one has to pay more, and often it is for nothing extra
I don't think there is a move from Cameo to non Cameo in one strike. Like many things it is subjective and you will have strikes that are generally agreed to be Cameo, strikes that aren't, and strikes which fall somewhere in between. These in between strikes make it difficult to have a clear definition of the term when you have a coin that arguably both is and isn't 'Cameo'.
I respect you from your past posts; however, this one gets you a LOL from me. Cameo coins are not BS and not surprisingly, I doubt if anyone here cares what some members choose to ignore.
PS Did you write Engraving Liberty?
I know it when I see it.
Agree it’s more subjective than other designations.
I understand, don't think that I didn't think most would agree with my stance. I have a cameo coin in an older holder, hard to say if it is truly cameo, I don't believe it is therefore I ignore the holder. I do enjoy the coin, couldn't careless if it is cameo or not, didn't buy it as a cameo, in fact I bought it before I knew what cameo designation was. On Coinfacts I check cameos when researching all conditions of certain coins and some cameos are quite striking but I don't need the designation on the holder to appreciate that they are striking in appearance. I just ignore the cameo designation, just like I ignore the Prooflike designation
Now that I’ve seen pictures of both sides, despite the uneven color, the coin looks like a Cameo to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
To my way of thinking a true cameo should have the typical black/white appearance. The fields should be reflective and the devices should be matte.
After giving thought to the question posed my answer is similar to Maywood's.
Cameo, DCAM, UCAM proof coins should have a contrasted appearance between the fields and the devices (you know, like a Cameo broach).
Ideally the fields of the proof coin should be flawless, showing a deep, smooth, watery, mirrored appearance. Floating above the fields should be devices that, ideally are fully and evenly frosted.
Whether or not a specific coin warrants the designation is subjective, as there are no bright lines of demarcation. Proof coin dies used prior to 1973 wear out gradually. You do not have such dies strike a no doubt Cameo proof coin and on the next strike produce a no doubt brilliant coin.
My own experience in submitting proof and SMS coins for grading confirms the subjective nature of awarding the designation. I have posted about my experiences before and below post photos of coins that show the subjective nature of awarding or not awarding the designation.
Two 1963 quarters.
PF68
PF69 CAM
For these two quarters the PF68 has fields that are bluish in color, frosted obverse devices and heavily frosted reverse devices. The PF69CAM has fields that are superior to the fields on the PF68 and it has reverse devices that are not as heavily frosted as the devices on the reverse of the PF68. The obverse devices on the PF69CAM have frost that is a little heavier than the frost on the obverse devices of the PF68.
The two grades for these quarters were assigned in 2022 (for thePF69CAM) and in 2023 (for the PF68), likely by different graders. Two separate data points at different times that resulted in assigned grades to two 1963 proof quarters.
Is the PF69CAM a quarter that warrants a Cameo designation? (I think it does). Is the PF68 a quarter that warrants a Cameo designation? (I think it also does).
Two 1950 cents.
PF66RS CAM
PF66RB
In hand both of these cents have similar quality fields and devices. I think that both warrant a Cameo designation. However since one of them is deemed to be RB in color it is not eligible for a Cameo designation.
Two 1959 cents.
PF67RD DCAM
PF66RD
Except for impaired fields on the reverse of the PF66RD cent, both coins are very similar in appearance. Both have what I view as DCAM worthy frosty devices. Even though the fields on the reverse of the PF66RD cent are impaired, I think the coin still warrants a Cameo designation.
Two 1957 cents.
PF68RD CAM
PF66RD
I think that both of these coins warrant a Cameo designation and I am baffled why the PF66RD cent did not receive the designation.
Three 1963 havles
PF67DCAM
PF67CAM
PF68
I think all three of these coins warrant at least a Cameo designation.
Two 1953 haves
PF65CAM
PF65
I think both of these coins warrant a Cameo designation.
Six 1962 halves
PF68CAM
PF67
PF66
PF66
PF66CAM (from Coinfacts)
PF63CAM (from Coinfacts)
I think that all of these coins warrant a Cameo designation and the two coins from Coinfacts show that our host will assign a Cameo designation to toned proofs.
In any event, collecting in this area of coinage presents one with much enjoyment, with peaks and valleys along the way. I agree with the view point expressed in this thread by some who have replied that whether a Cameo designation is on the holder or not, one should look at the actual coin in the holder and decide for yourself if it is a coin that you believe should be part of your collection.
P.S. Here is a 1964 proof half that is one of my favorites. Without the toning I think it would receive a Cameo designation. However there is no reason to remove the toning (as it makes this coin unique) as it would merely turn it into a run of the mill widget.
Following up my previous reply with this one.
Some coins have been given a Cameo designation that (IMO) should not have received one.
Examples are:
1950 halves.
PF65 CAM (from Coinfacts)
The above PF65 CAM half, compared to this PF65 half that I own
perplexes me.
Looking at the photos of each coin and looking at my coin in hand leads me to believe that the PF65 CAM coin should not have been given the designation, or that my PF65 should have received the designation.
1959 halves.
PF67 CAM (from Coinfacts)
The above PF67 CAM half, compared to this PF67 half that I own
and compared to this PF69 half (from Coinfacts)
also perplexes me.
Looking at the photos of each coin and looking at my coin in hand leads me to believe that the PF67 CAM coin should not have been given the designation, or that my PF67 and the PF69 should have received the designation.
You shouldn’t be perplexed. Designations such as “Cameo” and “Deep/Ultra Cameo” aren’t as objective or consistently applied as many of us would like. Thus some deserving coins haven’t received the designations, while some undeserving ones have. It’s really that simple.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Look at the bottom of the neck where the frost is not full. I have never seen a coin with designation of CAM with this lack of frost. I had quite a few Morgans 10 or so years ago when they became to expensive for me and all were fully frosted on the raised devices. JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
My experiences have been very different from yours. I’ve seen a lot of coins designated “Cameo”, despite subpar frost on portions of the devices. And apparently, that John Albanese fellow thought the coin deserved the designation.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Herein lies the essence of the thread.
The standard is ultimately different for each grader, which makes me wonder if there is a way to make it more standardized.
Coin Photographer.
The “standard” (whatever it supposedly is) might not be different for each grader. I think it’s just like in the case of numerical grading - there’s a lack of ideal consistency in applying standards to each coin. There are no clearly defined lines involved and I don’t see that changing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.