Which of these six Proof Franklins received a Cameo designation and which did not?

SanctionII

Newly graded and delivered to me today (No peeking!!!).

privatecoin

4 and 5.

CRHer700

1, 4, and 5.

SanctionII

Some did and some did not.

Keep guessing

Smudge

4.

knovak1976

4

CRHer700

@SanctionII said:
Some did and some did not.

Keep guessing

I edited my previous post.

jfriedm56

4. Looks like full cameos on obv.& rev.

FlyingAl

I'm gonna go with none.

hummingbird_coins

1,2,6 did not and 3,4,5 did (1000th post)

FranklinHalfAddict

In order from to to bottom: YES, NO, NO, YES, YES, NO

bigmountainlion

1

Cougar1978

4

SanctionII

The 1955 half grade 67CAM.

The other five halves are brilliant proofs.

Three coins graded 67, one graded 66 and two graded 68, including coin number 6 (which is a DDR, FS-801 variety).

davewesen

1,3,5 did? It is difficult to tell much of anything with TrueViews now.

alaura22

none as well

Maywood

I see the answer has been given, I was thinking the same as @privatecoin with coins 4-5.

davewesen

Guess which of these got DCAM designation

tincup

@SanctionII said:
The 1955 half grade 67CAM.

The other five halves are brilliant proofs.

Three coins graded 67, one graded 66 and two graded 68, including coin number 6 (which is a DDR, FS-801 variety).

A good illustration of how hard it is to judge the coin based on photos.... including TrueViews. Must be some fade that is more apparent on the actual coin? Or, do you think they all should have been Cams?

hummingbird_coins

@davewesen said:
Guess which of these got DCAM designation

None of them.

SanctionII

Thanks for your guesses and comments.

Coin # 6 is not remotely close to deserving a CAM designation. The frost on the devices, particularly the obverse, is minimal (I submitted it for grading because it is the DDR FS-801 variety and because it is of very high quality [as the PF68 grade bears out]).

The other 5 coins have deeply mirrored fields and full frost on the devices on both sides of the coins. Of these 5 coins the 1955 stands well above the other 4 coins.

The True View of the 1955 does not do it justice. In hand the fields are a deep watery black and the devices have even, thick frost.

The True Views of the other 4 coins show the coins well, but not as they look in hand under good lighting. As you are likely aware, holding coins such as these 4 in hand, under good lighting, and rotating/tilting the coins will cause the appearance of the coins to change (sometimes the contrast between the fields and devices will increase and at other times will decrease; sometimes the intensity of the frosted devices will increase and at other times will decrease; sometimes hairlines will appear and at other times hairlines will not be seen).

Overall I thought all 4 of these coins were possibly deserving of a CAM designation. Our host disagreed.

The coins posted in the OP were part of a voucher submission I sent to PCGS (along with two other submissions) in August. I had a 4 coin Modern submission come back with all four SMS coins (two nickels and two halves) being awarded grades of SP66CAM.

I also have a 6 coin Economy submission of proof coins (a 1953 nickel, a toned 1956 nickel, a 1960 nickel, a 1950 dime, a 1951 dime and a 1964 quarter) that will be completed in the next 1-2 weeks. All of these coins except the toned 1956 nickel are possible high grade Cameos. It will be interesting to see how they grade out, including whether any of them receive a CAM designation.

ModCrewman

Without looking at the posts, I say the 1955 (-5371) and the following 1956 (-5373) would have received a CAM designation by PCGS.

tincup

So that 1956 is the big doubled die reverse? Nice!

CRHer700

@SanctionII said:
Thanks for your guesses and comments.

Coin # 6 is not remotely close to deserving a CAM designation. The frost on the devices, particularly the obverse, is minimal (I submitted it for grading because it is the DDR FS-801 variety and because it is of very high quality [as the PF68 grade bears out]).

The other 5 coins have deeply mirrored fields and full frost on the devices on both sides of the coins. Of these 5 coins the 1955 stands well above the other 4 coins.

The True View of the 1955 does not do it justice. In hand the fields are a deep watery black and the devices have even, thick frost.

The True Views of the other 4 coins show the coins well, but not as they look in hand under good lighting. As you are likely aware, holding coins such as these 4 in hand, under good lighting, and rotating/tilting the coins will cause the appearance of the coins to change (sometimes the contrast between the fields and devices will increase and at other times will decrease; sometimes the intensity of the frosted devices will increase and at other times will decrease; sometimes hairlines will appear and at other times hairlines will not be seen).

Overall I thought all 4 of these coins were possibly deserving of a CAM designation. Our host disagreed.

The coins posted in the OP were part of a voucher submission I sent to PCGS (along with two other submissions) in August. I had a 4 coin Modern submission come back with all four SMS coins (two nickels and two halves) being awarded grades of SP66CAM.

I also have a 6 coin Economy submission of proof coins (a 1953 nickel, a toned 1956 nickel, a 1960 nickel, a 1950 dime, a 1951 dime and a 1964 quarter) that will be completed in the next 1-2 weeks. All of these coins except the toned 1956 nickel are possible high grade Cameos. It will be interesting to see how they grade out, including whether any of them receive a CAM designation.

I would have thought No. 2 to be the least likely from the pictures.

Crypto

1&4 maybe 3