1957 Proof nickel in OGP.

SanctionII

Cameo or not?

BustHalfBrian

Not

cameonut2011

No

MFeld

It doesn’t even look close. But I know that you know your stuff, so I’m confused by your having asked.

SanctionII

My question is asked to obtain information from other forum members how they view the photos of the nickel (which will help me determine if I am way out in left field or not) [thus far I am in left field and possibly heading out of the stadium ].

The photographs of the obverse and reverse of the nickel hint at the coin having frosted devices. As for the fields of the coin the photographs do not show mirrored surfaces [if they are not mirrored that would be very unusual for the fields of a late 1950's proof nickel in OGP].

My initial reaction upon viewing the OGP set (through the cello and possibly through haze on the coin) is that the nickel may possibly be a candidate for a Cameo designation (1957 Cameo nickels are not easy to find).

The OGP set is on its way to me (EBay purchase) and when I receive it I will post an update to this thread.

ChrisH821

I see no indication that it could be cameo.

cameonut2011

I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. I see no contrast at all.

WiscKau

Sorry but no. Here is a 68 Cameo:

Maywood

My “guess” with a Nickel dated 1957 or 1958 would be no without even seeing the coin.

SanctionII

So far 7 responses are No and 0 responses are yes.

I will give an update when I receive the proof set.

leothelyon

@WiscKau said:
Sorry but no. Here is a 68 Cameo:

Miss-graded! Reverse lacks frost. Here's my best shot at photography of a cameo 1957 PCGs pr67 Jeff. Imo DCAM!

Leo

SanctionII

From the GC photo the PF68 CAM nickel posted by WiscKau, IMO, does not warrant a CAM designation due to the lack of adequate frost on the reverse devices (I agree with Leothelyon).

From his photo Leothelyon's PF67CAM nickel looks fantastic and I expect that in hand it looks even better.

I was very lucky to have made these two PF67CAM 1957 nickels in 2023 (which I found raw in an OGP set at a local shop and in a Capital holder set at a local show three weeks apart). They are both very nice but they do not look as good as Leothelyon's pictured PF67CAM as the frost is heavier on his coin.

crazyhounddog

From the pics you’re showing looks like it could be possible but they are poor pics.
Good luck and for sure let us know how it turns out.

WiscKau

@leothelyon said:

@WiscKau said:
Sorry but no. Here is a 68 Cameo:

Miss-graded! Reverse lacks frost. Here's my best shot at photography of a cameo 1957 PCGs pr67 Jeff. Imo DCAM!

Leo

Expert Graders beg to differ Leo.

Maywood

Amateur non-graders also beg to differ.

safari_dude

I can guarantee you if it was my coin and I sent it in it would come back as questionable color, cleaned, graffiti, UNC details, in a body bag and with a note to never send anything in again….lol. Still you have a nice coin. Hope it meets your expectations.

leothelyon

@SanctionII said:
From the GC photo the PF68 CAM nickel posted by WiscKau, IMO, does not warrant a CAM designation due to the lack of adequate frost on the reverse devices (I agree with Leothelyon).

From his photo Leothelyon's PF67CAM nickel looks fantastic and I expect that in hand it looks even better.

I was very lucky to have made these two PF67CAM 1957 nickels in 2023 (which I found raw in an OGP set at a local shop and in a Capital holder set at a local show three weeks apart). They are both very nice but they do not look as good as Leothelyon's pictured PF67CAM as the frost is heavier on his coin.

The lighting used on your two cameo proofs was inadequate. There are so many angles on the devices of a coin, that without enough lighting positioned around to bounce every segment of the surfaces back into the camera lens, reason why there are shadows/dark areas showing instead of the white devices you see in hand.
I'm still working on showing the deep black fields with all the white devices included. Not an easy task to master. I have made short videos to show those qualities together better, but the light keeps getting in the way.

Leo

WiscKau

@leothelyon said:

@WiscKau said:
Sorry but no. Here is a 68 Cameo:

Miss-graded! Reverse lacks frost. Here's my best shot at photography of a cameo 1957 PCGs pr67 Jeff. Imo DCAM!

Leo

I guess you're an expert grader for a major Grading Company then?

WiscKau

@SanctionII said:
From the GC photo the PF68 CAM nickel posted by WiscKau, IMO, does not warrant a CAM designation due to the lack of adequate frost on the reverse devices (I agree with Leothelyon).

From his photo Leothelyon's PF67CAM nickel looks fantastic and I expect that in hand it looks even better.

I was very lucky to have made these two PF67CAM 1957 nickels in 2023 (which I found raw in an OGP set at a local shop and in a Capital holder set at a local show three weeks apart). They are both very nice but they do not look as good as Leothelyon's pictured PF67CAM as the frost is heavier on his coin.

Repeat my above.