PCGS Cameo considerations. Pics posted!

DHeath

My most recent submission results are in, and are as follows: (Inv# 342641)

1 60044387 1971-S 50C PR66CA (ICG PR69 Dcam)
2 60044388 1965 50C SMS MS66CA
3 60044389 1967 50C SMS MS64
3 60044390 1967 50C SMS MS67
3 60044391 1967 50C SMS MS64
3 60044392 1967 50C SMS MS67
3 60044393 1967 50C SMS MS66
4 60044394 1972-D 50C MS65
5 60044395 1974-D 50C MS65
6 60044396 1967 1C SMS MS67RD
7 60044397 1971-S 1C MS66CA
8 60044398 1974-D 5C MS65
9 60044399 1979-D 5C MS65FS
10 60044400 1973 5C MS63FS
11 60044401 1967 5C SMS MS66
11 60044402 1967 5C SMS MS66
12 60044403 1965 5C SMS MS67
13 60044404 1965 10C SMS MS67
13 60044405 1965 10C SMS MS67

I submitted the ICG coin for fun, but the other coins were serious submissions. There were a total of 12 SMS coins in the submission. I count the 65 half at Dcam, and the 65 Jeff Cam+. The 65 Rosy's are solid cams, and at least one of the 67 halves is a solid cam. Obviously, PCGS has a different cam standard than I do. I have yet to get a feel for their cam benchmark. In an effort to improve my grading skills, it is my intention to submit the same coins in exactly the same order to NGC Monday, and will post a few pics here and ask opinions. I will post the NGC results in a few weeks. I'm anxious to see the difference. If two services tell me the same thing, I'll get my glasses checked.

Russ

<< <i>Obviously, PCGS has a different cam standard than I do. >>



PCGS has a different CAM standard than the rest of the planet, including themselves from a prior time.

Nice score on that '65 SMS half, though.

Russ, NCNE

Elcontador

At the risk of offending some people here -- though I assure you that no offense is meant -- from a 19th Century type standpoint, many proof coins of certain series qualify for this designation, and I think that it has been added strictly to generate additional submission revenues.
People familiar with such coins know this, and will not pay additional $ for them, however, people who buy the holder, not the coin may pay a premium. Good examples here are late Seated and Barber proof coins.

This designation may be quite rare for some coins -- like Buffalo Nickels or Capped Bust Quarters -- but it is not rare for the coins mentioned above. I have a set of Barber coinage in PF 65, and all of them could IMO qualify for the CAM designation. I will not submit them for the reasons above.

MAULUMALL

In an effort to improve my grading skills, it is my intention to submit the same coins in exactly the same order to NGC Monday, and will post a few pics here and ask opinions. I will post the NGC results in a few weeks. I'm anxious to see the difference.

Sounds like a plan.
I for one will be Very interested in the outcome.

DHeath

Elcontador,

No offense taken, and in fact I agree. I think I favor no designation, or maybe a 1-10 scale. I believe cam is the one area even the purest amateur is as qualified to judge as the most astute grader. Amazingly enough (to me at least), the 1965 MS66 Cam coin I submitted is probably a $150-$200 coin, and a Dcam designation would make it a $1500-$2000 coin. The difference may be as slight as how frosty the lettering is. This is one area where the market is entirely goofy IMHO.

PhillyJoe

I also do not think that the cameo and deep cameo is all that clear. I actually think there is "light cameo", "cameo", "medium cameo" and "deep (ultra) cameo". Some of my ngc Kennedys are listed as ultra cameo when in fact they are medium. Since pcgs does not have such a designation, it would be a cameo in their book; a big step down. I'll be watching your submissions.

Joe

Russ

I just grabbed an NGC cameo designated '64 today. I haven't bought an NGC graded Kennedy in a while, and the ones I'd purchased in the past were overgraded with very weak cameo. This one was very recently graded, so I want to see if they've improved any in this series.

Russ, NCNE

Cam40

I couldnt understand it either.Say you have a frosted proof coin,and the frosting is broken from say,a contact mark,is it not still a cameo coin,just a lower grade?
PCGS would not even recognize the cameo at all,and just give it some PF #,if that.

Does that sound right?

DHeath

Russ, I'd be interested to see what you think. The last few invoices I've sent NGC have been pretty dead-on. I believe the grading is very similar at both companies right now, but they still differ with regard to cam designation. I'll post the regrades on these when they come back.

PhillyJoe

Russ, you know I can't wait to hear what you think about this one! Nice coin & price. I talked to R & I today; they're my number one Kennedy supplier - go back to collecting two cents, OK?

Joe

robertpr

NGC is notoriously easy on the cam designation, and PCGS is notoriously tough. There is no happy medium. If PCGS had their way, EVERY coin on the planet would be a no-cam, and we would all just keep on sending them in for regrades, just hoping to get a cam designation Seriously though, the best route is if your coins are heavily cameo'd, send to PCGS, and if they're borderline, NGC 'em!

I also wanted to add that it seems PCGS (and all other grading firms) just automatically call coins from the last 5 years DCAM, even if they're not. Have you seen some of the recent statehood proofs? WEAK cameo, many frost breaks. All DCAM's. I just get sick every time I compare a statehood "dcam" to a proof Franklin, where the Franklin is more heavily frosted and yet recieves no cam but the statehood quarter gets a dcam!

Russ

<< <i>go back to collecting two cents, OK? >>



Joe,

Can't I do both? BTW, did you notice the world's ugliest Accented Hair I grabbed yesterday?

Russ, NCNE

Cam40

Yup.
Knowing what your submitting could save you some grief.
Or knowing how the different services look at coins.

Cam40

oh hell,Sorry Don.Not intended as a barb towards you or anyone in particular.
I just realized how that might have sounded.

Cam40

Russ? Ugly? That AH?
I think its cute as anything...

PhillyJoe

Russ, you gonna clean up that puppy or send it to the dry cleaners (ncs)?

robertpr

Russ that wouldn't be so ugly if not for the spots. The background doesn't help it, does it?

Russ

Joe,

I'll have to take a look at it once it gets here and evaluate it's potential. I'm thinking that if the poor thing is that ugly in reality, I may leave it that way. The reverse looks like somebody stuck their used gum on it.

Russ, NCNE

Cam40

Russ.I think you just highjacked Dons` thread.

DHeath

Cam, I didn't take it that way, and like I said, I'll be the first to admit I'm unsure where PCGS's benchmark is on the SMS non-Kennedy coins. I have many examples of the 65-67 Kennedy's in Cam and a few Dcams I've made myself, but the PCGS's standard for SMS dimes, nickels, and pennies is relatively new to me. I'll put up a pic of a Dcam 67 Kennedy I made side by side with the 65 PR66 Cam on this invoice, and see if there is measureable difference. IMO, cameo is fuller and far heavier on the 65 with better mirrors, hence my confusion. BTW - Cam, on your other question, I had a 63 Rosy on another invoice that I thought had a shot at dcam, and it posted nocam, so I called customer service and asked for a relook. The explanation I was given was that the coin was very nice, but the frost was not as heavy on the back of Roosevelt's head as it was on the rest of the coin. In other words, it was frosty, but not as frosty. I assume (wrongly) by definition in the PCGS Guide that this is indeed the definition for cam (full frost, lighter in some areas).

Robert, I hope you're correct. I know NGC used to be easier on cam, but I'm unsure where their standard is today. What I do know for sure is that an NGC PR67 Cam Rosy is worth more than a PCGS PR67 nocam Rosy, and certainly a 1965 NGC MS66 Ucam Kennedy is worth more than a 1965 PCGS MS66 Cam in today's market, so the results will be interesting. As I was saying earlier in the thread, these are all pretty nice coins, with medium to heavy cameo. I was a little surprised that none of the 12 got the benefit of the doubt.

oldcameoproofsguy

Elcontador,

I took no offense to your thread. However, I feel it necessary to elaborate a little.

There are many years of the Seated Liberty and Barber proof coinage where cameo examples are abundant and a premium should not be paid. However, there are also many years, especially post 1900 Barbers where the dies were poorly prepared and cameos are rare or possibly non existent. In these cases one would expect to pay a premium.

I guess it is really a matter of perspective. Whether one is looking at the series as part of a type collection or whether one is collecting by date.

I don't know if you have any quarters but the 1899, 1902, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1913, 1914 or 1915 would be worth having a CAM on the holder. The rest of the dates it probably wouldn't matter.

Cam40

This area of grading must be right at the top of the scale,and bewildering to most non-professionals.

Like me.

Maybe its rightly so.PCGS has a reputation to keep as THE top service in the field.

It makes their slabs that much more desirable.

IrishMike

NGC is notoriously weak on cameo designations and PCGS is tough? Ok I know nothing about Kennedy cameo designations. But I do know a lot about cameo designations on Washington proofs. I own at least one coin for every year they were minted in proof, including the 34-42 series. Robert I hope this comment was only directed toward Kennedies, becuase nothing could be further from the truth in my experience with Washingtons.

I started collecting them with my two daughters. They saw a coin they liked and we bought it. After purchasing over a hundred of them over the years and with no knowledge of either grading company, we bought the coins we liked, I have sold all of my PCGS coins with the exception of two. Why, because there was no rhyme or reason to their cameo designation, even my two daughters picked up on that one and they aren't collectors. We lined up all the coins and we decided which were cameo, deep cameo or not cameo. We chose to keep the NGC coins because we could tell what they were not only by our judgment but by what was on the grading insert. Some of the PCGS graded cameos, well what can I say, we never did find a cameo on them. To the point, the vast majority of NGC cameos all looked alike, the ultra cameos the same thing. The non cameos, only a couple we argued with.

I remember the conversation I had with the girls, this PCGS company is all over the planet on its designations. We chose to keep the NGC quarters becuase of the consistency of the designation.

DHeath

Thanks Mike. I have some 50's PCGS Washingtons that are baffling too, but you made my point perfectly. Cam/Dcam should be less technical, and more about the appearance of the coin, or the designation should be improved enough to accurately reflect the coin's appearance. BTW - Do your daughters still collect? I think that is a wonderful thing.

MAULUMALL

Hey Russ I knew that you were gonna get that coin.The Pr68 cameo I won from them last week I recieved today.Black spots all over the obverse.A few small spots on the reverse.Great strike and cameo.I think I have about 6 Kennedy's going to NCS and getting regraded.

robertpr

Mike,

I don't have any experience with the Washingtons, but I agree with your overall statement. NGC's cam designation does seem to be more about the overall appearance of the coin. I don't necessarily think a small hairline should prevent a coin from getting a cam designation.

Unless I misread your post, what you said is that the coins you and your daughters thought were cameos, that were in PCGS holders, weren't designated as cameo. Wouldn't that indicate to you that PCGS is very tough on the cameo designation?

I'm not trying to make a judgement call as to PCGS vs NGC. All I'm saying is they have differing standards, and the PCGS standard seems to be tougher. But if a coin looks cameo to me and it doesn't have the designation, will I not buy it? No, because I don't buy the plastic.

Russ

<< <i>I have sold all of my PCGS coins with the exception of two. Why, because there was no rhyme or reason to their cameo designation >>



Mike,

When comparing Kennedy's graded by PCGS over different periods of time, I find EXACTLY the same problem. They are all over the map. I have DCAMs graded years ago by them that today might make CAM. I have recently submitted DCAMs that are in CAM holders. I have PCGS CAMs that I cracked out and re-submitted that did not get the CAM designation the second time around.

But, current submissions DO have a rhyme and reason. It goes like this:

Super nova devices and black hole mirrors might get you a CAM if the grader's getting laid regularly.

OTOH, I've seen a lot of NGC graded Kennedy's designated CAM that should not have been in a CAM holder at all. But, as I said earlier in the thread, I just grabbed a recently graded coin to see if that's still the case.

Russ, NCNE

CarlWohlforth

I started out collecting Cameo Prooof NGC Jeffersons about 4 or 5 years ago. I liked the look of cameo proof Jeffs and the NGC coins were much cheaper for the same grade. I started looking for upgrades. I often found PCGS coins one grade less that were nicer. They had better cameo contrast and better fields.

It is hard to really be objective and obvservant when comparing cameo contrast on proof Jeffersons. The differences in the level and evenness of cameo contrast are very subtle. It has taken me several years of comparing proof Jeffersons to get to the point where I can actually feel confident in my grading abilities. And that is only for proof Jeffersons.

In my experience it is clear that the NGC standard for cameo allows for significantly less contrast than PCGS's standard. The NGC standard for Ultra is much closer to PCGS's standard for DCAM. Both companies appear to be fairly consistent across the years.

This is not to say that a nice set of PF 68 Cam Jeffs isn't worth persuing! I still think they are very beautiful coins.

IrishMike

Just for clarification, and let me emphasis this, at the point in time all knew about the grading companies were that these two were the most respected by the majority of collectors. What we discovered is that we could look at an NGC coin and determine whether it was cameo, ultra cameo, or not a cameo at all by comparing them to one another, no way we could do that with PCGS, some designated cameos, looked like deep cameos, others didn't look like cameos at all compared to the NGC coins designated as cameos and others that PCGS had designated cameos. Rather than get frustrated trying to figure out what PCGS was trying to tell us with their grading, we jettisoned them. PCGS is tougher to figure out in one respect, tougher to figure out how they came up with the grades.

Don, no my daughters have mostly lost interest in any coin collecting.

DHeath

OK,

I finally got an opportunity to take a few pics. Below are links to two of the coins from this invoice. In your honest opinion, which description on the holder better describes these coins, no cam, or cam. I'm just getting started with the Jeffs, so criticism is appreciated. Perhaps I just haven't seen enough nice examples. As for the Kennedy, I have several of them with similar frost that have the cam designation, so I suppose it was just too close for comfort.

Obverse in holder
Obverse closeup
Reverse closeup

67 Kennedy in holder
Obverse closeup
Closeup reverse

MAULUMALL

Did they put that fingerprint on the Kennedy?

DHeath

No, it's on the holder. My bad.

MAULUMALL

I think that you need to send it to NGC.I can see your point.

Cam40

Don-I guess the Kennedy better represents the grade on the slab.IMO.
A 67 for the Jeff seems generous given the deep contact mark under the eye.

Also,on the Half,,,If shot with the ol` black shoe box trick you might convince us all its should be a PF 69DCAM.

DHeath

Don-I guess the Kennedy better represents the grade on the slab.IMO.
A 67 for the Jeff seems generous given the deep contact mark under the eye.

Cam, I agree 100% with your grade assessment. I think the Jeff is a 1 point overgrade, but my concern was with whether these coins fit PCGS's cameo description. It seems that both have a nice cameo appearance. Neither is dcam, but neither is brilliant either. Here is PCGS's cameo description as given in "The Official Guide To Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection":

Cameo(CAM) is the designation following the numerical grade on some modern Proof coins (1950 to date) that have light to moderate frosting of the devices. Both sides must have frosting to attain Cam status: however, if there are some small areas (preferably the reverse devices) where the frost fades slightly or small patches of brilliance, the coin may still qualify for the Cam designation. Some Cam designations exhibit even, light frost. ....etc

My question is simply this, if the criteria for cam designation is "light frost", do these coins qualify? Coincidentally, the 65 coin was single struck on an unpolished planchet, and really isn't proof by most accounts. Frost is arguably more uncommon on these coins. Is the criteria the same?

CarlWohlforth

Look like a nice reverse on that Jeff! I think these are harder in DCAM than the '64s for sure. Undervalued coins.

I certainly would pay a premium for an almost cameo Jeff like that. Maybe PCGS should adopt the * (star) system like NGC. I'll bet it goes Cameo over at NGC.

Cam40

I think that too.Most ,if not all, your cams will get the designation.

Or,,,Have your shipped the crossovers yet?
I might just call PCGS and point out what their own guide says,and demand them to holder those with the proper designation please.Or tell them to write a new standards guide and to send you one.

Seems new standards are creeping in on the hobby unbeknownst to most.

I never saw it coming either.

clevegreg

Nice looking coins! As Russ has mentioned, I think since he gas mentioned so much , the mirrors seem to matter almost as much as the amount of frost on the coin. The Jeff obverse mirrors seem to be pretty week, but it could be the scan. The reverse looks very nice. The Kennedy I really can't tell, once again the mirrors on these coins will make or break the CAM designation.

Just my Fifty five cents worth

Greg

DHeath

Thank you for the well reasoned replies. I think all of these coins are borderline, and none are what anyone would consider rare or valuable with or without the cam designation. Carl, I really appreciate your posting the picture of your 65 MS67 Cam Jeff Obverse as it gives me an idea what the mirror standard is. Pictures are hard for these coins, so maybe I'll buy a few benchmark pieces.

I guess my only point, if I have one is that these coins aren't brilliant, but exhibit some cameo. If the holder is supposed to facilitate sight-unseen trading, it misses describing these coins properly. Maybe it is time for another designation, like "Light Cam", or "You Wish".

mnmcoin

My experience with NGC recently has been they are just as tough on DCAM or Ultra as they call it, and are slightly easier on cam coins. Just got a 53 half graded 67cam by NGC when it was graded 66 no cam at PCGS. Also a 51 penny 66cam at NGC when it was 66rd at PCGS...for the most part they seem pretty similar right now across the board those were the only two that really worked at NGC out of maybe 60 I sent spread on four or five invoices. Maybe they just don't like me yet.

morris <><

keets

one thing not mentioned is evenness of cameo between obv/rev.

one side DCAM, one side faint cam, designated no cam. i think cameo coins, regardless of series and designation, are an area where buying the coin is ultra-important versus buying the holder. many classics aren't designated and carry no premium as such, yet are lovely coins when the devices are frosted. many 36-76 proofs are one sided cams or faint cams that won't get the designation and as such are bargains considering the prices of true DCAM's.

Don---no big secret that NGC assigns CAM more frequently and i see no advantage in getting that on the holders unless the coins are really knockouts. i like your approach of trying to have some coins to use as a comparison and find the same problem, inconsistency. my solution is to be very harsh in my judgement before i submit, swallow hard when i disagree and bite my tongue when the thought of increasing PCGS/NGC revenues with multiple resubmission crackouts occurs to me. unless the printing on the insert is important to you, i think you'll be better off with a harshly graded coin in a PCGS holder. and no, i'm not an ostrich, PCGS homeboy or anything. it's just what i've learned.

al h.

Russ

<< <i>A 67 for the Jeff seems generous given the deep contact mark under the eye.

Cam, I agree 100% with your grade assessment. I think the Jeff is a 1 point overgrade. >>



This is one thing I've learned about PCGS's approach to grading. If the coin is very, very close to CAM in their opinion, but they can't quite bring themselves to grant the designation, the coin will frequently get a one point bump. I've even had this suspicion confirmed by an insider.

Russ, NCNE

DHeath

Pretty smart Al.

Edited to add - Russ, and I think they also go the other way with ugly cameos. Thanks.

IrishMike

Russ, I have heard this too, I wonder why they just don't add some designation, like a * or something. Oops nevermind the experts on here wouldn't stand for that, they would rather have it misattributed and overgraded. (ducking)