Is this a cameo?

relayer · February 4, 2003 3:39PM

coppercoins · February 4, 2003 3:49PM

Looks like a cameo to me.

LucyBop · February 4, 2003 4:38PM

I think the frost is to weak in the bell. I also think that this is one of those photos that makes a coin appear more cam then what it really is.

relayer · February 4, 2003 4:40PM

Well, it sold for cameo money. Could be a very disappointing regrade.

LucyBop · February 4, 2003 4:42PM

I would have passed on this one...

DCAMFranklin · February 4, 2003 4:46PM

You are right Lucy. Coin was too high. Attractive obverse, yet the reverse had no chance of receiving cameo. The photography reminded me of another seller.

greghansen · February 4, 2003 8:56PM

Yea, it has the look of coins photographed under flourescent lighting, which can be expensively deceptive!

CapAnson · February 4, 2003 9:43PM

Yeah I think franklin glowing like bruce banner after radiation exposure tells you the lighting is bad on that one..

1956Quarter · February 4, 2003 9:46PM

Yes, both sides are CAM, but not DCAM. I'd not pay that kind of money either way. I have some CAMS but they are very light.

smprfi · February 4, 2003 9:55PM

I will say no.

Steve27 · February 4, 2003 10:12PM

I saw this auction a while ago, and I immediately concluded that the holder was correct and the image was not.

CarlWohlforth · February 4, 2003 11:41PM

Frankie's hair looks brilliant. If it isn't a shadow the obverse isn't cameo.

Gilbert · February 5, 2003 1:53AM

On a boring day, maybe.

I think Steve hit the nail on the head when he concluded that " ...the holder was correct and the image was not."

Why? I believe you will find that, although a very nice looking specimen, this one falls short of what you can expect AND find for a '55 cameo proof Franklin half dollar. I believe that is PCGSs frame of reference.

1956Quarter · February 5, 2003 2:11AM

So whats being said here? Are we saying that if a Franklin Half proofs devices are not totally and heavily frosted its not a Cameo, or are we saying that this coin although it looks frosted its actually not frosted at all? My learning has always been that if the devices are frosted, be they heavy and full or very light and not so full, its still a Cameo, if they are very heavily frosted with dark mirror backgrounds its a DCAM. I have quiet a few lightly frosted device proof Frankies, and I call them Cameos, light Cameos, but Cameos none the less. Lucy? Whats your groove on this hepcat?

Gilbert · February 5, 2003 2:20AM

'56Qtr

I should have been more specific. IMO, it doesn't meet the PCGS requirement for the CAM designation. The coin does present a cameo appearance though.

Regarding PCGSs standard it should be even and no breaks (paraphrased so I wouldn't have to get out my book and quote). It very well could be the image, but there appears to be a break in frost on the top of Ben's head (where one normally loses hair

), but there is no doubt that the bell has obvious gradations from an almost DCAM at the borders to practically brilliant at the center.

Russ · February 5, 2003 3:08AM

Is this a cameo?

The answer is no (according to PCGS).

The design of the Franklin and the convex nature of the devices makes it very easly to shoot the coin so that it appears with more cameo contrast than it has in reality.

The coin in the auction is not a cameo.

Russ, NCNE

tracker · February 5, 2003 3:24AM

From the photo, I would agree "no cam". Russ hit the nail on the head. Personally, I have never been completely satisfied with any photo I have taken. I seem to get right to the edge of satisfaction, but never there. Over emphasis, under emphasis... but that "just as the coin appears when I am holding it " is always elusive. I admire the photos some members are able to take. Perfectionism can drive a person crazy in this hobby. Where's my Paxil?

LucyBop · February 5, 2003 3:59AM

I have many Proof Frankies such as this one, yes, they have Cam in both the obverse and reverse. This half has both, just not enough frost in the reverse for the desgination........ I would have liked this coin but at a cheaper price........ As you can see from Russ's photo, magic can be done, cause that half of Russ's would pass for a easy cam.

1956Quarter · February 5, 2003 6:31AM

The only thing I take issue with is "No according to PCGS". Who are they to set such a standard? Pretty arrogant I think on their part. As I said, I was always taught that if the device is frosted, even lightly, its a CAM...period. Its a yes or no thing it is or it isn't. Thats the way it was back in the 60's when I started and learned from the old pro's, who is PCGS to change that? Now, if the photo is making it appear that its frosted when in fact its not, then there is an issue. Thats the way I feel about it, anyway. Thanks for the feedback... now for some real food, I'M starved! Dooooogh...nuuuuuttttsss.

LucyBop · February 5, 2003 6:42AM

Another grading service may give it a cam but yes, according to PCGs standards this one wouldn't and didn't pass. I don't deny it has cam, I have several like this, they just don't have enough for PCGs to give it the desgination... But I'll agree, just cause PCGs sez a coin isn't cam doesn't mean that the coin doesn't have cam, just not enough for PCGs to give it the grade.. Is PCGs the final say? I guess that depends on what ones goals are, since I have a Frankie Proof Registry set, I am trying to acquire coins that fit their standard. A standard that has the highest re-sale value..... So far on submission I am 2 for 2 on DCAMS with another that may not even get graded hanging in the balance.......... I love my coins that are not cam, they are still beautiful Frankies.... that do have some CAM...

mnmcoin · February 5, 2003 3:09PM

I don't think it is quite enough for a designation, and besides that I would be happy to sell my PCGS designated 67cam for that $. Why on earth would anyone pay $200 for a light cam 1955 PR66? Auction madness or shill?

morris <><

Is this a cameo?

Comments

Leave a Comment