Seated Liberty Half Dollars:"Cameo" vs. "Deep Cameo" Comparison/images - Updated

coinguy1

One of the coins below has been certified by PCGS as "Cameo" and the other as "Deep Cameo". The coins are both graded the same (sure, go ahead and guess the grade if you want to) but because of the designations, the "Deep Cameo" costs roughly 60% more.

Which would you rather have? But, before you answer, you should know, that for the grade in question, PCGS has recognized only four "Deep Cameo's" but forty-five "Cameo's" for all dates of With Motto Seated Liberty Half Dollars .

Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.......

Bear

I know the answer, but I will keep my mouth shut.

keithdagen

All things being equal, I want the 1882. The fields of the 1891 look cloudy, and that detracts to me.

RYK

I would rather have the 1882. The fields seem to be a lot cleaner.

And thank you for the post. It is provoctive and sure beats all the bashing (or "bagging" for you left coasters) that has become the norm here.

littlewicher

This seems almost too easy to be true? The second coin, from the picture shows nice dark fields and nice cameo, whereas the first coin doesn't have either as nice as the second.

BNE

I always suspect a trick question with these, but assuming the same photographer and same method, the bottom coin appears to have much more contrast, and would be more desirable to the cameo fan. I want number 2. Please send immediately.

braddick

I've got no choice- I have to go with the DCAM. Much more coin and although the fields look slightyly hairlined (as almost ALL Black & White DCAM Classics will via a photo!) it's just too rare of an animal to pass up for the CAM (although, is the CAM a slightly better date?).

coinguy1

No tricks, here, folks.

Remember, the "Deep Cameo" costs 60% more than the "Cameo". Part of the reason for my post was to see who thinks the premium is justified, based on both the appearances of the coins and the difference in populations.

Clankeye

As far as whether the DCAM premium is warranted, I don't feel that anyone who is not driven to collect and appreciate DCAM's is really in a position to say.

Numismatics is full of different areas of interest (full heads, FBL, full torch, steps etc. etc.) I think only the people that are truly mesmerized and driven to collect those things can decide how warranted a premium is.

I know that as a collector, when confronted with something that I am seeking, and that really rings my bell, I am inclined to pay premiums I'm sure that next guy (free of whatever particular affliction I am burdened with) would laugh at.

Clankeye

CalGold

Mark,

Here's a cop out answer. It depends on what the coins look like in person. I have seen a few designated cam that are not very cammy, and I doubt I'd pay much of a premium for one of those. But if the 1891 has dazzling eye appeal it will easily fetch the premium since they are few and far between.

CG

Elcontador

Mark,

Thanks for the images & the topic. The only proof coins I have are Barber Coinage and a Liberty & Shield Nickel. The mirrors on the 1891 are deeper, so I'd guess that it is the DCAM half.

I like the 1882 Half. It's sharply struck, clean surfaces and has nice eye appeal. It looks like a PQ coin to me.

I'd grade the 1891 Half a good two points below the 1882. The latter has an unacceptable amount of chatter in the viewer's right obverse field, and something gross-looking surrounding star seven. If there aren't any surprises re hairlines, I'd grade the 1891 a 3 & even then I wouldn't buy it for 3 money.

I'd never pay a premium for late Seated dated or Barber Proof CAM coinage, as much of it qualifies for thus designation. I don't see a point in collecting DCAM coinage, but to each his / her own, I guess.

tjkillian

The 1882 I'm guessing is CAM and the 1891 is DCAM. From the pictures, the 1882 is far superior, easily by two or more points. My rarest coin, from a pop report perspective, is an 1882 PCGS PR-63CAM and I love it. Your's is better than mine though.

Tom

greghansen

I'll try 64CAM for the 1882 and 64DCAM for the 1891. At a 60% premium I'd prefer to pass on the '91 and take the cleaner '82. The DCAM on the '91 just doesn't overcome the 'ratty' fields for me. I think the '82 is a much better representation of the grade than the '91.

CalGold

ttt

Perhaps the only topical post of the day and it is already getting buried.

CG

ANACONDA

I will take either but only after i've seen them in hand.

I have seen many Cameo coins that are very, very close to other coins designated Deep Cameo. In fact, I just shipped out a Cameo
Seated half that looked better than some deep cameo coins i've seen. Here it is:

roadrunner

Not much in the Cameo game but I liked the 1882 better from the start. It's a cameo+ while the other one is a Dcam- or liner on the obverse. Would not paythe crazy Dcam premium unless it was a no brainer black and white coin. The 1882 has more value per dollar than the 1891 as type coins go.

roadrunner

Ronyahski

Which would I have? No brainer, the 1882. Well, the picture anyway, hopefully the coin too.

Mark - I saw some coins at Baltimore, and heard from a few dealers, that both grading services won't give a designation even to the most obvious cameo coins if any part of them is covered by toning, even rim toning that might hide a small part of the cameo devices. Both newer and older coins included (a.k.a. modern and classics.) Any comment?

Regards

Mrpawn

I like coin #1 over #2 especially if #2 is more money

anaconda: that one is simply impressive

relayer

I find the marks that Miss Liberty is looking at too distractive to appreciate the deep cameo.

But since you asked which one "I would rather HAVE" I'd pick the 1891, only because I could sell it and then buy the 1882 and pocket the difference and have a great coin.

So, may I have it please?

coinguy1

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

If I counted the votes correctly, the 1882 (Cameo) wins 8 to 5 over the 1891 (Deep Cameo).

They are each graded PR65 by PCGS and the 1891 looks quite a bit better in person than the images would indicate.

Pat, according to the PCGS Population Report (and my experience) the 1882 would not qualify as a better date in PR65 condition.

Clankeye, spoken like a true collector.

CG - fair point.

Elcontador and Tom, as mentioned, the 1891 looks much better in real life.

Adrian, you said "I have seen many Cameo coins that are very, very close to other coins designated Deep Cameo. In fact, I just shipped out a Cameo Seated half that looked better than some deep cameo coins i've seen."

Unfortunately, I agree with you. I think PCGS has some problems with consistency in this area.

Ronyahski, you asked "Mark - I saw some coins at Baltimore, and heard from a few dealers, that both grading services won't give a designation even to the most obvious cameo coins if any part of them is covered by toning, even rim toning that might hide a small part of the cameo devices. Both newer and older coins included (a.k.a. modern and classics.) Any comment?"

Actually, that has NOT been my experience. In fact, we recently submitted a client's PR66 Seated Half for regrade and PCGS designated it "Cameo" despite the fact that it had medium toning, completely covering both sides. We never even thought about the possibility of a "Cameo" for the coin. I have seen other toned pieces receive the "Cameo" designation from PCGS, as well. I believe that NGC is tougher on both the "Cameo" and "Deep/Ultra Cameo" designations.

I am leaving town for a show shortly, but will try to post images of the PR66 Seated Half when I return.

Edited to add: I just located the images. The coin is darker (but even prettier) in person and it received the"Cameo" designation at the last Long Beach show:

Elcontador

Mark,

I'd prefer THAT No Motto toned proof half over ANY blast white one you can find in that grade.

Trime

Hi Mark,
I have been away for a couple of weeks and out of touch with the forum.
The coins are nice. From the pics I would have chosen the 1882 over the 1891. That said the 91 has excellent strike and great contrast.

I gather what looks like chatter in the fields of the 91 is really breaks in the toning.
Best wishes