Cameo or not ?????? What is your opinion?

Zerbe

Anybody like to offer their opinion as to whether the 1885 PR66 CAM
Morgan below is truely a cameo ?? I know a photo makes it only an educated guess, but I have never seen a Morgan toned this dark in Cameo. It must have just made it for the Cameo, but of course it is just a photo and may look better in person. ?????

kieferscoins

Zerbe

Thanks Cameron, I did something wrong again, posting the picture.

Typetone

Paul:

Looks cameo to me.

Greg

oldcameoproofsguy

It would seem that the amount of toning on this example would preclude the coin from making a CAM. Heavy toning would surely affect the reflectivity of the fields. It must look a lot different in person than it does in the scan, or the coin slipped past the graders.

Zerbe

Oldcameoproof, I think the photo did not pick up any luster, whatsoever, and it is very hard to judge this coin by the photo.

coinguy1

Paul,

It looks "cameo" to me, too. From the image though, in my opinion, it is not a coin that justifies any premium for the designation.

We recently submitted an even more deeply toned coin for a client and it received the "Cameo" designation, as well.

You have raised an interesting and important matter. There are lots and lots of "cameo" coins out there, both in newer holders designated as such, and in older holders, not yet so designated. Many issues are not particularly scarce in "cameo", whether the current population reports indicate that or not. And, like almost everything else relating to grading, there is a great deal of subjectivity involved. There is also the matter of degree - not all "cameo's" are equal and thus, not all deserve the same valuations/prices.

Some of my comments above also apply to "deep/ultra cameo's".

Edited to add:

A number of people have mentioned the reflectivity of the mirror surfaces when discussing the "cameo" and "ultra/deep cameo" designations. While that plays some role, I think the more important determinant is the amount/degree of frost on the devices.

dragon

I would say that piece is a cameo, but it's awfully hard to tell for sure from that pic. Unless the toning is very deep and covers the devices entirely, you can usually tell if a toned piece is a cameo or not.

dragon

Typetone

Paul, Mark et all:

I really like the 19th century cameo proofs that have original toning and what I would call antique mirrors. Antique mirrors are pieces that have a smoky cast on them. Most modern proofs have deep reflective mirrors. Sometimes people dip 19th century proofs to try to recapture the the deep reflective mirrors. Often these come out looking terrible, with weak hairlined mirrors. All the Morgan is really missing in my view is a some magnificent rim toning to be able to command a premium.

Greg

Zerbe

Typetone, Dragon and Coinguy, I am absolutely amazed that you guys can say the coin is cameo by just that photo. I am not disagreeing with you, but with that toning on Liberty's face, how do you guys see 'frost' ?? Blast white Cameo and deep cameo were driving me crazy, already, but now with the toning added, I am totally lost. Can you really pick out frost in that photo ??

Mark, what is your best description of 'frost' ?? Thanks,,,,,,,,,,ZERBE

coinguy1

Paul, look at how Liberty's hair, in particular and her face, to a lesser extent, contrast against the fields. Granted, this is minimal/just make it cameo contrast, in my opinion. But, Liberty's face and hair are a different/lighter shade than the surrounding areas.

Zerbe

Thanks Mark, It is probably time for me to ' upgrade ' my glasses to a couple levels stronger. At least I'm glad the frost is only marginal.

DCAMFranklin

While reading another thread, it was said that PCGS is never wrong, so this must be Cameo. Right?

Zerbe

This ' frost thing ' is giving me hard time. Maybe I should stick all my proofs in the freezer and see if that helps me see the frost.

Gilbert

I'm a bit late on this thread, but I would like to add that it clearly looks appropriately designated to me, that is, provided the reverse devices are equally frosted.

Couple of other points:

The '85 proof allegedly usually have average contrast, and so could "possibly" be market-graded/designated, but more significant to me is that, since only about 930 '85 proofs were struck, I would expect it to be cameod.

Anybody know which die pair(s) the proofs were struck from?

keets

this is kind of a strange topic given the nature of some threads from the last week or two. coinguy starts one that wonders how anyone can give a reliable opinion from a scan, and yet........then Iwog has a thread wherein many assail the listings from Heritage as being loaded with problem coins........oh, well.

given all that, it seems clear that with modern proofs PCGS pays very close attention to the mirrors when assigning the CAM designation and for DCAM there needs to be the addittion of complete and evenly frosted devices. that's an almost given on post-1976 coins so the criteria comes mostly in play for pre-1976 proof issues. it appears from what i see at shows and online in scans------lord forbid i should trust them!!------that toning is taken into account when judging CAM/DCAM of older classic proof coinage. that's logical since the delicate fields would be most susceptible to a change in appearance as is demonstrated by the subject coin.

with all that said and without a reverse scan to look at, this isn't a coin i'd want at any kind of a premium. and more than the CAM designation, i'd be concerned with what appears in the scan as evidence of being cleaned in the fields around Ms. Liberty and in the lettering above her head, perhaps the "problems" referred to elsewhere.

al h.

Zerbe

I will hope that the picture I am trying to post here works. It is the reverse of the above 1885 PR66 CAM and I am posting it, for anyone to form a better opinion as to whether or not the coin is cameo or not. I guess the coin does make the cameo designation, but I will not bid on it in an upcoming auction, because I already have an 1885 PR66, that i like better.

keets

i would say cameo. all recessed areas of the die appear to be frosted while the fields are polished although hazed and/or toned.

al h.

FredSanford

Looks like a cameo to me -- not a heavy one, but there nonetheless.

Bear

I agree with Marc, the coin is marginal Cameo, but not heavy enough for

me to consider paying any premium for.

Gilbert

Question.

Why are you guys talking about paying a premium for a proof that should come no other way?

I understand that if it were untoned, heavily frosted or very attractively toned a premium may be in order, but this is a coin where a cameo contrast would be expected. Why are you all saying you wouldn't pay a premium? You shouldn't have to pay a premium, other than what you would pay for a proof Morgan.