Philosophical question on grades

RWW

Let's say that I have a coin graded as Proof-68 Cameo. Would you consider the same date coin in Proof-67 Ultra (or Deep) Cameo to be an upgrade over the first? How about if it was in Proof-66 Ultra Cameo?

XpipedreamR

No. I look at cameos and brilliant proofs as two different animals. I don't feel that cameo is the quintessence of proofhood, personally.

CarlWohlforth

I agree brilliants and cameos are different things. However the question is about a cameo versus a deep cameo. Personally I prefer the Ultra cameo. The difference between a PR 67 and PR 68 is pretty slight. So I would, in most cases, choose the 67 Ultra as an upgrade to a 68 Cameo.

To complicate things cameo comes on a sliding scale, there are just made it cameos and just missed Ultra cameos. So I might keep a PR 68 cameo that just barely missed Ultra status over a 67 Ultra that just barely made it. I might also prefer a super frosty 66 Ultra to an average 68 cameo.

XpipedreamR

In your case here, talking strictly about cameos, I still wouldn't want to go down in grade to get more cameo contrast.



Added: After reading Carl's post, I don't know...I guess you could get a 67 that looks as good as a 68, and if it has much more contrast, then I suppose I would go for it. I don't think I would go down too far, though, like to 65, in order to get more contrast. I would have to judge with the coins in hand, whether I felt it was an "upgrade."


What I would probably really do is get them all...I would have my higher grade with lesser cameo, and then a lower grade with monster cameo just to have an example of that type.

roadrunner

I've never considered CAM or DCAM as an upgrade to a non-camoed coin. This is just terminology created by individuals in the early 1990's much the same way that FSB, FH, FT, FBL and other monickers got started. If the CAM adds eye-appeal then factor it into its price, not the grade. The idea that DCAM "adds" the equivalent of "2 points" to the "net grade" is lunacy...but then again dealers had to find a way to make money in the down early 1990's market.

I'll take a totally original and attractive PF 67 type coin over a dipped out and conserved CAM or DCAM anyday. Fact is, nearly every early DCAM is dipped out. What makes that so special? And how many years down the road before that sucker turns back with ugly brown toning? I only own 4 CAM seated proofs and all are originally toned coins. There is no other way. The unnatural conserved look has never been for me.

roadrunner

FrattLaw

I would absolutely consider a CAM or DCAM an upgrade over a brillant proof. Unlike Xpipe -- I think frosty devices are far more eye appealing and what was intended as a "look" for proof coins. As for a lower numerical grade vs. a better cam designation -- absolutely take the the lower numerical with the CAM/DCAM designation over the higher brillant proofs. But then again, there are exceptions. I would take a PR69 over a PR66CAM most of the time. Also as stated by Carl it depends on eye appeal as well.

Michael