Opinions wanted on "Moderns" and on "Cameos".

SanctionII

Have not posted much lately, but I am spending a few minutes on the forums while putting in some office time this weekend.

I have responded to posts by Russ (1961 "modern crap" grape colored Proof cent) and Marty (Hazy 1955 CAMDCAM Franklin) and doin so got me to thinkin.

I like CAMDCAM coins that predate 1971 and have been involved in many posts about same. I also like coins made during my lifetime (1956 forward), aka "modern crap" to some. Many other forum members like CAMDCAM coins and also like certain types of "modern crap".

My questions to you are why? Why do some of you like (obsess over) CAMDCAM proof and SMS coins? What is it about these coins that attract you to them? Same questions for those who like (obsess over "modern crap")

For those of you who do not like CAMDCAMs and/or "modern crap" what is it about these coins that turn you off? For those series that you do collect, what are they and what is is about those coins that attract you to them.

As for me, I like the CAMDCAM coins, and I like some "modern crap" coins (i.e. clad quarters, non proof franklins, certain none proof Jeffersons) for various reasons. First, they are available in the market place, both raw and slabbed so that you can "hunt" for and "cherrypick" them with some degree of success. Second, you can also find them at prices which are very easy on the budget ($1.00 - $100.00 and sometimes picking up 10 coins at $50.00 each is more fun that picking up 1 coin at $500.00). Third, if you develop a good eye for them, you can pick out winners and have a very good chance of making profit on the coin(s) when you resell them (i.e. Russ for example with his Silver CamDCAM Kennedies). Fourth, they are coins that have a connection to my everyday life (both as a 7 year old kid, as a teenager, as college kid and now as adult with a wife and kids). Fifth, they are coins which other persons (collectors or not) can also identify with as being a part of their lives. Sixth, the CAMDCAM coins are fascinating because they represent the finest expression of a minter's "art" created at a time when production techniques were primative (compared to today) and when the "human factor" played a much bigger role in the quality of the product. Seventh, "modern crap" (however you define it) has been and is ignored by many persons in the hobby and by the general public, thus notwithstanding huge mintages, the survival rate of certain post 1964 coins in the highest condition is small. That makes finding and preserving such coins for future generations of collectors a fun and a noble undertaking.

Looking forward to hearing your answers to my questions. SanctionII.

Russ

I like them because they're pretty.

Russ, NCNE

gamer1958

As Russ says--they're pretty. I agree with that--show a DCAM to most non-collectors and they are amazed by the appearance of the coin. As Russ and Marty prove, its still possible to find those 1 out of 20 CAMs/DCAMs in the 50s-60s proof sets, so there is still the "thrill of the hunt" aspect of collecting/finding that is missing from going thru pocket change or bank rolls. I like all CAM/DCAM proofs, but I am partial to halves; I also like Walkers (beautiful coins) in mint state. For me, going back to the Barber series or earlier...well, its really a question of my collecting budget; the early Bust halves are great (love the eagle on it, which gives a great historic feel for how our coinage changed over the years)--I just can't afford those 63-64-65 examples.

My own questions--why is it that so few Walking Liberty proofs made CAM? How many exist (anyone own one and would mind to post a pic)? If the mint was turning out CAM/DCAM coinage as early as the 19th Century (Morgans, IHCs, etc), well, what happened with the Walkers (and Buffs?).

DHeath

Sanction, I like the SMS coins because they're capable of so many different personalities. During the period in which they were manufactured, the mint did everything within their power to discourage collectors, and in doing so inadvertently created one of the most collectible and interesting moderns to date. They are clad, lack mintmark, and were poorly handled, yet are generally well preserved. They are not proofs, yet were not intended for circulation. The very best examples can pose as deep cameo proofs and nicely complete a proof set, and the non-cameo coins can look like specimen coins. Even though they were more carefully prepared than the circ coins, the Jeffs never come with steps, and many of the coins exhibit multiple struck-thrus. The Kennedys provide several major variety coins. They were largely shunned by collectors for years, and can now be counted as the most expensive coins in their respective series in the right grade/designation. That's a good start.

cladking

I like to collect coins and part of this is obtaining rarity and having complete sets. I also like
collecting US coins and find it impossible to compete with well heeled collectors in obtaining rare
old coins. Indeed it was even impossible to compete with other collectors in assembling collec-
tions of more recent coins like Franklins and silver Washingtons. Even as far back as 1999 a sil-
ver Washington collection sold for $100,000. This collection required huge effort and expense to
assemble which put it far out of my reach. But it is still possible to put together sets of modern
crap. Whether it's proof or unc, regular issue or special issues there are scarce coins that are
actually available for whoever gets there first. There aren't large numbers of collectors for the
junk so it is out there. Even if you find it hard to beat other collectors the coins can be purchased
at quite reasonable prices.

Putting together the modern collections requires a great deal of knowledge and effort but it can
be done very cheaply whether you buy the coins slabbed or raw.

SanctionII

I also agree with Russ, they are very pretty and I also like looking at them.

Setting out a hoard (you pick the number but at least 50) of cameo half dollars on a table at night under good lighting makes quiet a sight. Sort of like being at a roller disco rink with a rotating mirrored ball and a strobe light.

dbldie55

They are fun to spend a week putting sets together.

Cameonut

I like the pre - 1975 deep cameo proofs because they have "eye appeal". Go to a show and look at the dealers cases - the cameos jump out at you - begging to be looked at.

Although they are getting harder and harder to find in proof sets - cameos can still be found out there. There is still the thrill of the hunt to find these sets. In addition, many of the dates in the '50's are tough to find in cameo making cameo sets a challenge to put together.

cameoproofcoins

They represent the epitome of proof coinage. That is why the mint makes the modern proofs in cameo. The 1950-1970 were mostly brilliant. Finding cameos before 1950 is quite challenging. Generally the eye is drawn to a black and white cameo or a wildly toned coin.

AgMe

Hello all,

I usually only want DCAMs, because they take my breath away (I think they are so beautiful). That being said, I'll also buy a "brilliant" coin if it has interesting toning, and blast white silver dollar size coins for "the hoard".

::takes out silver Maple leaf pocket piece::

Much like "Goldmember", I love silver!

...the look of it... the feel of it...

-g

Jdurg

I like 'Modern Crap' because, well, I can afford them. A short while ago I completed my Roosevelt Dime collection including the proof coins. Finally, I have a complete series of coins. From 1946-Now, both the business strikes and the proof coins. There is no way in hell I could have afforded to put together a set of Mercury Dimes, including proof coins, in the condition that my Roosies are in. So for someone on a tight budget like myself, the modern coins gives me a chance to complete a set without putting myself in financial ruin. (Now I'm working on my other circulation sets which I'll have to take a bit more slowly. I'll probably complete my Jefferson Nickel collection first, but I'll try and complete my Lincoln Penny set by starting with the memorial cents first. I have ZERO Lincoln Proofs so that set will take quite a bit of time for me to finish). So these modern coins give people like me that ability to have a complete set with some nice specimens in there. (My 1951 Proof Dime has a slight cameo contrast to it which didn't really show up in the pictures of it). I know that there are some people here who only buy older coins and just don't like the modern coinage. If they can afford the collect the older series, then my hat's off to them. For me, I'm happy when I can actually get a gold half eagle coin, while to others the gold half eagles are as common as a silver Kennedy is to the modern collectors. From reading this board I've learned that it's best to collect what you not only like, but what you can afford. Sure I could try and collect gold coins, but it wouldn't be as much fun to me to only get one or two coins a year as opposed to 70-80 of the 'modern' stuff.

BillJones

I think that cameo coins and deep cameo coins are very attractive regardless of when they were minted. In the case of coins minted before the mid 1970s (I've forgotten the exact date) coins with a cameo on one side are scarce and two sided cameos are very scarce. As such those coins are worth a premium, sometimes a large premium.

My only problems with modern coins is paying too much for them. I've cautioned people about paying huge premiums for minor increases or sometimes not REAL increase in preservation and quality of minting. I hate to see new collectors get duped into paying high prices and getting buried in something that will destroy their interest in the hobby.

DHeath

Bill,

I agree with your post. Some are worth a premium, and some are too high.

keets

i liken CAM/DCAM issues from the SMS as equals to DMPL Morgans, but with a very important difference-----the mint tried to make the Morgans look like that while they did nothing special for the SMS coins. conversely as Don said, they did all in their power to thwart collectors from collecting them up to and including poor die prep, poor planchet quality, overuse of dies, poor handling before/after mintage and packaging, poor packaging------need i go on???? and yet we still have coins like what Russ posted and collectors/dealers wonder why premiums are paid by those of us in the know!!!!!!!

study up guys and heed my advice----given the time to appreciate as DMPL MOrgans have, these DCAM SMS issues will blow the doors off of pricing spirals. count on it. they are downright tough to find nice(and they ain't makin' em anymore). remember, you heard it here first.

al h.

BillJones

I'll agree with you on the 1965 SMS sets, Keets. Those coins were poorly made and cameo examples have to as hard or harder to find than the 1950 Proof coins, which were also poorly made for the most part. In 1966 things got better, and by 1967 the SMS coins were close to Proof status. I've had a couple of 1967 cameos consigned to me, and I found it impossible to get anywhere near the $1,000 + quotes that I've seen on them from specialist dealers, despite the low pop numbers. I could only get a few hundred at best.

Russ

<< <i>I've had a couple of 1967 cameos consigned to me, and I found it impossible to get anywhere near the $1,000 + quotes that I've seen on them from specialist dealers >>



I'm sure you meant to say deep cameo, rather than cameo. The only 1967 SMS coins that command real money in just cameo are the Lincolns. The others are pretty common.

As for DCAMS, in the past year I have sold two 1967 MS67DCAM Kennedys that brought over $1000, (one brought $1270), and two 1967 MS67DCAM Jeffersons that brought around $800. All were sold in $1 no reserve auctions so, despite what you might think, there is a market for these coins.

Russ, NCNE

keets

hey Bill

i'll assume you're meaning DCAM's as Russ said and the price would be dependent on the numerical grade. at that, for you to be selling SMS issues isn't a good indicator of where the market is----it isn't a market you're familiar with and collectors don't go to you to find that kind of stuff. it goes without saying---but i'll say it anyway---a man's got to know his limitations.

with all that said, i stand by my post with the utmost confidence.

al h.

Myqqy

I've always enjoyed proof coins, and I like having a collection of proof coins with the high quality of the workmanship. When I discovered cameo franklins, I think I was hooked because of the way cameo contrast works with the design- the simplicity of the design works really well with the black & white proof look. And I've recently gotten into proof jeffersons due to my appreciation for how they tone- especially the multi-color ones!

AgMe

<< <i>I've always enjoyed proof coins, and I like having a collection of proof coins with the high quality of the workmanship. When I discovered cameo franklins, I think I was hooked because of the way cameo contrast works with the design- the simplicity of the design works really well with the black & white proof look. And I've recently gotten into proof jeffersons due to my appreciation for how they tone- especially the multi-color ones! >>



Like a blue Marty?

PS At a show, I saw a deep blue Jeff, I thought to myself "I wonder if this is a MM coin?..."

-g

SanctionII

TTT.

Back in the saddle after being away from the forums for a couple of days. Many have replied to my original post in this thread and I have enjoyed reading same. Very thoughtful replies. I like threads where people discuss the what they collect and more importantly why they collect what they collect.

No one has responded stating why they do not like "modern crap" and cameo and why they like what they do collect (i.e. early coppers). I guess I should have made the thread title read differently so that persons who care not for cameos and "modern crap" would possibly check out the thread and give their input.

I will take a stab at a new thread to draw their interest and reference this thread.