Is It Time For The "Monster" DCAM Designation?

wondercoin

A typical PR69DCAM sells for $15-$25
A typical PR70DCAM sells for about $2,000+

No premium for depth of cameo with either of those prices.

Is it time for a "monster" DCAM designation (especially on pre-1978 coins) to give truly deserving mega deep deep cameo coins a premium value to the "generic" DCAM coin?

Thoughts?

Wondercoin

ahooka454

Id send it back in. Thats a nice cam there man. I like Mega-ultra super cam. TM

BECOKA

Yeah, one has a glare and the other doesn't.

I think you are basically asking for a * designation or a * Cameo. Yeah it might be time. It would help further distinguish the really hard to find moderns vs. the every day stuff.

Cameonut

If the coins could be designated consistently, I would be all for it. Right now the major TPG's are having a hard enough time getting the cameo and deep (ultra) cameo right. Getting the borderline coins right is sometimes difficult.

I also remember that a decade or so ago, PCI had a triple tier of cameo designations back when they were grading more strictly. They were in signature series holders with Rick Tomaska's name on them. I don't remember the exact designations, but it was something like cameo, heavy cameo, and deep cameo.

ICCS already has a triple designation for grey side coins (in Canada), cameo, heavy cameo, and ultra heavy cameo. Works for them as I think they designate the coins pretty consistently - and they are tough (tougher than PCGS - at least on the numerical grade!)

oldcameoproofsguy

From the photo the coin on the right looks like it needs to be sent in for a grade review.

That is not DCAM.

I don't think that the designation is needed because strong money is always paid for the heavier cameo pieces.
People are willing to dish up for the better eye appealing coins.

keets

i would disagree with the assertion that one coin isn't DCAM. surely it is, but one coin is quite obviously of better quality and a very early striking off fresh, properly prepared dies. it' sreally nothing sinister. the DCAM designation is based on two factors-----clear and deeply reflective mirror-like fields coupled with evenly and completely frowt-covered devices and lettering. i don't think there's an edict which states the frost must be intensely snow-white in appearance.

in a nutshell, i see two same graded coins which have a difference in quality, but is that so surprising?? one simply commands a premium over the other, not necessarily a higher grade because it looks better. the whole madness which has engulkfed the hobby has been prompted in part by over-designating coins and fixing a pricing structure in accordance with what is on the insert. why would anyone want more information there to be used at the time of purchase to fix a price??

if you can't judge two coins like the one's pictured by Mitch and make a wise choice, coming to an agreement with regard to a price, perhaps there are other things you should be doing with your time and money.

lcoopie

maybe the first coin is closer to $25
and the second to $15
as you mentioned a range for a 69dcam

Gemineye

<< <i>Can you see the difference..? >>


I sure can...!!! The one on the right has more eye appeal to me.Weather you agree or not that's my choice..!!!..It has the characteristics of a well struck coin as compared to all that fuzzines which leaves out the sharpness and strike of a well struck coin...

Connecticoin

The second coin should not be DCAM.

planetsteve

No premium for depth of cameo with either of those prices.

Not in the price guides. But you're the seller -- do you think you can *get* a deserved premium for the super-frosty coin after all?

Is it fair to say that the CAM and DCAM designations were meant to apply to 19th and earlier 20th century proofs? If so, I would go on to say that the cameo and 69/70 grades are similar in that they just don't work very well for ultra-modern coins. The Mint does a consistently great job, more or less, so the DCAM designation is superfluous and the 69 and 70 grades are like an on/off switch for pricing.

RedTiger

There is already a middle grade, send it to NGC and maybe get a 70 worth $100 to $300.

dizzyfoxx

I'd say one gets the CAC sticker and the other doesn't.

MadMarty

That is one of the problems with the early proofs (68-72) is that the frost comes in 2 flavors, white and silver. Both can be DCAMs, but only the white frost can be a MOOSE DCAM!

wondercoin

Back a few years ago, as some of you may recall, I did a Long Beach show where I prepared an exhibit of "regular" DCAM vs. monster DCAM coins - many board members stopped by. A few of the classic coin minded members who examined the differences and saw essentially no difference in the quality of the grade of the coins other than the enormous difference in deep cameo contrast opined that perhaps a few of the 69DCAM "monsters" should be resubmitted for possible upgrade to PR70DCAM. But, as the modern specialists are aware - deep cameo contrast of a "10 quality" vs. deep cameo contrast of a "1 quality" often results in no difference whatsoever with the numerical grade of the coin, especially in the PR69DC grade - a coin will not move up to PR70DC because it has monster DCAM surfaces but a small mark on it.

Take the (2) quarters I pictured in this thread....

Most of the 1976-S Proof quarters from the 3-pc. Silver Proof sets have deep cameo contrast along the lines of the coin on the right - perhaps a touch stronger. The depth of cameo contrast on the left I have found occurs on about 1 out of every 100-200 "fresh" specimens. And, then that -1- coin also needs to achieve a PR69DC grade which is often not the case, as it is common for these particular coins to achieve a sub-PR69 grade on 50% or more of the "fresh" coins from the sets. So, in a nutshell, I believe the coin on the left achieves the PR69DCAM grade at PCGS in less than 1% of the examples out there, while the coin on the right represents about 20% -50% of every fresh coin still unsubmitted (although - yes, the right coin is also a "liner" coin for the 70 grade level due to its quality, clean, surfaces and is often not seen that nice either).

So, what do we have here with the coin on the left - IMHO, simply a $15-$25 "cherry-picking" opportunity for those who study this area of the market and a coin that might double, triple, quadruple in value just as soon as any relaible information is printed on 1964-date DCAM coins (and, of course, for those pursuing near perfect PR69DC coins - the coin on the right also offers a "cherry-picking" opportunity to buy a near "$2,000" coin for $25).

I'll post another example of what I am talking about involving clad moderns later today as well.

Wondercoin

Broadstruck

Wow major spread for someones 15 second opinion between 69 and 70.

RWB

Sounds like another suggestion to split hairs in pursuit of money. Belongs in the same trash bin as decimal point grades and “AU 50” nonsense. No thanks!

wondercoin

Broadstruck - Note that, to date, PCGS has grade 6,850 PR69DC examples of these coins and a scant 21 PR70DCAM examples. Less than 3/10's of 1% - and that does not include the multitudes of bulk coins that did not achieve the PR69DC grade but are not reflected in the pop report at all. Hence, my comments concerning "cherry-picking" from among those 6,850 coins, which are obviously not all the same despite appearing to be from their respective insert tags.

Wondercoin

keets

Mitch, your number crunching gives a perhaps false explanation of why the coin on the left looks as it does. it is easily understood that the coin was one of the first struck from a new and properly prepared obverse die(no telling about the reverse cause there's no picture). the low number of coins found in the sets is due to the fact that the frost wore quickly and yeilded only a handful, almost certainly well under 100, which had that heavy frost.

not that you didn't know that, but i think that many of the members here DON'T know that. it isn't an anomaly in the striking process that the coin on the left exists in small numbers at the higher grade, just a simple fact of the percentages involved. without knowing the date it was struck, it is easy as pie to assign it a FIRST STRIKE designation.

wondercoin

Keets - Thanks for the meaningful amplification (even though we are simply just "splitting hairs" here)!

The "early strikes" can even be more profound on CLAD pieces from the 1970's. I'll post an example shortly.

Wondercoin

Russ

<< <i>Right now the major TPG's are having a hard enough time getting the cameo and deep (ultra) cameo right. >>



Yea, verily.

Russ, NCNE

wondercoin

Coins look exactly as pictured - anyone who would like to see them at next Long Beach show, just let me know. Sorry for glare on holders - the monster DCAM coin is clean as a whistle as well. The left coin is a typical depth of cameo for many DCAM clad Ikes (especially 1976-S Ty 1) - below average depth for the 1978-S. The coin on the right appears in roughly 1 out of every 1,000 - 2,000 1978 Proof Sets from my personal experience (i.e. 2 -sided and 69+ surfaces).

Wondercoin

wondercoin

"Is it fair to say that the CAM and DCAM designations were meant to apply to 19th and earlier 20th century proofs?"

Actually, as far as I know, use of those designators by PCGS actually came a bit later in time for the 19th and earlier 20th century proofs. I believe there are a great many coins from 1964-1978 where heavy depth of cameo is certainly not the norm (e.g. 1971-S Lincoln cents, 1976-S Ty 1 Ikes, etc.)

Wondercoin

PawPaul

As you already know , there are 3 tiers of Deep Cameo @ PCGS :

- DCAM

DCAM

DCAM +


NGC I think , sometimes uses the STAR* to reward "monster" Cameo's




Yes , I think a SUPER Deep CAM designation is in order @ PCGS !

Stooge

@wondercoin, Has there been any advancement in getting PCGS changing or adding MonsterDCAM?

wondercoin

Stooge. Unfortunately, no significant movement at PCGS on either a monsterDCAM designation or the prooflike designation for business strike coins. Wondercoin.

cameonut2011

@wondercoin said:
Stooge. Unfortunately, no significant movement at PCGS on either a monsterDCAM designation or the prooflike designation for business strike coins. Wondercoin.

Which is a shame. The PL/DMPL designations on all business strike coins and star designations are among the few areas of U.S. coins where NGC has garnered more of a niche/following than PCGS. If PCGS designated PL business strike coins, I would cross all of my NGC coins.

Zoins

In the two sets of photos, for the 1976-S quarter and 1978-S dollar, the coin that appears more DCAM also appears to be in a slab that is more lit. Not saying that the coins aren't as different as they appear, but the lighting on the slabs doesn't appear to be evenly strong.

BillJones

The second quarter looks like Cam to me, not a DCam. The first Ike looks like a nice "Cam +"

ricko

DCAM coins are beautiful....and certainly deserve a premium... the difference between CAM and DCAM has been discussed ad infinitum here. Do we really want another hairsplitting designation? Seems to me that the hobby is forever seeking finer definition and more narrow categories for coins....Not sure if it is profit motivated or collector braggadocio.... Probably a bit of both... IMO, the categories are just fine....BTJM.... Cheers, RickO

ModCrewman

Wasn't around yet when this thread first debuted. I'd love to see a Monster DCAM designation or some equivalent; but I'd also have to agree with the previous evaluations that there is enough difficulty in just getting the CAM/DCAM designations right.

It seems like it should be easy to ID the monsters, but really it's only easy in the context of having an in depth knowledge and experience of the characteristics of each date and denomination. What would be considered monster contrast for a 1952 Franklin would not make the cut for a 1956 or 1963 Franklin.

jom

@keets said:
..... the whole madness which has engulkfed the hobby has been prompted in part by over-designating coins and fixing a pricing structure in accordance with what is on the insert. why would anyone want more information there to be used at the time of purchase to fix a price??

Well said...something I've thought for years.

jom

keets

although nothing was mentioned about the lighting on these coins back in 2008 it should have been. it is clear from looking at them that the pictures have been manipulated, the lighting angle on the "Monster" coins takes full advantage of that, while the other coins are left at an angle which displays less whiteness on the devices. it is a problem that Heritage encounters, quite often they list DCAM coins which look non-cameo due to the poor angle of the lighting.

RogerB

No. What it is "time for" are clear, stable definitions for "cameo," "proof-like," and "deep proof-like." They must be based on measurable, repeatable data and applied by all the major coin authentication services.

Cameonut

Well, not much has changed since my post from 9 years ago with respect to designations. Actually, I am happy they have remained the same as it is easier to play the game when the rules stay the same.

On another note, I actually own a PCI Signature Series 1950 quarter in a purple Rick Tomaska signed CAMEO holder.

I challenge the Tomaska empire to give me Cameo money for the piece. I would wager $100 that I will hear crickets.

I'll stick with PCGS - they have always been a stalwart in the game. Much different than the TV hucksters and fourth party slabbers.