1960-72 Deep Cameo Proof Jefferson Nickels

BaronVonBaugh

The US Mint did better at producing coins that would grade as DCAMs in the 1960s than they did in the 1950s. The numbers drop dramatically for DCAMs in the SMS sets.
Basically back to the 1950s levels for the SMS sets. The early 1970s are still not huge numbers of DCAMs, but starting in 1973 they jump into the thousands.

Total PCGS DCAMS as of June 17, 2014
1960 151
1961 112
1962 308
1963 578
1964 703
1965 33 SMS
1966 42 SMS
1967 102 SMS
1968 869
1969 660
1970 537
1971 546
1972 845

1971 No S 26




1938-42 Cameo Proof Jefferson Nickels
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/917864/1938-42-cameo-proof-jefferson-nickels#latest

1950’s Deep Cameo Proof Nickels
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/223046/1950s-deep-cameo-proofs-a-follow-up-after-four-plus-years-and-not-much-has-changed-can-s#latest

keets

practice made almost perfect during this decade.

to analyze the increases, it would appear that "technique" was improving and most likely the employees had experience with die preparation, planchet preparation and production as well as handling post-strike coins. it also helped that Proof Set numbers doubled to allow for an increase in potential DCAM coins just from a percentage standpoint. it is understandable that numbers dropped during the SMS years since that seems to have been the Mint's intention, but the decline for three years after 1968 is puzzling. looking at 1968 and 1969 coins in particular, my sense is that there was a different procedure undertaken for die preparation with regard to how they were etched to produce the frost, while the mirrors typically look great. from 1970-1971 it is a simple problem of not swapping dies at the same time and things reverted to a 1950's style of one sided DCAM's. during 1972 I think there was an Epiphany of sorts, either with a newly attempted technique or with the arrival/appointment of a new supervisor at some level. the fields look great, the obverse/reverse tend to match and frost seems heavier and longer lasting.

Cameonut

It appears to me that there was lots of experimentation with the whole process until the mid 70's when I believe they started chrome plating the dies to lengthen their life.

Here is a 1966 dcam from the SMS era - tough to find.

ricko

That '64 DCAM is a very nice coin.....Cheers, RickO

ModCrewman

Here's what I can offer:

1963 PR68 DCAM


1964 PR69 DCAM


1969-S PR68 DCAM (Just made a 1969-S 69 DCAM last week, but haven't photographed it yet)

EagleEye

during 1972 I think there was an Epiphany of sorts

Is that when they started chrome-plating the dies?

ModCrewman

I believe you are correct on the timeline for chrome plating Rick.

Either that or they knew that "epiphany of sorts" was when I was born. Hmmmm.

leothelyon

I remember buying a 1964 dcam and later, a 68cam but comparing the two, the cam was more dcam than the dcam. All the devices in their entirety need to be heavily frosted to be called Dcam. I noticed the areas between the windows and other struck up areas on the Monticello had far less frost, almost none whatsoever. I've seen others where one side was dcam and the other side was not even cam. I do not consider such coins dcams so a collector really needs to watch out for this. Bought a 1972 Ngc Ucam from a fellow member here and upon arrival I emailed the guy and said, "really? are you kidding? The reverse was barely a cam. The guy apologized and I ate the coin price. It wasn't worth the trouble sending back. It took awhile to find decent 71 and 72 dcams. So I think the numbers are much smaller than what they show for true dcams, that's from my experience with these coins. And a few of the cams may be more dcam than given credit for.
Also, while I have most of these proofs, I only have the 1960, 1966 sms and 1967 sms, 68-S and 70-S pictured with my set. I do know I need a 1961 and 1965 sms.


Leo

BarberFanatic

It's odd that the Mint started chromium plating Buffalo Nickel dies in 1928 and it took them another 44 years to figure out that they could do it with Jefferson dies too?

Oh wait, we're talking about government here... that would explain it.

SanctionII

Leo is correct in his assessment of the inconsistent application of the CAM and the DCAM designation to proof coins by TPGs when coins are graded, by collectors and by dealers.

Take any year in the 1960's where proof coins (not SMS) were minted and put 100 DCAM or UCAM graded coins and spread them out on a table.

Then do the same thing for the same year with CAM graded coins.

Compare the 100 DCAMS/UCAMS and you would find a wide variety of appearances, with a number of coins having frost breaks, frost fade, impaired fields, etc. I would expect that many of the 100 DCAM or UCAM coins would be viewed by multiple numismatists as not DCAM/UCAM. Conversely, many of the same people would consider some of the 100 CAM coins to not be CAM and to actually be DCAM/UCAM.

To illustrate the above, just look at the photographs of the five proof nickels posted thus far in this thread. Assume that the photos accurately depict how the coins look in hand under good lighting. How many of you would say that all five nickels are DCAM/UCAM? How many of you would say that not all of the five nickels are DCAM/UCAM (and which one or ones do you think are not and why)?

My own opinion about the five nickels is that one of the coins does not warrant a DCAM/UCAM designation.

ModCrewman

Don't be so hard on my 1964 69 DCAM Kevin. That thing is a beast in hand...of course my photo doesn't exactly capture that.

SanctionII

Don.

I did qualify my comments by stating "Assume that the photos accurately depict how the coins look in hand under good lighting".

I expect that the coin is a moose, notwithstanding what the photo shows.

BaronVonBaugh

<< <i>Don't be so hard on my 1964 69 DCAM Kevin. That thing is a beast in hand...of course my photo doesn't exactly capture that. >>



Mine (1964 PR69DCAM) also looks better in hand.

leothelyon

Once you learn how to pull up all those light rays back into the camera lens.........................




Leo

BaronVonBaugh

@BaronVonBaugh said:
The US Mint did better at producing coins that would grade as DCAMs in the 1960s than they did in the 1950s. The numbers drop dramatically for DCAMs in the SMS sets.
Basically back to the 1950s levels for the SMS sets. The early 1970s are still not huge numbers of DCAMs, but starting in 1973 they jump into the thousands.

Total PCGS DCAMS as of June 17, 2014
1960 151
1961 112
1962 308
1963 578
1964 703
1965 33 SMS
1966 42 SMS
1967 102 SMS
1968 869
1969 660
1970 537
1971 546
1972 845

1971 No S 26

February 8, 2022
1960: 160 up 9
1961: 116 up 4
1962: 315 up 7
1963: 609 up 31
1964: 750 up 47
1965: 42 SMS up 9
1966: 53 SMS up 11
1967: 133 SMS up 31
1968: 1116 up 247
1969: 869 up 209
1970: 665 up 128
1971: 827 up 281
1972: 1593 up 748

1971 No S: 54 up 28

These changes are over an eight year period. Small movement in 1960-67. The 1968-72 have gone up quite a bit. Probably from people trying to make PR70DCAM. While the 1971 No S has doubled. Still not a large number though.