Haunted by a Walker proof (post your pics!)
Aspie_Rocco
Posts: 3,259 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am "haunted" by one of the most beautiful coins I have ever seen. I was searching for re engraved proof nickels in 1952-1954 original proof sets in a box at Conejo Stamp and Coin when I stumbled on a 1939 proof set, in unoriginal plastic. There was a deep cameo 39 walker half in there that screamed buy me! About $1,000 for the set they said. I had just found a 1953 re engraved CP variety too. I am obsessed/dedicated to Jeffersons, and 56 coins away from a complete all inclusive 341 piece PCGS registry set. And I think they maybe didn't want to sell the 39 set. Nickel was reverse of 38, lol I checked.
I even had a nightmare that I some how found this 39 proof half at my house, and awoke in a panic attack thinking I had taken it by accident. I can laugh about this now but I still see it in my image based brain. I will have one some day. Until then...
Who has Pics (coin porn) of their Walker proof halves? Show me your pics!
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Comments
I'll make your nightmare worse; PCGS hasn't yet graded a DCAM 1939 PR WLH, as far as I can recall, and their valuation on the PR65 CAM version is multiples of what you were quoted for the entire set.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Yeah ... was a keeper for sure.
Insert witicism here. [ xxx ]
The 1939 CAM sold on eBay for more than the PCGS Price Guide Value. To my knowledge that is the only public appearance of the coin. Assuming I didn't overpay, I think the price guide is a little low on that one. I need to have it reimaged to better show the contrasts or I would post images. There is also a single PF64 CAM example that sold at Teletrade circa 2007 that sold for $1700 and change if I recall correctly. Those records have been deleted from the public domain.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
It's probably gone now, been a few weeks. But they open in 11.25 hours from now and I aim to find out.
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Be aware, to get the cameo or deep cameo, it is all about frost on the sun.
What a great find that will be if it really grades CAM or DCAM.... Please keep us posted.... and pictures please. Cheers, RickO
Sounds like a cool set for sure!
My YouTube Channel
Would like to see the coin. If it is as Cameo it would be a nice bookend with Skyman's 1938 Cameo proof Walker [photos of that coin are present in prior posts about it].
If it cameos, I would be very interested in acquiring the piece at a profit to you. I don't mind duplicates of coins like this.
Walker proofs are awesome.
Here is a nice coin with very old pics.
I have a few proof walkers on my radar now, I have found a few I consider reasonable in price compared to 10 years ago
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
Cameo Proof coins from the 1936 to 1942 are hard to find. The mint made a huge effort to polish the dies all over in those days because collectors back then complained about dull, "matte like" coins.
Even harder to find is Cameo Proof coins that are in a Cameo Proof holder. I don't understand the standards for certified Cameo Proofs. I see pieces in "normal" holders that look like they should qualify for the cameo designation to me, with the cameo on both sides, but they don't get the label.
Don't be haunted by the fact that you missed out on coin that "would have" made it into the cameo holder. If you liked as a collector, that's one thing. Getting that into a cameo holder would be a throw of dice, and chances are that throw would not come up as a severn.
It's still there! I remember seeing strong cameo on reverse and that's what I fell in love with. Not sure about obverse. They are now going to hold and price it for me. I'm trying to get there today for pics.
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
MJ has got a bunch of them.
As mentioned, frost on the sun is a must to get a cameo designation. Here's mine...
U.S. Type Set
If it is even a CAM you have a tough coin. I have never found one in the wild and trust me, I have looked!
Anyone have more pics of cameo walkers? Only seen Skymans walker
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
The mint made a huge effort to polish the dies all over in those days because collectors back then complained about dull, "matte like" coins.
while that might be true, the most probable reason for the lack of properly prepared dies and the Cameo coins they struck is because there were no employees who fully understood the technique. the Mint hadn't really focused on making Cameos since the last coins from the Barber issues, a span of at least 20 years. going forward it took until about 1951-52 before they could replicate that technique and another 20+ years before they developed a process which extended Cameo appearance on Proof coins for more than just several dozen off a die pair.
in short, I believe it was more a lack of technique and skilled workers than a desire to do it.
That's nice!
YN Member of the ANA, ANS, NBS, EAC, C4, MCA, PNNA, CSNS, ILNA, TEC, and more!
Always buying numismatic literature and sample slabs.
Here is a cameo designated merc
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
And one of my favorite Walkers
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
FYI cameo walkers are uber rare. I was outbid on one in a Legend Auction. It went for over 12k. The sun is rarely and I mean rarely frosted
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It's not a cameo like I thought. I got pics but they don't do justice to the frost. Non on the sun.
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
A beautiful coin for sure...but I think the sun shall darken your hopes for a CAM.
very nice - I can not tell if the small scratches are on the flip or if it has hairlines.
Coin adage...
We almost never remember over-paying for a coin.
We almost always remember the ones we let get away because we did not want to overpay.
I would cite the same problem with 1952 Proof sets. Many 1950 Proof coins were not well made, and the mint heard about it. The same was true for some 1951 sets. In 1952 you run into Proof coins that are very shiny, but they often lack design details because the dies have been polished to death.
The mint eployees didn't how to make Proof coins, and their response was to keep polishing the dies.
So far the cameo coins go, I think that they were more of an accident in the years before the mint started to cameo everything than something intentional. A few collectors got turned on by the few duel sided cameo coins, and the mint perfected the way to make all brilliant Proof coins into cameos. Unfortunately the cameo process has started to look like "clumps of snow" instead of "snowflace frosting" as it did years ago.
Bill, please, I respect you and because of that I will not take this any further except to say that it was done by design and not accidentally.
The frosted devices on proof coinage from the 1950's and 1960's are much more eye appealing than the frost devices on "ALL" proof coinage produced by the mint today. Much more variety and different looks to the frost on the older coinage. Today it all looks pretty much the same.
Truth be told, if any of the proof coins made today had brilliant surfaces only, they would be considered desirable since the norm is for every coin made to be a DCAM proof.
I have given thought to seeking out and assembling proof sets from the 1970's that have all coins which are brilliant only. I wonder what the last year would be in which you could find all coins in the yearly proof set that are brilliant only. I was thinking 1973 or 1974 may be the cutoff.
With the exception of a few dates, cents are not hard to find. No cameo quarters are known, and I've never seen one close. The nickels are tough to find with any significant frost. That leaves Mercury Dimes and Walking Liberty Half Dollars. While there are frosted examples examples of Mercury Dimes and Liberty Walking Half Dollars, but usually the sun (half dollars) and ax blade and lower neckline (dimes) are areas that often kill the designation.
These pictures suck. The coin has jet black, haze free fields. It is full of visual distortions.
1942 NGC PF66 CAM 50c
Here are some more Mercs (different photographers than for the WLH):
1942 NGC PF67 CAM CAC 10c - Ex Legend
1939 NGC PF67* CAM 10c - The holder is chipped over the obverse devices, which shows over Miss Liberty's forehead/cap.
That slab seems to be in pretty bad shape as well. Lots of scuffs and scratches. Nice coin, though.
The half from the OP does not appear to be anywhere near a CAM.
Mark, that dime is SWEET!
Wish I had a proof walker.. closest I've got is a franklin, and even then...
Beautiful coins everyone. Especially the merc. Wow.
Please forgive me for making two comments and asking one question.
Comment 1 - The cameo effect results from the polishing of the highest surfaces of the Proof die while the recessed areas remain unpolished. This results in the first coins made from the Proof die having mirrored fields and frosted devices. After the first 20 or 30 strikes the friction from the strikes polishes the devices therefore doing away with the cameo affect.
Dies can be taken out of service, cleaned, brushed, re-polished an put back into the service. Coins made after this might have the cameo effect again, but the results might not be as attractive because of die polishing hairlines (raised).
Comment 2 - About 25 years ago I saw a 1950 Proof set that was in a gray government presentation holder at the JJ Teaparty store in Boston. It had been awarded to a member of President Harry Truman's cabinet. There was in inscription in gold lettering on the reverse of the case naming the official and his office.
The coins were messed up because the plastic that had been used in the government holder to hold the coins in place had melted and run over them. I wish to this day I had bought that set because it was of historic importance. The discount price at the time because of the messed coins was lowered from $500 for a normal 1950 Proof set to $325.
If Cameo Proofs were so important, why weren't at least some of these coins in a presentation case have been cameo pieces? None of them were. Yet, 1950 cameo Proof coins are very scarce, but they are known.
Then the question:
If the cameo Proof finish was supposed to be a part of the Proof coin process and intentional, why doesn't it appear on more Proof coins from '50s, '60s and '70s? Why are there one side cameo Proof coins? If the cameo was intentional and important, why didn't the mint put two cameo Proof dies into the press?
I don't pose this question out of disrespect. I pose it because my observations do not support the contention that the cameo Proof finish was the intended finish for Proof coins of this era.
I bought this 1939 Proof dime a few years ago because it had a cameo look to it. It is not labeled as a Cameo Proof coin.
According to Tomaska, starting in the 1950s (I think 1951), an abrasive was applied to restore cameo contrasts to working dies. Part of that was undoubtedly to remove debris from the die, but Tomaska makes it sound intentional, which it would seem since the entire devices were treated in this manner and not just patches. These are commonly called repolish proofs or language to that effect. As for why there are a good number of brilliant proofs if it was intentional, I don't know. Maybe Rick will chime in and explain.
Looks like a nice Walker there... though I don't expect it to get a CAM designation... those are nearly impossible to get on 1930s proof coins, especially the Walkers.
Haven't seen a proof Cameo Buffalo Nickel posted yet... here's one I had that was pretty awesome!
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
Good points and questions Bill.
It appears that the skill of the persons producing proof coins with frosted devices and mirrored fields fluctuated over the years (many of the small mintage 19th century proofs have frosted devices and production of these coins was likely at a slower pace with more attention to each individual coin given than in the 1936-42 and 1950 - forward time periods; and workers with higher skills retired or died and did not pass their knowledge on to others during the gaps years of 1917-1935 and 1943-1949).
When proof production started again in 1936 and in 1950 a few of the coins produced do exhibit frosted devices and mirrored fields. Many others lack mirrored devices and fields at all and look satin in appearance.
However, as production skills began to rise, the number of proof coins produced with frosted devices and mirrored fields did begin to increase (along with the increase in the number of coins produced [about 3700 sets in 1936 to 51,000 sets in 1950, to 4,000,000 sets in 1964]) due to a greater number of fresh dies being produced and used to strike coins and the repolishing of used dies.
However, the ability to create dies and planchets that produced Cameo proofs, while present in the persons who produced these coins, did not seem to translate to a focused effort to produce a constant flow of Cameo proof coins. Dies would wear down and produce only brilliant proofs. Reverse and obverse dies were not replaced simultaneously so that one sided Cameos were produced. Maybe the production demands on the workers was so great that they simply were not willing or able to perform their work in a manner that the quality of the coins produced remained high.
It would be interesting to have a conversation with persons (most who are probably dead now) who actually worked day to day producing the proof coins from 1936 forward to 1970 and learn first hand about this process.
"Cameo" proofs in the 1936-42 period were not intentional products. They could occur only when new obverse and reverse dies were placed in service, and only while the unpolished relief remained. After a few dozen high-pressure strikes against polished planchets, most of the "frost" was gone. Modern designations are opinions based on visual effect. While the quantity of "cameo" pieces made can be estimated from die parings, that doesn't mean any exist of a specific date or denomination. (Details and die parings are in the 1936-42 Proof Coin book.)
I'm enjoying the animated discussion. time for a photo interlude.
Beautiful coin Kaz!
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
**"Cameo" proofs in the 1936-42 period were not intentional products. **
I don't agree with this at all.
if you draw a line from the beginning days of US coinage to present with regard to Proof issues it is clear that one goal has been consistent, to strike coins which have a Cameo appearance, with frosted devices and lettering set-off with mirrored fields. the process was ongoing and perfected during the 19th century and only stopped with the advent of an attempt to obtain a newer finish with the designs begun in 1909. at that, the Mint still struck coins with a Cameo appearance but it no longer seemed to be their prime focus.
the difference between what was done in the past and what is done today is simply improved methods. the approach had always been the same, to etch the entire die surface and then polish the fields brilliant, it wasn't accidental. go to CoinFacts and look at some of what was produced, the coins are staggeringly beautiful. the fact that only a small number exist only bears testament to the fact that the technology to extend "frosted" die life didn't exist and production requirements precluded the repolishing/etching of the die surfaces to make EVERY coin appear with Cameo surfaces.
consider this --- we often make reference to coins in a high state of preservation as "tiny works of Art" or something similar. by extension, that makes the producers of those to be Artisans who are striving to produce something of high quality and beauty. the mere fact that a 20 year period of time elapsed and the persons in charge of the process were no longer with the Mint needs to be understood, the process was lost and needed to be re-learned. it seems clear that there may have been an internal struggle at the Mint during the initial manufacturing of Proof coins in 1936: should the finish be Matte-like or have a Cameo appearance? Clearly(to me at least) the choice was made to abandon the Matte finish and attempt to replicate some type of Cameo finish.
even after the lapse of time from 1942-1950 that mindset seemed to be the primary choice, the Mint employees were just unfamiliar with the technique and it had to be developed, taking perhaps 2-3 years. again, the technology wasn't available to replicate that finish for an entire year's production run and I can only surmise that time constraints didn't allow for proper repolishing/etching of the dies to maintain the highest quality of cameo finish. when dies wore past that they were continued in service and made brilliant coins for most of their lives. anyone who collects in this time period can understand the development curve --- constantly increasing quality until 1957, a drop-off until the early 1960's, increased quality again in 1968 after the SMS years and then new methods developed in the early 1970's which resulted in a much higher percentage of Cameo coins.
the pinnacle of Modern-day Deep Cameo coinage seemed to be around 1984.
I don't see any of it as accidental happenstance unless you accept that in the past the Mint was interested in issuing a widget type product of low quality. it has been an ongoing evolution of manufacturing technique interrupted at various times by a lack of experience.
The concept of a "cameo" appearance during the 1936-42 period, and well into the 1950s did not exist. There is no record of any attempt to create this and no discussion in collector's publications about it. Use of the word "frosted" dates from at least 1839, so the recognition of this existed at least from tine-to-time. (See the post about the first "cameo" proof coin.)
The medal department employee operating the medal press making proof coins did not do polishing - that was the work of the engraving department. The press operator inspected and pulled dies when they deteriorated, but renewing the mirror-like polish was not his job. Each time a die was polished or re-polished, some detail was lost; but no frosting was added. Once the original relief surface was lost, it was gone forever.
A friend of mine has a complete set of proof walkers as well as a complete set of proof 2c including the 1864 small motto. Both sets are a sight to behold and I'm not a big fan of either series especially 2c.
Roger, I am having a difficult time believing that the Mint struck the below pictured coin accidentally with dies that left it looking like that. what I believe is that they had discovered how to prepare dies by etching the surfaces and then polishing the fields to a mirrored finish. I would agree with you that once the intended finish was abraded that it was gone. further, I suppose that with any manufacturing skill there were individuals who were better at it than others. as a tool and die maker of some 25 years I can tell you that I saw all levels of skill.
And there is another way of looking at 19th century cameo Proof coins.
The cameo does enhance the design, but was it intentional or was it a consequence of the proofing process of the die? Polishing the fields to bring up the mirrors is comparatively easy compared with polishing the devices, which are recessed into the die. Going into those areas to polish them would risk damaging the design contours, uneven polishing with dull and bright spots, and raised hairlines in the design area on the finished coin from unintended scratches. Hence we are left with the possibility that the Cameo effect was not planned but a part of the die preparation process.
There are a fair number of non cameo 19th century Proofs. They are the natural result of die wear brought on by each strike. Is there evidence that there were efforts to restore the cameo once it was gone? It would certainly seem logical that such coins would exist if issuing cameo Proofs was a mint objective or policy.
I'm not a Proof Morgan Dollar expert, but I have noted that some dates like 1903 and '04 are rarely seen with a contrast. I found this to be true when I was shopping for a Proof Morgan Dollar. In the end I avoided those dates for that reason during my search. If Cameo coins were mint policy, why were there so few of them in those years?
Yes, cameo Proof coins are cool, but I wonder just how intentional they were in the 19th century. Given the much lower Proof mintages, compared with the modern era, their percentage numbers would have been higher relative to the total mintage.
Bill, consider the current Reverse Proof finish and re-think how difficult it is to polish the devices.
why is it such a stretch to believe that the workers at the Mint were skilled artisans who took their craft seriously??
If there was no intention to make proofs with frosted devices, what was the reason for acid treating the dies and then polishing the fields of the dies?