CAM vs DCAM Distinction for Cl*****ic Proofs (Grade In)

stealer · November 24, 2015 6:22PM

Update: the coin just graded PCGS 62CAM for reference.

I'm not a proof guy, so I was hoping that some forumites could fill me in on the differences in characteristics between CAM and DCAM cl*****ic proofs.

Thanks

TopographicOceans · November 24, 2015 6:34PM

Mirrors are important, but It really boils down to the amount of frost on the devices.

Treashunt · November 24, 2015 7:34PM

seriously?

is the program still censoring the word?

lordmarcovan · November 24, 2015 8:23PM

Originally posted by: Treashunt

seriously?

is the program still censoring the word?

Yeah. Goofy robocensor. Go figure.

Amazing how many otherwise innocuous words have A-S-S in them, ain't it?

keets · November 24, 2015 9:04PM

is the program still censoring the word?

the easiest way to get around that so you can use classic is to type in the bracketed letters and backslash for "bold" or "italics" in the middle of the banned word like I did in this post.

lordmarcovan · November 24, 2015 9:07PM

Originally posted by: keets

is the program still censoring the word?

the easiest way to get around that so you can use cl*****ic is to type in the bracketed letters and backslash for "bold" or "italics" in the middle of the banned word like I did in this post.

Yeah, that's the typical workaround, but it didn't work for me a couple of times yesterday.

I'm gonna try it with your quote. We'll see if it works or if the robocensor throws out a bunch of asterisks...

Edit- OK, it seems to be working now. Twice yesterday it didn't. Go figure.

stealer · November 25, 2015 3:09AM

Well, I see this thread has trailed far away from it's original intent

I posted images of a coin that I am trying to get a gauge on as to whether it is CAM or DCAM to help us get back on track.

rhedden · November 25, 2015 3:48AM

I'd rather go b***** fishing than sit around trying to figure out how the top br***** at PCGS distinguishes between CAM and DCAM on cl*****ic proofs with gl*****y mirrors. Perhaps you could call customer service and speak to a nice l***** who doesn't mind harr*****ing the graders a bit to p***** on their wisdom to us about the grading criteria for making DCAM on these m*****ively expensive coins. Otherwise, your next submission might leave you feeling like you got kicked in the..... pants.

BillJones · November 25, 2015 4:06AM

I'm not a proof guy, so I was hoping that some forumites could fill me in on the differences in characteristics between CAM and DCAM cl*****ic proofs.

If you get a definitive answer to this, I'll add it to my library. The standards from what I have seen are applied very inconsistently. I have a Proof Morgan Dollar that should be a "Cam," and Proof Seated Dollar that is labeled "Cam" that leaves me scratching my head.

TopographicOceans · November 25, 2015 4:26AM

If Bill doesn't know then we are all in trouble.

To me, it looks like there are breaks in the frost on the obverse, but I don't know what designation PCGS would give?

BillJones · November 25, 2015 5:35AM

I would grade the coin at the top of this page PR-61, DCAM. There might be a rub on the knee, but the coin is a stunner, at least from the level of contrast.

It's 61 because there are many hairlines in the fields, almost to the point of wear. I suppose the really tough graders would call it PR-58 DCAM.

stealer · November 25, 2015 8:46AM

Originally posted by: BillJones

I'm not a proof guy, so I was hoping that some forumites could fill me in on the differences in characteristics between CAM and DCAM cl*****ic proofs.

If you get a definitive answer to this, I'll add it to my library. The standards from what I have seen are applied very inconsistently. I have a Proof Morgan Dollar that should be a "Cam," and Proof Seated Dollar that is labeled "Cam" that leaves me scratching my head.

Well, I asked a grader and his response was "It depends on the look of the coin."

roadrunner · November 25, 2015 11:07AM

A 19th century silver type coin DCAM is a former CAM that was dipped out. That's how I keep them straight.

Fully frosted on all devices and lettering is a DCAM. Anything less than that can drop into CAM. A CAM can seemingly have anything from 65-95% of contrast. Most coins seem to fall down on the peripheral details.

I'd call the OP's coin a PF 61/62 DCAM. Proofs that low are heavily hairlined. It doesn't look AU58 to me with all that frost on the rims, high points, etc.

blu62vette · November 25, 2015 11:43AM

Originally posted by: BillJones
I would grade the coin at the top of this page PR-61, DCAM. There might be a rub on the knee, but the coin is a stunner, at least from the level of contrast.

It's 61 because there are many hairlines in the fields, almost to the point of wear. I suppose the really tough graders would call it PR-58 DCAM.

Would they DCAM or CAM a PR58? Just curious as they would not DMPL a 58 Morgan.

BillJones · November 25, 2015 9:41PM

Originally posted by: blu62vette

Originally posted by: BillJones
I would grade the coin at the top of this page PR-61, DCAM. There might be a rub on the knee, but the coin is a stunner, at least from the level of contrast.

It's 61 because there are many hairlines in the fields, almost to the point of wear. I suppose the really tough graders would call it PR-58 DCAM.

Would they DCAM or CAM a PR58? Just curious as they would not DMPL a 58 Morgan.

If I were grading the coin, and it had wear, I'd use the PR-58 DCAM description. To it is akin to giving the Full Head designation to a Standing Liberty quarter, which the grading companies now do.

rhedden · November 25, 2015 10:11PM

Roadrunner's first comment may sound harsh, but it's true for over 90% of DCAM Seated coins. In order to have the exceptional contrast needed to make DCAM, the coin basically can't have any toning or haze on the mirrors. Once in a while, I see a coin with album toning on the rim and white centers, which is awarded the DCAM designation, and has not been dipped in a while. Deeply toned proofs seldom make DCAM.

I have only one DCAM graded Seated quarter, an 1865 PR64 DCAM, and it's nearly untoned. It could not have been dipped after 1990 or so, as it came to me in an OGH of the 1989-1990 era. I otherwise avoid this type of coin because they can develop brown toning or spots as they age. The "poppin' fresh" DCAM coins that look like they are still wet from the dip jar are instant rejections when I'm shopping for proof Seated or Barbers. Some other people like them, but collectors tastes are known to vary from person to person.

stealer · November 26, 2015 4:31AM

Re: dipping, I can't say anything about the particular coin in the OP. I can see that being a factor though for sure. Thanks for your inputs guys.

FredF · November 28, 2015 8:18AM

A 19th century silver type coin DCAM is a former CAM that was dipped out. That's how I keep them straight.

Not being a proof expert, are you saying that dipping a coin can add to the frost? Or is it that dipping the coin removes the tarnish on the fields, and the frost is not affected, so it "enhances" the effect?

I thought dipping was just bad, in general. If it can add a ton of $$ to the price of a coin I can see why people would do it.

Or were you being sarcastic?

lordmarcovan · November 29, 2015 3:30AM

Sorry if I was one of the ones who derailed this thread earlier. It's an interesting topic and I came in to read it despite not having much to contribute to the discussion. Then I saw the silly-*****ed robocensor asterisks and got derailed myself. They're distracting.

PS- that T$ in the OP sure looks close to DCAM to me, if not all the way there. I love the black & white contrast on it and think that more than makes up for the hairlines.

PPS- I totally agree with BillJones' 61 DCAM *****essment.

roadrunner · November 29, 2015 11:14AM

I was being accurate as well as sarcastic.

The frost on a proof coin never improves after it leaves the mint, and certainly not by dipping. What dipping can do is make the frost more apparent to "earn" a DCAM rating. DCAM designations are rare on a lot of 19th century proofs so big money is at stake. During the market boom of 1996-2008 anything could be sold. So no one cared that formerly pretty toned CAMs were being turned into bright white DCAMs. They brought more money even if the coins were now antiseptic. I for one prefer a toned CAM over a dipped DCAM. Dipping can make the original frost more apparent on a toned proof. It can also weaken the amount of frost that is there....that's the risk you take.

stealer · February 5, 2016 4:49PM

Bump with grade for posterity and future reference.

SeattleSlammer · February 5, 2016 6:02PM

Nice 62CAM T$ !

I always enjoy the CAMs that look just as good or better than the DCAMs.

oih82w8 · February 5, 2016 8:14PM

I have read that it depends on the frosty figures/letters and mirrored fields that reach a certain depth (6 inches or greater?). I really don't care for lower grade Proofs and Proof-Likes because of the chatter marks are so heavily emphasized in the fields.

Still beats mine though by a long shot!

Here is one article;

http://news.coinupdate.com/deep-cameo-vs-mirror-1303/

Wolf359 · February 5, 2016 8:19PM

You got a pretty nice grade on that coin. I would have called it PR58.

VanHalen · February 5, 2016 9:51PM

Originally posted by: Wolf359

You got a pretty nice grade on that coin. I would have called it PR58.

Glad you don't grade for PCGS. That's rough.

ricko · February 6, 2016 1:01AM

That is a really nice TD....and BillJones nailed it... totally agree. Cheers, RickO

stealer · February 6, 2016 3:09AM

Originally posted by: oih82w8
I have read that it depends on the frosty figures/letters and mirrored fields that reach a certain depth (6 inches or greater?). I really don't care for lower grade Proofs and Proof-Likes because of the chatter marks are so heavily emphasized in the fields.

Still beats mine though by a long shot!

Here is one article;

http://news.coinupdate.com/deep-cameo-vs-mirror-1303/

Yea I think the main problem was the reverse letters weren't frosty enough to go dcam. Jmo.

HighRelief · February 6, 2016 3:43AM

Looks like your PRCAM could be lacking frost on the obverse devices to obtain a true PRDCAM designation. It would be very educational if PCGS could make a video on what their criteria is on how they grade Cameo and Deep Cameo. Another good video would be on how they determine PL and DMPL along with what makes a modern 70 compared to a 69?

Wabbit2313 · February 6, 2016 5:52AM

Awesome!

roadrunner · February 7, 2016 12:53AM

The devices include the flat rims, and those have full frost, especially the left side of the coin. While a couple of the reverse letters could be bolder, that might be from scuffing or abrasion. Even Liberty's right wrist and upper forearm are missing frost. Her legs are slightly weaker on frost, no doubt from abrasion. Does that make the coin any less of a potential DCAM?

I could understand if the fields are abraded enough that you can no longer discern an effective 6" of deep mirrors. That makes sense. You really have to say that a DCAM ends somewhere, say in the AU58-PR61 range. I wouldn't want a "DCAM" coin where the devices were fully frosty and contrasted yet the fields had massive breaks in them from contact/friction. If the rims are fully frosty and contrasted, the rest of the coin should usually follow along.

CAM vs DCAM Distinction for Cl*****ic Proofs (Grade In)

Comments

Leave a Comment