Should a coin receive a "Cameo" designation if its contrast is diminished?
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am looking for comments on this concept. We do not need to see a specific coin to discuss this.
Many coins with a very reflective mirror finish on their field (Proofs, PL's and DMPL's) have a contrasting "frost" on their devices. This gives the piece a "Cameo" look. When the frosting is very thick, many call this look "Deep Cameo." IF THE CONTRAST IS NOT THERE, THE COIN IS NOT A CAMEO OR DEEP CAMEO! This should be common knowledge.
Set Up: I have a gem Proof Ike dollar with beautiful iridescent deep blue toning covering the entire coin. Its fields are bright PL blue. The relief is darker and DEEPLY FROSTED.
Here is my dilemma: I have been told by a well-known, well-respected, and long-time TPGS Finalizer that this coin does not qualify to be graded with the "Cameo" designation. His reason is there is no "Cameo" contrast due to the toning. IMHO, this
can be very confusing to an "unwashed and ignorant" collector such as myself! So I asked him, "What if I dip off the toning to expose the mirror field and deeply frosted devices. Would it qualify as a "Cameo" then."
His answer was YES because NOW there is a contrast between the mirror and the frost!
Question: Do you believe a 100% Deep Cameo Proof with toning covering the entire coin should still rate a "Cameo" designation?
Comments
"Buy the coin, not the designation. "
I do not agree that toning precludes a Cameo designation. Some toned proofso have been given the designation.
If the coin speaks to you and grabs your eye, enjoy it raw, or stabbed without the designation.
I agree..... anything the tarnish diminishes should affect the designation.... and those mirror fields must reflect or the coin will not warrant the designation. Cheers, RickO
Thanks for your comment. This is not a question of buying/selling/slab label, etc. My question is more to understand and hopefully discuss a grading concept that is confusing to me. IMO, it is wacky to say a deep cameo Proof is not a deep cameo Proof.
IMHO, it will always be a DCP as that is how it was made and toning, bag marks, even chopping it in half will not alter the fact that it has a mirror field and deep frosted devices.
I would tend to agree that the toning should not necessarily prohibit the CAM designation if the contrast is clearly there beneath the toning. However, that being said, the grader does need to be able to determine the depth of fields and level of frost to make an accurate determination; accordingly it makes sense that they would error on the conservative side. These are the most toned Cameo's I have.
PCGS PR66 CAM
PCGS PR67 CAM
Quote of the year.
I think you need to have at least a full cameo contrast in the centers of the coins. If it's toned 100%, that's not really possible. I see some seated proofs graded 65-67 CAM that don't have a full cameo contrast since the peripheral devices (lettering, motto, stars, etc.) are somewhat deeply toned over....yet the centers are mostly bright and frosted. If 2/3 or more of the coin is frosted (ie Miss Liberty and the Eagle are fully frosted over) I'd like to see those get a CAM designation. The alternative is that some chuckle head dealer will dip it out and ruin a great coin just to get the designation. 20 years from now that once great coin will likely have unsightly mottled brownish toning and spots. Let them stay the way they are. You don't have to DCAM the coin but at least CAM it.
It's a shame that in 99.9% of the cases you have to dip a Liberty Seated proof to get a DCAM designation. If you don't, someone already beat you to it and dipped it prior to that.
I can see DCAMs on modern proofs where many are still bright white from proper storage. But that almost never happened with proof seated and Barber material seeing as those were wrapped in highly reactive sulfur paper from the mint. DCAM in my mind should never have made it to classic silver proof coins where dipping them is the only way to make them. I much prefer a strong CAM seated coin with original toning, bordering on DCAM in the centers and left untouched. In my mind it's worth less (and ruined) after dipping to make it into a DCAM. If you're going that way then call them DDCAMs.....Dipped Deep CAM to designate that they "lost" something on the way there.
So even if they just CAM'ed the coin, at least they acknowledged the coin had definite contrast when it was made. That's what I should like.
Interesting experiment to try: Examine a "cameo" coin using incandescent light. Then do the same under florescent light. In my experience, the cameo jumps out under the latter - even on a toned coin.
Not likely to get the effect you think it will. Give it a try on some less expensive coins and see what happens.
For a TPG graded coin they use lighting other than florescent. In the early days of TPG's they used halogen lights....not sure if they still do. So whether florescent "helps" me or you, the graders will see it under different lighting....and they are the ones that count. Same is true for bourse dealers using "penetrating" incandescent lights at their table. From my own experiences, the overhead florescent lighting on most bourse floors is just terrible for trying to grade coins. If you want to optimize the odds of getting things wrong, then grade while underneath those. In a way, those florescent lights even make a dead doggy coin look "flashy." And to make it worse, the plastic coin holders themselves can give the appearance of PL surfaces under poor and/or diffuse lighting.
Fortunately or unfortunately (I was told to dip the rainbow end roll coins) I have dipped almost 10K coins of all types, ages, and countries in my lifetime. That said, In my experience, dipping DOES NOT harm the frosted surface or the mirror field on a coin IF IT IS DONE PROPERLY AND IS NOT EXCESSIVE.
I am suggesting (from experience) that frosting on a proof shows up really good under a CLOSE florescent light. This does not change how a TPGS looks at them or how they are graded.
I have posted this question at NGC and Coin Talk. So far, the best answer given is from a dealer on Coin Talk Forum. Next week I'll ask if I can quote his answer.
So what's your opinion of what you were told based upon my 2nd coin posted above? I think that tells me that your guy told you wrong.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure this page tells you the same:
pcgscoinfacts.com/CoinImages.aspx?s=97429
Your second coin has nice white cameo frost showing. the obverse is closer to a dark surface throughout (what I question). I think a frosted Proof should be a cameo even with deeper toning than on your examples. I'm going to look at your link.
Still, I have only spoken to one TPGS finalizer. I plan to speak to a few more. I'm even interested in what CAC says.
Unfortunately, I have found that most professionals cannot/will not comment on a numismatic "concept" out side of a coin seminar without having the coin in hand. The ability to imagine what a coin would look like (given a good description) must be difficult for some.
I'm grateful for all the responses so far. The answer may come down to the TPGS will do what they wish while collectors/dealers do what they wish. I thought this would be simple - it is what it is!
This is a recent submission
Graded PR67DCAM
My War Nickels https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/nickels/jefferson-nickels-specialty-sets/jefferson-nickels-fs-basic-war-set-circulation-strikes-1942-1945/publishedset/94452
no it shouldn't
Perhaps we are talking about a difference in Classic Proofs and Modern Proofs. I have a number of PCGS graded TONED DCAM designated coins. All are Modern Proofs.
If you can not tell it has it, you can not give it.
a 'blue' IKE is probably worth much more than most CAM/DCAMs, so unless you are worried about registry points, I do not see the issue/problem
Do you believe a 100% Deep Cameo Proof with toning covering the entire coin should still rate a "Cameo" designation?
.
I 100% do not believe Deep Cameo Proof coins should still be attributed with a cameo designation after toning. It depends on the severity of the toning and whether the cameo is visible. I have a 1968 S PR68DCAM (PCGS) dime that was a black and white cameo, which was improperly dipped and over the years has toned. Now, you cannot see any cameo and it is an ugly brown coin with no contrast. Last night I was looking at the coin and thinking about breaking it out of the holder. To me, it is hideous and I would not want to sell it as a DCAM the way it looks.
THANK YOU. Several of the darker toned coins are exactly what I'm talking about! Nevertheless, on another forum most say toned Ikes should not be called cameo. And the TPGS finalizer who told me the cannot cameo is holding his (IMO -stupid) opinion.
Whenever we talk of toned Ike dollars, we have to remember that not all of the Proof Ikes were, or are, Cameo or deep cameo coins. I have seen many whenever they were issued in the brown holders that were not Cameo. Each coin must be graded on its own merit and not because an individual "thinks" it is a cameo or deep cameo. Philosophy to the contrary is arcane and is why third tier grading services, with this philosophy, do not stay around long. IMO if you cannot see the cameo or deep cameo through the toning, it is only a proof coin. Why would you buy a coin marked with either designation if you cannot look at the coin and see it? To me, and I'm a dinosaur, that does not pass the common sense test.
I took the dime, in my other post, out of the holder the other day and dipped it. It will go into a 2x2 and sold, but I could not, in all good conscience, sell it in the PCGS DCAM holder. Would it have sold dark and ugly not showing any DCAM? Probably, and the reason is that somebody would want the coin to upgrade their set.
The answer is subjective. Depending on the TPG, modern silver coins can be graded as CAM or even DCAM with toning. However IHC copper can only be graded as cameo if graded RD by PCGS. NGC does recognize cameo where the toning is not RD. There are many coins that have been graded as cameo that have questionable contrast, but they have been submitted many times to get that result. Often a CAM designation seems to increase a coin's valuation without any appreciable better quality.
OINK
Note: I am not arguing with anyone here and appreciate all the input. However, you are changing the question. Proof Ike dollars that are not CAM or DCAM are of no concern. I'm an old guy too. I have no trouble telling if a MODERN coin has a mirror field and fully frosted major relief under dark toning. Therefore, IMO the coins that left the press as CAM still are whether toned or not!
Note: A member on the NGC forum has posted several toned PCGS Ike proofs in various colors. Thank God sanity reigns at PCGS as each of the toned coins has a DCAM label! Now I'm hoping to find out how NGC, ANACS, and ICG treat these coins.
As a collector, we can choose to call coins whatever we please. It is more important to know what the TPGS call them. Then we can still call them whatever we please but at least we will be informed about the coin market and the concept of "market acceptability."
"IMO the coins that left the press as CAM still are whether toned or not!"
My question to you is: "If the Cameo is not distinguishable under the toning, you still consider it cameo?" If that is your position, then all coins could be considered cameo.
How in the world did this (my coin) get the CAM designation?
Here is a deeply toned Roosie of mine that still received the cameo designation. It is harder to find deeply toned cameos, but they are out there. I have several others in old ICG and NGC holders that are currently at PCGS for cross-over and TrueView; we'll see how I do.
As an aside, I'm sure most will disagree with me about this, but I think cameo is highly overrated. I purchased all of my cameos because of the toning, not the cameo.
I agree. I think the 1963 dime you posted is pushing it a bit though.
I don't know how the toned Ike got the CAM designation.
On coins like that Ike, it doesn't really matter what grade the label says; the coin as long as it is holdered problem-free will sell itself.
As regards the 1961 dime above, again the grade is slightly irrelevant; but I'm guessing that the graders guessed it "looked like a CAM."
Or, they "know one when they see one" kind of deals.
Sometimes I suspect that on a pretty coin that MAY have CAM under the contrast, the graders think they're helping you out and gifting you the CAM in an effort to reward the eye appeal.
Just my 2c.
Of course not! If the toning is so dark you cannot be sure I'll agree - no cameo. PS I've never seen anything that approaches a coin in your question; however, a few of these "fantasy" pieces with their mirror destroyed by environmental damage (toning) possibly exist.
I've seen lots of coins over the years so let's leave it at that.
Because the TPG's saw mirror reflection in the field and frost on the relief. That's the point I tried to make. Pretty coin!
I got my question answered. PCGS and NGC will grade a darkly toned coin CAM if the frost under the toning is fully complete on the devices. In some cases they MAY lower a DCAM to CAM if the toning is considered too dark and lowers the contrast considerably. So far, AFAIK, ANACS and ICG do the same.
Thanks all!