Grading Proof Coinage 1950 - 1964 question

Comments

• SanctionII Posts: 12,636 ✭✭✭✭✭

  May 2, 2018 8:24AM

  I suspect that with mintages of proof sets for the years 1950 to 1953 ranging from just over 50,000 (1950) to about 128,000 (1953) being much lower than the mintages for 1954 to 1964 the numbers of Cameo coins dated 1950 to 1953 are much less than in later years.

  With fewer coins present, the values of same would be higher. With Cameos fro 1950 to 1953 being of higher value, TPGs may be more stringent is giving a Cameo or DCAM designaion to such a coin in the grading room compared to coins from 1954 to 1964 (excluding some tougher later date coins like the 57 cent and nickel and thr 59 half).

  I do not know of the above is accurate, but I could see it being so.

  0
• RogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

  May 2, 2018 5:55PM

  Identical coins should have identical grades.

  1
• ricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

  May 3, 2018 6:42AM

  @SanctionII ... That is an interesting premise.... I would be surprised if the graders - in general - were aware of such details.. though certainly possible. I would think with the incredible volume of coins passing through their hands on a daily basis, that condition is really all they have time for in the proverbial six seconds per coin. Perhaps a finalizer might have more input in that respect. Certainly the variances described by the OP have been noticed by many.... Cheers, RickO

  0
• Cameonut Posts: 7,386 ✭✭✭✭✭

  May 3, 2018 3:27PM

  In my experience, PCGS has been consistent in their grading at various specific points in time. For example, in 2000, it took a certain amount of frost to make cameo, a certain more for dcam. Numerically, any defects reflected in the grade. And it was pretty consistent for each denomination. 1950 franklins were held to the same standard as a 1962.

  However, the standards may not be as consistent from year to year due to gradeflation, but that is a different topic.

  It was always a game to determine the cusp of where a coin became cameo - or dcam. And those points shifted around a bit over the years. Some have suggested Cameo -, Cameo, Cameo +, Dcam -, Dcam, and Dcam + as grades to account for the variation in frost at assigned grade. This adds some complexity to the series - it isn't just a determination of whether a coin is 65 or 66 or 67.

  One thing that come to mind for the early 50's silver proofs is that many dies had shallow mirrors. The devices might be frosty enough for a cameo designation, but PCGS requires deep mirrors as well. So there may be an illusion that PCGS is tougher on earlier proofs (the opposite of what the OP hypothesized).

  Toning is also a carp shoot. I have coins that ought to be lock cams or dcams, but that dang toning tipped the scale a different way. I don't have enough data points for a definitive opinion.

  Not sure if my ramblings help, it is surely an interesting topic to discuss and one that changes all the time.

  “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
  
  My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!

  0
• BillJones Posts: 34,847 ✭✭✭✭✭

  May 3, 2018 5:58PM

  Only a small number of the 1950 to '64 silver Proof coins that have attractive toning got there without some help. The reason is the packaging, which did not promote great toning. The Barber Proof era coins were sold in tissue paper, which made a big difference.

  Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?

  0