How or is the depth of a mirror measured? RESULTS ARE IN!
Coinscratch
Posts: 9,903 ✭✭✭✭✭
Or is it just how reflective they are that contribute to deep mirrors? Do either of these two Franklins have a chance?
Thanks in advance.
Coin 1 has more contrast
Coin 2 has more static
0
Answers
More of coin 1
I like the photos using a ruler to measure distance.
Please enlighten me ..... I did not get it
I like coin #1 .... so mirror like
Using a DMPL Gauge...... Put coin in slot as indicated look down line to coin and the reflection you can read is
how deep mirror like your coin is.
Using a ruler is like using the DMPL scale posted by @habaraca but with a ruler and measuring how many inches you can see clearly.
I think you are asking if a proof coin has deep mirrors. Kind of apples and oranges, your real question should be cam/dcam or not on those. There is no special designation for proof mirrors.
Wow thats neat!! Just checked out that website which is no longer available wonder where i could get a couple?
I read about that but haven't figured out how to hold my lower lip yet.
Well, I was trying to say that this proof coin definitely has mirrors and how could I measure it or determine if they were deep mirrors or yes, if it is cam/dcam or... But, it sounds like the mirroring effect is measured in distance and not thickness. Or is it the thickness that gives it the distance. And also you believe there are problems on the devices or not enough frosting?
Some cameo coins apparently look deeper than others so, is that because the devices are taller and cast a longer reflection? And/or the absence of (not sure what you call them) tiny cracks or marks in the fields?
Virtually all proof coins have deep mirrors.....Thats why the guide measurement is called "proof like" That term applies to non proof coins that have surfaces (fields) that mimic proof coins. Typically this is reserved for Morgans, but other coins can and do have PL or DMPL surfaces.
Your really question is: Are these coins cameo or deep cameo. There is no measurement tool for that. Its somewhat subjective, but there is consistency in the subjectivity thru PCGS.
Hope that helps
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
I really like coin 1! Are you going to be keeping or selling these?
Collector, occasional seller
There is no objective standard.
Such a standard could be easily established by PCGS or others by calibrating the empirical opinions now used against an industry standard such as with a Gloss Meter or similar device. (No, these meters are not expensive - $250.00 is all a good one costs.) Use the meter at a fixed distance and 90-degree angle to the surface. Once calibrated, phrases such as "proof-like" and "deep mirror proof-like" will have real meaning and that meaning will be consistent year-to-year.
Here's a really simple example of a commercial product - kind of like watching paint dry:
[Photo: FLIR Commercial Systems Inc. - Extech Division RPM33 Meter, $245.00]
I know that when you tilt the coin at an angle the fields black out. I just assumed that since some proof coins with frosty devices will still not earn a Cameo designation that there must be more to do with the mirrored fields.
I may be up for selling them if they grade well enough to actually be worth the effort. Like 68 cameo, otherwise I'll just hang on to them. I also have several other Franklins currently being graded that you might like, there again I'm only selling the ones that can support my obsession
FWIW This one has gone to PCGS twice (68) and was not given a cam. The contrast on the reverse is slightly stronger than on the obverse. I have an identical one, same die pair even, in an old anacs holder with cam. Wonder if maybe the toning has something to do with it because I do have PCGS and NGC cam Franklins that have lesser contrast.
Collector, occasional seller
@blu62vette @segoja More the question was how to determine if cameo or not and then the easy answer would be nice too.
@ChrisH821. That is a sweet looking coin and certainly looks cameo. The ones that I just bought and posted were covered with a dusty looking surface. Before the bath you could not see any mirroring. But, I think it also has to do with all of the hairline cracks (or whatever they are called) that are visible on the reverse at 8:00. I'm thinking the more of those the less of the mirror, imho... My coin 2 has way more than coin 1.
Wow, that's a real shame. In the images it looks like a Cameo and it looks complete. Very often a coin will not get the designation if part of the relief has a weak Cam area. I posted a thread when I joined of an iridescent blue DCAM Ike Proof. The consensus was (including two TPGS finalizers) that the coin would never be graded as a Cameo even though virtually all of this issue is BECAUSE the dark toning hide the two contrasting - "white/black" Cameo contrast. WHAT A WACKCO opinion! IMO, the very attractive toning on your coin hides nothing so there must be another reason.
@ChrisH821 ...Only one way to find out and not much to lose. Personally, I don't think it would help it but, it wouldn't hurt it either. After hours of staring down different dcam Franklins last night, the main difference I could conclude between them and the others, is in the fields, the absence of those stinking sparkly things I still don't know the name of...inclusions?
Yes I remember that discussion about the blue Ike. The comments from there are sort of what I'm basing my guess off of here. I sent it in last time as part of the "reconsideration special" hoping to at least get a + but no luck there. Regardless of whether or not this coin will ever get a cam or + designation it is my favorite proof Franklin because of the attractive toning and contrast.
As far as OP coins go, I think coin #2 has a couple of light hairline scratches in the left field so if it was me I'd hold off on submitting that one.
Coin #1 however looks to have a shot at a high grade at least, and maybe cam although the hair looks like it has some reflectivity to it.
Collector, occasional seller
What did you use for the bath?
Collector, occasional seller
A cheap jewelry cleaner intended for sterling silver for maybe 5 seconds. Connoisseurs.
are those scratches or die polish lines??
@ChrisH821 The only reason I dipped these however, there was no toning and only a 64 year dusty white coloration hiding the brilliance.
Interesting... Be careful using dips like that though. Start with something that has the least potential to damage a coin first, like an acetone dip.
I looked up the msds(sds now) and it looks like that has a very similar composition to e-z-est coin dip but with some alcohols in it.
https://connoisseurs.com/sds/Silver-Jewelry-Cleaner.pdf
https://aervoe.com/_files/msds/EzEst Coin Cleaner 1985 - US Bulk.pdf
Collector, occasional seller
Good ideal, man that stuff is toxic
@ChrisH821 . When cleaning the optics (mirrors) in an old analog copier, it is widely known that you have use a solvent to remove the blue oxidation or else your copies would still be dark. Nowadays, the digital machines have the opposite effect when the optics are dirty.
To measure mirror depth, my old dealer would point his index finger at the coin. Touch the slab or mylar perpendicular to the coin.
I only saw him do it a few times and thought it was odd.
One day he took a PL coin of mine and did his finger reflection test and said that it was really close to being DMPL.
That's when figured out what that heck he was doing, lol.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
Did you end up submitting these? If so, what was the result?
Collector, occasional seller
I did submit the first one (coin 1) but only a few days ago so I'm still a couple weeks out for results. And sent with various other Cents particularly the 1996 D. I'm still puzzled at how frosty your coin is but apparently not completely. Based on that, I don't think mine stands a chance. However, I still see dcam Franklins on coinfacts that have shiny break points in the bust so I'm wondering if there is a happy-medium balance between device frost & mirror depth.
I think they are scratches so, I'm waiting on that one (coin 2) to see what the other one will grade.
I'm puzzled as well since I have other 68CAMs with less frost and contrast. It is what it is. Good luck on the sub. I just had an economy order post yesterday after only 10 days so it might not be too far out.
Collector, occasional seller
@ChrisH821 Cool. I'll post the results and Trueviews as soon as I get them and then the coins once they arrive.
If they are worthy
@ChrisH821 ... Get your dip ready - Results are in. I'll post the TV's when they come.
1 1 37079894 86696 1955 50C, CA PR67CA USA
2 1 37079895 3377 1956 1C, RD PR67RD USA
3 1 37079896 3380 1957 1C, RD PR66RD USA
4 1 37079897 3380 1957 1C, RD PR67RD USA
5 1 37079898 3398 1962 1C, RD PR68RD USA
6 1 37079899 3398 1962 1C, RD PR67RD USA
7 1 37079900 3398 1962 1C, RD PR67RD USA
8 1 37079901 3401 1963 1C, RD PR67RD USA
9 1 37079902 3404 1964 1C, RD PR67RD USA
10 1 37079903 3404 1964 1C, RD PR67RD USA
11 1 37079904 3139 1996-D 1C, RD MS68RD USA
12 1 37079905 93190 2005 1C Satin Finish, RD SP69RD USA
Awesome @CoinscratchFever!
Great results on the Franklin.... I did like coin number one the best and felt it could go CAM...Your other results look good as well...Cheers, RickO
@Hemispherical. I guess I'll send in coin 2 as well. Don't think it will do as well but who knows, not me
Did a quick look at CoinFacts and calc.
Based upon the five displayed PCGS graded PR67Cam auctions and prices realized, Frankie averaged about $180. Good deal!
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1955-50c-ca/86696
Not sure the other Frankie will make cam.