1950's Proof Cents that did not receive a Cameo designation.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
I submitted these cents in 2022 and in 2023 for grading. None of them received a Cameo designation.
What do you think?
Submitted in 2022
PF64RD
PF66RD
PF67RD
Submitted in 2023
PF65RD
PF64RD
PF65RD
MS65RD (Mechanical error in labeling)
PF66RD
PF67RD
PF67RD
PF66RD
PF66RD
PF65RD
PF66RD
PF67RD
PF66RD
PF65RD
PF66RD
PF66RD
PF66RD
PF65RD
PF66RD
PF66RD
PF66RD
PF66RD
PF66RD
PF66RD
PF62RD
PF66RD
3
Comments
The 1959 is absolutely a "cameo", and probably even a "DCAM". The frosting is certainly there. If anything is lacking it would be the mirror quality on the Memorial side.
Most of the others seem "CAM" to me.
like to hear their side on this one
I'm quite baffled to be honest. A lot of those coins deserve at least a CAM designation.
In my book, all but one or two are cameos based on those photos.
“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!
Could it be that the lettering ONE CENT on the reverse isn’t frosted strongly enough on many of them? I’d agree that the 1956 looks possibly DCAM….(9697)
Well, Kevin, to be totally honest: if the pictures are accurate it doesn’t surprise me that most of the coins weren’t designated Cam/DCam. They shouldn’t “look” like they deserve it, they need to be fully frosted AND have reflective fields.
I know it’s easy to gripe when things don’t end up well in the grading room, I’ve done it myself. But along the way I learned to let results like this “teach” me. Any Cent you submit should be judged against these.
Lighting source, intensity and angles can be deceptive showing what you want. It is difficult to determine whether a coin should get a suffix from pictures. The following 2 pics are the same coin I have that got DCAM designation from PCGS.
Axial lighting can really exaggerate frost, and it seems to be the case in most of these images.
I find myself agreeing with @Maywood for most of these.
Coin Photographer.
Thanks for the replies folks. I appreciate them.
I have made four 1950’s era Cameo proof cents (1950, 1953 DDO, 1956 and 1957), plus one DCAM (1959).
I will posts photos of them later today, so that those photos can be compared with the photos of the non Cameo cents.
I have not looked at these cents recently, but my recollection is that the True View photos of the coins show how they look in hand under good lighting.
For my 2023 submission I included about 35 frosty proof cents dated from 1950-64. Only a few of the cents from 1960-64 received a Cameo designation. Perhaps if I had spread out those cents over multiple submissions over a period of months some of the 1950’s cents would have received the designation.
Since I like and collect in this niche area the subjective nature of brilliant, Cameo and DCAM designations (with no objective dividing lines) when applied to cents such as I have submitted is a source of multiple emotions (elation, frustration, disbelief, etc.) which overall contributes to my overall enjoyment of the hobby.
One thing that is fun is posting threads such as this, with photos, in order to create an online version of a water cooler discussion (including is it or is it not; and how could they and how could they not).
As always, have fun with your coins.
The lighting brings out the contrast, but contrast doesn’t necessarily mean frost. Hard to tell from photos.
Here are photos of the four 1950’s era Cameo proof cents (1950, 1953 DDO, 1956 and 1957), plus one DCAM (1959).
1950 PF66RDCAM
1953 PF67RDCAM, DDO, FS-101
1956 PF67RDCAM
1957 PF68RDCAM
1959 PF67RDDCAM
Also, here is a photo of a 1950 PF66RD cent that may have warranted a CAM designation if it was RD instead of RB.
1950 PF66RB
Comparing these coins to the non Cameo coins posted earlier in this thread is interesting.
I don't own any US cameos, only 70's world coinage. In my limited experience I find the TPGs inconsistent. The ones I own don't have sufficient contrast to qualify as CAM or DCAM (CAM to me) while others I own probably would not make it.