Is an SMS Kennedy Cameo different than a Proof Kennedy Cameo?

jmski52 · May 23, 2008 3:29AM

In other words, can it be a cameo up close, but not from a distance? I found an SMS Kennedy that has a "pebbly" profile against mirrored fields, but it doesn't look like "frost" the way I expect a cameo to look. The rest of the Kennedys I examined are all mirrored devices instead of the "pebbly look".

AbesNeighbor · May 23, 2008 4:35AM

SMS stands for Special mint set and is not a proof. But, suppose under certain conditions it could have a cameo look.

BECOKA · May 23, 2008 4:37AM

Yes.

SMS is an MS coin that has proof like fields and some frost on the devices.

jmcu12 · May 23, 2008 5:09AM

And SMS strikes that look cameo can bring a nice premium.

Tvac897 · May 23, 2008 5:10AM

Been wondering about this for a while...thanks for the info.

Russ · May 23, 2008 6:12AM

He's aware of the difference. That wasn't what he was asking.

A cameo SMS must meet the same standard as a cameo proof to receive the designation.

Russ, NCNE

keets · May 23, 2008 6:55AM

i'm sort of confused by the question as it appears others are. to answer the thread question, the two are graded the same with the SMS issue requiring the same characteristics as the Proofs to receive the CAM and DCAM/UCAM designations. perhaps the only difference between the two is that the SMS issues tend to show more flowlines in the fields where the Proofs are more watery in appearance. as far as "can it be a cameo up close, but not from a distance" is where i get confused. i know that low light levels tend to enhance Cameo appearance and bright light levels tend to minimize the effect but i wouldn't expect that to give the pebbled appearance you're describing. that may just be an anomaly of a particular die or it may be normal due to deterioration of the frost from repeated strikes.

my experience with all Proof issues from the 1950-1970 timeframe tells me that the Mint workers were still learning the technique of die preperation. it's not unreasonable to expect that the time or the strength of the "pickling" used to etch the dies could have varied, this could just be the simple explanation.

post pictures and start to buy the wierd stuff you find.

jmski52 · May 23, 2008 7:04AM

The SMS coin in question exhibits mirror-like fields, but Kennedy's profile is like it has been sandblasted without attaining "frostiness". It has a pebbly surface which is different from the other SMS Kennedys I examined. They all have both mirror-like devices and mirror-like fields.

Unfortunately, from a foot away - it's hard to see the differences, but under magnification it's easier.

I simply thought that I might have a cameo, although not a deep cameo. It looks like I probably have neither, but there's still a difference to my eye.

ksteelheader · May 23, 2008 7:12AM

Does it look like this??

jmski52 · May 23, 2008 7:15AM

Does it look like this??

Not even close! That's a pretty full cameo, or deep cameo I would say.

ksteelheader · May 23, 2008 7:40AM

<< <i>Does it look like this??

Not even close! That's a pretty full cameo, or deep cameo I would say. >>

Dothead, also.

ProofRainbowRoosevelt · May 23, 2008 8:35AM

The dies were not prepared the same way as a proof. IMO you won't see a SMS coin with the same deep fields as a proof, but they can still be designated cam of dcam.

ksteelheader · May 23, 2008 8:38AM

<< <i>The dies were not prepared the same way as a proof. IMO you won't see a SMS coin with the same deep fields as a proof, but they can still be designated cam of dcam. >>

Not without the deep fields. They do have them.

segoja · May 23, 2008 9:01AM

Ksteelheader,

That can't be a cameo because it has a fade spot on the head

Is an SMS Kennedy Cameo different than a Proof Kennedy Cameo?

Comments

Leave a Comment