Cameo Overrated?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by MercuryBen, Jun 5, 2014.

Page 1 of 3
  1. MercuryBen

    MercuryBen Well-Known Member

    This may be sacrilege, but I find that I don't love the cameo effect on proof coins, and am just as happy if not happier to find a blazing high grade proof without much cameo effect (e.g., proof Roosevelt dimes 1950-1964). Am I the only one with a non-cameo preference? Anyone else out there that at least thinks cameo is overrated? Haven't been able to find any threads on this.
     
    MercuryBen, Jun 5, 2014
    #1 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I am not a huge fan myself, especially the modern, ultra cameo effect. I find it makes it harder for me to see the design details. I buy BU examples if I want a modern commemorative. I actually like the surface of the collector pucks, I don't know what they call it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2014
    medoraman, Jun 5, 2014
    #2 + Quote Reply
  4. ToughCOINS

    ToughCOINS Dealer Member Moderator

    It has been a long time since I dealt regularly in cameo proof material, but I feel qualified to reply. Many cameos undeservedly fetch a very high premium which, if it is the price that prompts your comment, I don't necessarily disagree with you.

    Cameos are a very specialized area of numismatics, particularly in the 1950's and SMS years. Some combinations of date / denomination are quite common in cameo, even as extremely nice cameos, while others are incredibly rare, even with moderate cameo attributes.

    Of the coins minted in the years mentioned above, there are at least 2 coins I can think of that I have never seen in what I would consider true deep cameo . . . not in person and not in photographs. Bear in mind though, that the grading services have a tendency to adjust their acceptance criteria, based on their learnings with the passage of time.

    Before spending strong money on cameos, it would be best to learn a lot about depth of mirrors, frost fade, balance side-to-side, artificial frosting. and which dates are available nice, and which are not.

    Finally, buying non-returnable cameo proof coins without seeing them in person can be a major disappointment, especially if they are costly. Photographic lighting and post processing techniques can really exaggerate the contrast far beyond what one sees in person.
     
    ToughCOINS, Jun 5, 2014
    #3 + Quote Reply
  5. longnine009

    longnine009 Darwin has to eat too. Supporter

    I like mattes. Other than that I'd rather have a regular business strike; preferably toned and EF45
     
    longnine009, Jun 5, 2014
    #4 + Quote Reply
  6. mainer020648

    mainer020648 Well-Known Member

    I'm not a big fan of cameos either. I think prices are a big factor. I have a complete set of Franklin Proof Halves and not 1 cameo, although I do have an NGC 68*, which designates it as a one sided cameo. The price difference can be quite large. I just calculated these differences using Numismedia for a Franklin set;

    PR65: non-cameo - $1638, cameo - $3846, increase of 235%
    PR66: non-cameo - $2173, cameo - $8314, increase of 383%
     
    mainer020648, Jun 5, 2014
    #5 + Quote Reply
  7. geekpryde

    geekpryde Husband and Father Moderator

    I don't do proofs at all any more, got so sick of them.
     
    geekpryde, Jun 5, 2014
    #6 + Quote Reply
    ToughCOINS likes this.
  8. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    I love early proofs a cameo seated coin or a trade dollar is stunning a toned proof from the 19th c is even more stunning!
     
    Mainebill, Jun 5, 2014
    #7 + Quote Reply
    JPeace$ likes this.
  9. 19Lyds

    19Lyds Member of the United States of Confusion

    For coins minted after 1974, yes, Cameo is overrated. For coins minted from 1973 and earlier, Cameo is highly desirable as it represents the closest thing to "First Strike™" that a coin could get.

    IMO, the "artificial snakeskin™" cameo effect" of todays modern proofs is exactly equivalent to putting a "sticker" on a coin.

    In conjunction with Medoramans reply, this artificial pummeling of modern proofs definitely masks some of the finer details which "should" exist on modern proof coins. Poo-Poo.
     
    19Lyds, Jun 5, 2014
    #8 + Quote Reply
    mikenoodle and JPeace$ like this.
  10. Savy

    Savy Well-Known Member

    I love cameo coins, especially Morgans and Barbers. I think they are beautiful and are worth the premium.
     
    Savy, Jun 5, 2014
    #9 + Quote Reply
    JPeace$ and Mainebill like this.
  11. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    image.jpg What's not to like about this?? Other then my crappy photo
     
    Mainebill, Jun 5, 2014
    #10 + Quote Reply
  12. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    And that is kind of the issue for that is that is how the coin was designed, was intended to look. The only coins prior to '73 that have the cameo effect are those struck with new or fairly new dies. That is what sets them apart, that is what makes them scarce, and that is what makes them expensive.

    Now, should that matter you as a collector ? That depends on what kind of ice cream you like - chocolate or vanilla.
     
    GDJMSP, Jun 6, 2014
    #11 + Quote Reply
  13. jello

    jello Not Expert★NormL®

    1963 PR67DC& pop of 41
    Cameo is not overrated my2c 1963 NGC 10c PR67 Ucam obv.jpg 1963 NGC 10c Pr67Ucam holder.jpg 1963 NGC 10c PR67 Ucam rev.jpg
     
    jello, Jun 6, 2014
    #12 + Quote Reply
    JPeace$ likes this.
  14. JPeace$

    JPeace$ Coinaholic

    I'm in the love cameo/deep cameo on pre-64 coins camp. Any proof minted today without DCAM is an anamaly. I till love the ASE proof DCAM. I don't collect modern coinage, just the bullion stuff. When looking at pre-64 proofs, I want them with at least CAM and am willing to pay for it.
     
    JPeace$, Jun 6, 2014
    #13 + Quote Reply
    Savy likes this.
  15. jello

    jello Not Expert★NormL®

    I agree
    Also.offer this one for sale with 1959C+1962D.C D
     
    jello, Jun 6, 2014
    #14 + Quote Reply
  16. Gnomey

    Gnomey Active Member

    That is a beautiful coin...and I reckon it's an expensive one too.
     
    Gnomey, Jun 6, 2014
    #15 + Quote Reply
  17. jello

    jello Not Expert★NormL®

    Franklin also are costly
    that why PR64 was all I could afford .
    __3-10.jpeg
     
    jello, Jun 6, 2014
    #16 + Quote Reply
    JPeace$ and Agilmore01 like this.
  18. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    This would run around $1000 in this grade mintage 600
     
    Mainebill, Jun 6, 2014
    #17 + Quote Reply
  19. jello

    jello Not Expert★NormL®

    Try to find a Franklin proof 1950-54 mintage is a lot higher for 1000.00.
    Graded Cameo. for that price.
     
    jello, Jun 6, 2014
    #18 + Quote Reply
  20. cladking

    cladking Coin Collector

    For many dates "cameo" correlates closely to brand new dies.

    I think this is one of the reasons they are sought.
     
    cladking, Jun 6, 2014
    #19 + Quote Reply
  21. JPeace$

    JPeace$ Coinaholic

    Jello, that is a stunning Frankie proof. I'd be proud to have that in my collection!
     
    JPeace$, Jun 6, 2014
    #20 + Quote Reply
33 more messages...
Page 1 of 3
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page