Is this '65 SMS Penny Cameo-Worthy?

This penny has die polish marks on the surface and I think I see mirroring, but it's hard to determine if it actually does through the cellophane.

I'm considering submitting it to NGC, but I'm not sure if it has a mirrored surface without opening it (I was planning on submitting it as-is with the cello). I'm shooting for MS-63/64 RD CAM at the least. The scratches above Lincoln's head is on the cello or it's lint. All white specks and white micro-marks are on the cello.

The last two pics are from HA showing an MS-64 RD CAM example. They have other examples that are more obvious, but I chose this one because it's hard to tell from the photos (at least to me lol).

Sorry for the poor pics, it's a bit hard to take a decent photo with the cellophane in the way. Thanks in advance!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't think it's enough to get cameo.

 

Reverse marginal, obverse I'd think not.

 

If the surface is mirrored enough to be a PL quality mirroring, then would it suffice? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I read that they'll determine cameos even if it doesn't have full frosty devices, so long as a minimum relative contrast exists between the devices and fields.

 

The flat surfaces of the memorial and the same areas of Lincoln, have the same reflectivity, Only my opinion though.

 

I don't think it's worth the cost of having it graded.

 

I'd say it's a toss up until you remove it from the cellophane and get better photos. Any 65-67 SMS cent in cameo and you're talking an ultra rare modern coin worth substantial value. Your coin the obverse looks good, but the reverse looks weak but it could just be the pictures and with these it's a gamble with the TPGs but if the coin is close enough imo it's worth a try.

 

If I submit the 1965 SMS penny without the original cello, then will the TPGs know that it's an SMS and label it as an SMS? I'd think they would but I can picture some examples that may have found their way into circulation and they may neither look like SMS pennies nor take the submitter's word for it. In my case, I want to make sure it is what I hope it is before submitting it. I'm not sure what the major TPG's policies are, but maybe it's like a GSA Morgan that you claim is from a GSA holder but only submit the coin without the holder, which I'm sure they won't label as "GSA"; though, that's a different situation since the SMS penny would have a relative difference in strike and finish. Thanks in advance!

 

Ok in case anyone was wondering, I spoke with PCGS and the rep told me that a raw SMS coin without its original cellophane may or may not be designated as an SMS. It will be at the discretion of the graders. So, basically, if it looks obviously like an SMS, then it'll probably get slabbed as an SMS. If, however, it's too difficult to tell esp. if it's circulated, then it may likely be slabbed as a regular business strike coin.

 

Ok I took it out of its cello shell... and it's nicely mirrored!

That's got to count for something, right?

 

Definitely maybe!

I don't believe that they'll mistake that coin for a circulation strike

 

Can you try and take better photos of the cameo effect you're seeing now that it's out of the cellophane?

 

I see it as a PL, but not a CAM.

 

Does PCGS assign PL grades to SMS pennies? I hope so but I don't see it on their page. Or, is PL super uncommon on SMS?

 

Sure, it's a bit hard to get the lighting right, since it distorts the cameo effect somewhat but here it is below. I think that a lot of the marks are die polish marks and definitely some haze/toning that's been lighting scratched (micro hairline rubs that seem to touch only the haze and not the coin itself in many parts - most evident in last angled photo). The reverse memorial building is hard to see the cameo effect, but if I angle the view with the camera, it shows up better.

I think that it helps that the mirroring is rather deep, which helps to build that contrast better. It's certainly not a strong cameo, but there's a strong relative difference. I'm going to give it an acetone bath followed by a xylene bath, then acetone again to see if the haziness will go away and look more like the fields inside of the "O" in ONE CENT.

 

Actually, this is interesting because if I submit the coin without the cellophane, they may say MS-6X RD PL instead of MS-6X RD SMS (either with or without the CAM), since they say it's not sufficient to prove that it's an SMS. Unless the mirrored fields prove it.

 

Ok first acetone bath done, took pics, and now it's in xylene.

Here are the pics (sorry for the poor quality!):

 

No they don't, neither does NGC. That being said even nice deep mirrored proof like SMS cents aren't extremely common either.

New last picture really shows the reverse much better. Considering just how rare cameo SMS cents are I still believe it may be worth a shot at slabbing. I know from experience capturing the cameo look in hand can be extremely difficult in photos so if it looks better in hand to you I'd personally gamble with it.

 

Yeah, I just called PCGS and customer service affirmed that Cameo or Deep Cameo implies a mirrored surface, so it'd be redundant. But, if the graders at their discretion determine that the coin is a non-SMS, they'll assign it as a regular strike. In which case, it'll get a PL label.

I'll take more pics after the Xylene and second acetone bath, and I hope it'll come out better. Probably daylight photography will make it clearer to see.

 

Took coin out of Xylene bath, took some post-Xylene photos, now in 2nd acetone bath...

One thing I like to look for in cameo coins is how much reflection there is on the devices, both absolutely and relative to the fields. You can see some mirroring of the paper's printed ink letters on the devices, but it's still noticeably in contrast with the fields. Anyway, it looks to be shaping up, and if this isn't CAM, maybe it'll get a star grade for having PL fields (?).