ok, saw some ngc and anacs labeled pf, that are really ultra cameo, or cameo

There was a time when certain types did not get those designations. For example, this proof 2c piece I used to own was pretty deserving of the CAM designation, I think (not that you can tell from this photo), but was holdered in the early 2000s, before PCGS started giving that designation to any 2-cent pieces. Or so I believe.



This old avatar picture of it I used to use gives a better idea of the contrast, tiny though it is:

.


At other times you can have a coin that looks full CAM or DCAM but didn't make the grade on the slab label. This can happen when there are small frost breaks in certain areas. Most or even almost all of the coin's devices can have the frost and the contrast... except for one small area. I think that can hold a coin back.

Sal- here you go.

In a nutshell, you've got three tiers of proof designations. It's all about the contrast between the fields and the devices.

(*Note that the abbreviations used by different TPG services can vary slightly. For example, NGC uses "PF" for proof instead of "PR", and "UCAM" for "Ultra Cameo" instead of "DCAM" for "Deep Cameo".)

Basically, you've got three tiers of contrast.

1. Brilliant Proof (no suffix- in other words, "a plain old proof"), which is often flashy and can have quite deep mirrors, but little to no contrast between the fields and the rest of the design elements.

(NGC PF65 RB)
*This particular coin does have a suffix after the grade (RB for Red Brown), but that has to do with the color of the bronze and nothing to do with the proof contrast. It is a basic proof and not CAM or DCAM.


2. Cameo Proof (-CAM suffix), which has contrast between the design elements and the fields, much like a cameo carving does (hence the name).

(PCGS PR65 CAM)


3. Deep Cameo or Ultra Cameo Proof (-DCAM or -UCAM suffix), which has very strong cameo contrast and a "caked on" frosty appearance. Some collectors also unofficially refer to these as "black and white" proofs because of the sharp contrast, as you can see here on this modern San Marino coin.

(PCGS PR69 DCAM)

 

And that's your answer John.

Basically, when it comes to whether or not a coin is deemed worthy of the CAM or DCAM designation it's a matter of degree. The cameo effect may well be present on a coin, but it just doesn't quite measure up. There may be a tiny flaw that holds it back or the frost just isn't quite thick and heavy enough to get the either designation. And that, how thick and heavy the frost is, is also the difference between CAM and DCAM. With CAM it just doesn't quite get there, with DCAM it does.

 

Good heavens, I spent nearly half an hour working on Post #3 above, typing a reply and finding pictures, all to explain the difference. Did you not read it at all, or not just not understand it?

I even linked to a page on the NGC website, if my explanation wasn't good enough.

Maybe you only read as far as Sal's post and not as far as my reply in the next post, I guess.