Mint state v. Ultra-cameo???

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by skinnyeddie, Oct 31, 2006.

Page 2 of 2
  1. airedale

    airedale New Member

    Your Honor I am in receipt of your PM as follows.
    Personal insults

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airdale: Even though your insulting remark about GDJMSP'S opinions would have been deleted if it were not about a Moderator, that does not mean that you may freely make such remarks.

    If you disagree with someone opinion - Moderator or not - the appropriate thing to do is to state your disagreement.

    When you are disagreeing about a matter of fact as opposed to an opinion, you should also specify the basis for your disagreement, such as an authoritative source, etc.
    __________________
    Roy

    WINS #502
    ANA #K-218183
    AC6H since 1978, OOTC #4256

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think you read a little too deeply into what I said. He said I was wrong and I say he was wrong. Just because someone makes a post on every thread does not make them the ultimate authority.

    I have found Jeff Werlin with 20 years of experience in Cameos to be very knowledgeable in this field. His website is http://jwcameo.com/ and at the top of the page you can click on Learn about Cameos. A visit to his site will display some of the most beautiful Cameo photography possibly in existence, I heartily recommend it to anyone interested in " the best of the best. "

    As I mentioned earlier there is an excellent reference book on the subject which was authored by Rick Tomaska. I highly recommend this book as an educational resource. The title is "CAMEO AND BRILLIANT PROOF COINAGE OF THE 1950 TO 1970 ERA".

    I am attempting to attach his foreword on Cameo Coins, due to the size limitations I am not sure the 2 pages will be legible.
     

    Attached Files:

    • rt1.gif
      rt1.gif
      File size:
      33.6 KB
      Views:
      178
    • rt2.gif
      rt2.gif
      File size:
      36.9 KB
      Views:
      184
    airedale, Nov 4, 2006
    #21 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Check_M_All

    Check_M_All New Member

    I'm sorry, I'm still new here and don't want to be fuel on a fire, but I'm trying to see where GDJMSP is wrong. I have read the two pages you posted, Airedale, and I don't understand. The earlier dies may not have been sandblasted as they are today, but the information you posted refers to them as "proof dies" which means they must have been subject to some special preparation to differentiate them from business strike dies. What I read about the cameo effect wearing off after so many strikes from the early proof dies seems to be almost exactly what GDJMSP stated. Again, not looking to start anything, just trying to understand.
     
    Check_M_All, Nov 4, 2006
    #22 + Quote Reply
  4. airedale

    airedale New Member

    OK I am weary of this too. His statement was " The dies were specially prepared to produce coins with cameo devices - it was no accident. "

    The dies were not specially prepared to produce Cameos, they just happened to for a little while. I suppose the mint could have cared less if they did not ever press a Cameo pre 1970 something. Since 1970 something the dies are specially made to produce a Cameo.
     
    airedale, Nov 4, 2006
    #23 + Quote Reply
  5. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator


    My statement stands and is reinforced by the comments taken from Tomaska's book. But it doesn't need to be really for all you need to do to see that it is true is to look at Proof US coins from their very beginning. For even the very first US Proofs were cameos when struck with new dies. This is because the Proof dies were specially prepared to produce coins with cameo devices. In the old days they sandblasted the devices to produce this effect. (Today they use lasers.) And as the dies struck more and more coins they wore down and the cameo effect ceased to occur. But if looking at the coins is not enough to convince you, perhaps this will. The following is a quote from Q. David Bowers -

    "The term cameo with regard to Proofs refers to a Proof coin on which
    the main design, most notably the portrait or central figure, has a frosted
    or lustrous finish, while the fields or flat areas are deeply mirrorlike.
    Just about all of the copper, nickel, silver, and gold Proof coins made at
    the Philadelphia Mint from the early days, through the time of general
    availability of Proofs to the public (1858), down to 1902, are cameo Proofs.
    In 1902-3, someone at the Mint began polishing the deep recesses in the
    Proof dies, and Miss Liberty on some Proofs of 1902, most all of 1903, and
    some of later dates have "polished" rather than cameo portraits. Most copper
    Proofs 1905-1909 (Indian), nickel Proofs 1905-1912), silver Proofs
    1905-1915, and Liberty Head gold Proofs 1905-1907 revert to the cameo style."

    As you can see from the quote, Proof coins from the very beginning were designed to be cameos except for the brief period in the early 1900's when someone decided to change the look of Proofs. But they quickly reverted back to the cameo style.
     
    GDJMSP, Nov 5, 2006
    #24 + Quote Reply
  6. airedale

    airedale New Member

    This is what I said and I am done with this.

    3. The earliest interest I have are the proof sets that started in 1936 and to find a Deep or Ultra Cameo in those sets through 1974 or so is really a great find and I think someone will be willing to pay you very handsomely for it in the future. I believe there are earlier coins like Trade Dollars that can be found in at least Cameo but that area is beyond the scope of my study.

    4. The Deep or Ultra Cameo coins of that 1936 through mid 70's era were virtually an accident or mistake ( I say that tongue in cheek ) as no special preparation was made. I think they were just the first few coins off of a new set of dies that acquired those lovely frosted devices and deeply mirrored fields.
     
    airedale, Nov 5, 2006
    #25 + Quote Reply
Page 2 of 2
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page