Cameo Designation

I don't know if PCGS took what NGC said about them to heart, but they were ruthless with my last submission. It could also be what I thought was cameo was not to them, but I always thought NGC was way harder for cameo designation. Here's a bunch of coins that did not get cameo, maybe someone can chime in with why they should or shouldn't get it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I can't tell on the quarter but the first 4 look to have to many breaks and weak areas in the frost. They're hard on Cams and such now a days

 

yeah I guess just seeing all the coins with cameo it's hard to find the cutoff. The last one is ultracam but it doesn't look like one. I understand textbook definition they have weak areas but it seems like a lot of coins have those.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1962-PCGS-P...583652?hash=item2127055ce4:g:51UAAOSwcaFZH65W

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1956-PCGS-P...499564?hash=item1c85e593ac:g:-bIAAOSwtGlZH6z6

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1959-Frankl...304577?hash=item4b13a7b2c1:g:uiMAAOSwSlBYyDpg

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1956-FRANKL...202877?hash=item4d39eb497d:g:WScAAOSwI-BWIn0J

 

And I thought I take bad pictures. Some of those pictures in those links are really brutalizing those coins

 

Alright, then take these two coins. One got cameo one didn't (not that I'm complaining about the cameo on the AH)

 

That's why I feel they don't go by the textbook, there is some arbitrary cutoff that I can't figure out.

 

Grading cameos seem to be more subjective than meets the eye...I,ve received several which were obvious cameos to my eye, but still came back proof. Cameo should look solid without any brakes in contrast on both sides, not just the obverse.

 

I'm not sure why the top one didn't get CAM, but none of the others are surprising. The frost must be full over the entire devices, as Doug says. I'm guessing that the frost fades a bit in some of the folds of his jacket, from what I'm seeing in the pictures.

On the second 1956, notice how the frost fades around his neck and hairline? That will disqualify it.

The Kennedy reverse looks strong enough, but the obverse (in these pictures) isn't close.

 

I agree with everything you just said. That's why I was hoping you could tell me why one coin in post #7 received cameo and one did not. I have obviously seen both of these in hand and am comparing them to themselves, regardless of the bias I might inject.

 

I think that's what I was missing, I didn't realize how much the mirrors were a factor, I thought it was all about frost.

 

hi - i'm kinda new to this, but i really don't get the fascination with cameo's at all....
i compared some of the brilliant proof sets i have from the early 70's with those from 2000 and 2016 - on a side by side comparison - the observe of the cameo quarters look WASHED out - you can't see ANY details of the face and hair (as opposed to the brilliant ones from the 70's) - on the jefferson nickels - on the early 2000 proof sets - there is hardly ANY details on the Monticello - but you can see EVERYTHING on the ones from the 70's....so...need help here - what am i missing? thanks!

 

That everyone is discussing cameos from the past when you had a mix of cam, dcam and neither. The modern proof sets you mentioned if they aren't a DCAM they're a complete dud. DCAM is expected on every one now a days and has been for a while

 

What a hell of a post. Thank you; that makes mental gymnastics unnecessary.

 

Hi appreciate the pics (wish I knew how you do that!) However, if I'm not mistaken, they all all pics from the satin finish mint sets - wold be great to see side by side comparison of 68, 69 or 70 sets compared to finishes from the 2000's other that the satin ones -