The language used for assigning various levels of cameo on proofs in many of the grading guides and from the TPGs, are vague and "self-evident", at least from what I've read. But if we were to get more particular with the cameo designations, and assuming that the chart below is accurate (or at least based on graded examples), is the range for deep cameo at say, 75% to 100% device coverage with no mirrored surfaces on the devices? Is cameo the next say, 25%? And the rest are either not assigned a cameo, or given ★ grades to say, 49% and 74% coverage? In reality, graders probably just eye it and know from experience (esp. given the time constraints of measuring every single modern proof that comes in the door, right?). Then, what would you say this proof Morgan dollar should be assigned as? Thanks in advance! (The last one in the Cameo row doesn't actually look Cameo.)
Cameos are perhaps one of the most subjective of all areas of grading, as cameo contrast defines just that . . . a comparison of the depth of frost on the design elements versus the depth of mirrors in the fields. Cameos actually vary much more in character than portrayed by the above photos. There are many graded cameos which possess very strong frost on the portrait, but are subtly frosted in the fields as well . . . even not so subtly frosted. Those also can qualify for the cameo designation, despite not having deeply mirrored fields. Other important factors are uniformity of contrast (uniformly deep fields, and uniformly frosted devices), and balance of contrast, from side-to-side. There are many cameo-graded coins out there which do not interest me, simply because the price at which that grade generally trades does not match my expectations for eye appeal. When looking for cameo coins, I almost always prioritize the level of cameo contrast over the technical grade. I'm buying for arm's length appeal . . . not for how the coin looks under a loupe. I think focusing on whether a cameo coin is going to grade one grade higher or one grade lower is less important than whether the coin will draw the eyes of others from a distance. By extension, that also means I generally feel the spreads between numerical grades of cameos are too large, and the spreads between adjectival grades for same are presently too small (when the contrast is accurately represented by the assigned grade).
Your question is quite valid iPen but it's kind of hard to qualify and quantify it given how you have asked the question. If you had asked the question in regard to moderns only it would be easier than what you have done, but still pretty difficult at best. I say that for two reasons. 1 - Cameo varies greatly depending upon the time frame at hand for the coins in question, even among moderns alone. And 2 - it's almost impossible, I would even say is impossible, to compare the cameo of a Proof Morgan to that of a modern Proof. And there's even 2 reasons for that. The cameo effects are/were created by different methods on the two coins, and even business strike Morgans were created to have cameo - not just the Proofs. So, if you are trying to determine if a Proof Morgan is cameo or deep cameo, then you can only compare it to other Proof Morgans, and those from a specific date range because they are not all the same. So to answer your real question, is the Morgan you pictured cameo or deep cameo, again it's almost an impossible question to answer based on pictures because the qualifiers are so subjective. But based on what I can see I'd call it cameo.
I always thought that cameo designations were absolute and not relative. So, today's proofs may almost always exceed the levels of the deepest deep cameo Morgans. And yet, they're all within range of a deep cameo coin. I guess it makes sense that cameo designations are relative, given that grading coins even seem to be relative to the series for non-modern coins. That said, I can see grade inflation / deflation occurring in the future with cameo designations. Maybe coins with any coverage at all will at least get a cameo grade, even if it's toned over or the fields aren't contrasted at all.
By the way, NGC gave this grade for that 1893 proof Morgan that I posted. It's part of the reason why I'm a bit confused. With a coin like that, I'd think they'd get it right the first time, so it isn't a fluke. Spoiler PF 68 ★
Pretty much everything in grading is relative. Not really. Cams and PL designation have been tighter now than they used to be. That's something that has been tightening over the years overall. Who says they didn't? Cams and PLs have to be seen in hand to say it was wrong or not. It's to easy to manipulate those with photos
It's kind of hard for them to be anything BUT relative given this. And that's just from a 5 year period of production. Also, realize, each one of those coins has full frost, each one is deep cameo.
Deflation then. True. Here's the obverse photo of the coin taken by NGC. It's definitely toned over and looks less convincing of a cameo, but still borderline.
I think the difference in thought is that I'm thinking of cameos as an absolute defined range as opposed to a single alterable reference point. So, all of those examples are within range of deep cameos, and the Morgan below would be closer to the bottom of that range. If in the future the Mint comes up with an even more frosted example of a deep cameo, then that'll extend the upper range of deep cameo.
What I am trying to get across is that there are many different methods that have been used by the mint to create the cameo effect, and no two of them create the same effect. With each time frame having several methods. And that includes the 1800s time frame and all time frames after that. In those pictures I posted, the mint used a different method in each of those years. So of course the cameo is going to be different, and sometimes radically different.
I'm not sure if you have that Morgan in hand, but photography can be manipulated to make the cameo appear stronger than it may be in hand.
I wish lol. An 1893 proof set is on my wish list... But yeah, the photo looks to have been brightened. I do show another, contrasting image that was taken by NGC a few posts up.
