Cameo Designation

I've seen that picture before that demonstrates how they changed the dies... I agree they don't look nearly as nice and much of the detail is lost.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hi - wasn't questioning "why" people expect DCAM - was asking, why people think DCAM is "better"? I personally feel the brilliant finishes reflect the details much better than the DCAM's and that's what I like about the coins "seeing" the details! Txs!

 

In general the majority think DCAM is better overall, but that said there are quite a few people (myself included) who aren't big fans of how they look at the moment which in large part was illustrated by Dougs picture. My opinion is also that their quality isn't good enough at the moment to be exaggerating the proofiness (yes I made that word up ) the way they do now, the smallest imperfection stick out like a sore thumb but that is a bit of a different conversation

 

As a close friend of mine is fond of saying: "that's why there's horse racing" (smile)

 

I think deliberate attempts to make sure everything was cameo started later in the '70s, but the big change came in 2006, first on the ASEs when they introduced the "reverse proof" (stupid term, but I'll use it anyway) coins an used a laser to impart the cameo finish onto the dies. In 2007, the presidential dollars were also done this way, and within a few years all the proofs were downgraded to this appearance.

 

Rarity. It's reasonable to expect the majority of coins struck by a given die pair to have that "brilliant" lustrous finish you like - not that I don't like it too - but only the first few strikes of a brand new (or freshly polished) die are capable of creating the DMPL reflectivity. And even then there's no guarantee they will strike such coins.

 

if i understand you correctly, you are saying that generally speaking, people prefer the "rare" over the "beautiful"......? i guess it's akin to certain TONED coins i have seen - some have been graded PF 68 - but i personally thought the coin, because of the toning - was one of the UGLIST coins i have ever seen! i understand, that the toning may not necessarily affect (or is it effect? smile) the grade or condition of the coin, but as far as EYE appeal..... also - not sure it this is the right place to ask (if not - please direct me otherwise) but i don't understand all the fuss, with MAGNIFICATION....when i look at my collection, i am rarely hunched over a desk with a bright lamp and a magnifier....ditto when i share my collection with others - i don't say "hey, wanna see some nice coins - oh wait, lemme whip out my ole magnifying glass... i've always felt, if you can't see it with the naked eye, it doesn't exist (smile).....when observing ART - most people stand back a ways - they don't stand right on TOP of the painting and check out EVERY brush stroke....if it looks nice WITHOUT magnification...why "ruin" the moment? - just my thoughts!

 

I think the Kennedys don't appear cameo in my opinion, based on the photographs. They are very attractive, reflective contrasty coins. The 1956 Franklins have nice contrast, but from the photos, it is hard to tell whether or not they have sufficient contrast for the designation. In general, TPGs are tough on Franklins for the designation. All of the coins you posted are attractive, and have eye appeal, if not a cameo designation.

 

Put most simply, I have the opposite opinion of yours about DMPL coins. A DMPL Morgan is about as beautiful a coin as has ever been minted in America, to my mind, and there's nothing else in numismatics like one.

 

I'm married, so my "asserting" days are long gone! (Smile). I fully understand though and as you suggest, will endeavor to remember to offer the same quality for others that I would appreciate receiving! Better yet- giving MORE than I get, never hurts! Thanks to all who read this for your patience and support!