Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 185065, member: 112"]I have to give it to airedale, these two coins are perfect example. Both of these coins, the PF66 and the PF65 CAM are very, very close to each other in the amount of frost they have on the devices. I even thought for a minute that they might both be the same exact coin, but after closer inspection I changed my mind on that. Anyway, in my opinion (stress opinion), NGC did make a mistake. But I think the mistake they made was to assign the Cameo designation to the PF65. I think both coins just miss. And that's why samj is correct, it is hair splitting. But that's what the cameo designation is. Deciding what is cameo and what isn't is subjective, but there is also an objective side to it. For a coin to be designated as cameo it is supposed to have frost on all of the devices, without major breaks or lack of frost. Neither of these coins have that, there are areas on both where the frost is missing. There are other areas where the frost is weak but it is there. But it is the missing areas that decide it, and that is the objective part. However in this case, the NGC graders used their subjective opinions and did assign the cameo to the one coin. I can't really put it into words any better than that. Cameo is one of those things that you just have to see to understand it. It requires looking at lots and lots of examples, and after a while you know it when you see it.[/QUOTE]