Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mikenoodle, post: 1780448, member: 307&quot;]This is a subject that fascinates me and I felt like I needed to share this info even though it doesn&#039;t address the matte proof question. I felt it might be helpful to the discussion to differentiate the cameo proofs of the 50s and 60s and give the facts as to why.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The frosting on the devices for coins from 1950-70 are much different than post 1970.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Today the devices are sandblasted and then have their fields polished and rubbed with diamond dust compound to give them the cameo effect and then chrome plated. In the previous period (1950-70) the dies were instead dipped in a &quot;pickling&quot; solution of 5% nitric acid and 95% rubbing alcohol. This would frost the entire surface of the die.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>A worker preparing the die would then touch up the frosting on the devices with a cotton swab and more &quot;pickling&quot; solution and then the dies would be buffed and polished with the same diamond dust compound, first with a wooden mandril and then a felt-tipped mandril. The mandrils wouldn&#039;t be used in the recesses of the die and that is why the dies had a cameo effect at first.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The earlier process made a cameo frost on the dies that was much more delicate and it often wore away quickly. To say that it was overuse of dies that accounts for the small number of cameos is factually incorrect. The chrome plating of the dies is what accounts for the long lasting cameo effect and the change in proofs today. Now nearly ALL have strong cameo devices.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The cameo coins are all well struck as are many without cameo devices. The weak strike of a large percentage of these proof coins can be correctly attributed to the overuse of dies, but the lack of cameo devices cannot.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in