Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
When is a Deep Cameo finish NOT a Deep Cameo finish?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="ToughCOINS, post: 2587232, member: 20480"]I have long collected and dealt in cameo proofs between 1950 and 1970. I have also had differences with the grades / attributions sometimes assigned by the TPG's. I've had many discussions with other dealers / collectors / customers regarding this same topic.</p><p><br /></p><p>Almost without exception, I can divide into 2 groups the sentiments uncovered in those discussions, as follow:</p><ul> <li>The fields must be un-toned black, and the devices un-toned white.<br /> </li> <li>Toning is acceptable over all or part of the coin, as long as the mirrors are uniformly deep and the frost uniformly thick, leaving an obvious difference in reflective character between fields and devices, especially through the toning.</li> </ul><p>More importantly, there was a pretty consistent correlation between those making the first claim, and their relative inexperience compared to that of those supporting the second position.</p><p><br /></p><p>Looking back, I started as an adherent to the first, only later learning that the second was necessarily true. If all cameo coins of a date, say the 1957 nickel for a rare example, are toned, then there can be no cameos of that date according the adherents of the first argument. However, if after dipping a number of them out, a few cameos are evident, were they never cameos at all? Of course not.</p><p><br /></p><p>Cameo contrast is just as permanent a trait as the details struck into the coin, unless and until it is worn, altered or defaced. The contrast is a product of two different types of luster on the coin. Whether the coin has toned over the cameo contrast or not is truly immaterial. The right types of luster to produce the effect were imparted by the dies at the mint, and remain in place, regardless of what the holder says.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think you just ran up against the TPG's willingness to cater to those less experienced in the marketplace. I can't argue with that . . . their existence hinges on protecting the uneducated from themselves. I just wish the uneducated would put more energy into getting educated so that the TPG's weren't such a dominant influence.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="ToughCOINS, post: 2587232, member: 20480"]I have long collected and dealt in cameo proofs between 1950 and 1970. I have also had differences with the grades / attributions sometimes assigned by the TPG's. I've had many discussions with other dealers / collectors / customers regarding this same topic. Almost without exception, I can divide into 2 groups the sentiments uncovered in those discussions, as follow: [LIST] [*]The fields must be un-toned black, and the devices un-toned white. [*]Toning is acceptable over all or part of the coin, as long as the mirrors are uniformly deep and the frost uniformly thick, leaving an obvious difference in reflective character between fields and devices, especially through the toning. [/LIST] More importantly, there was a pretty consistent correlation between those making the first claim, and their relative inexperience compared to that of those supporting the second position. Looking back, I started as an adherent to the first, only later learning that the second was necessarily true. If all cameo coins of a date, say the 1957 nickel for a rare example, are toned, then there can be no cameos of that date according the adherents of the first argument. However, if after dipping a number of them out, a few cameos are evident, were they never cameos at all? Of course not. Cameo contrast is just as permanent a trait as the details struck into the coin, unless and until it is worn, altered or defaced. The contrast is a product of two different types of luster on the coin. Whether the coin has toned over the cameo contrast or not is truly immaterial. The right types of luster to produce the effect were imparted by the dies at the mint, and remain in place, regardless of what the holder says. I think you just ran up against the TPG's willingness to cater to those less experienced in the marketplace. I can't argue with that . . . their existence hinges on protecting the uneducated from themselves. I just wish the uneducated would put more energy into getting educated so that the TPG's weren't such a dominant influence.[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
When is a Deep Cameo finish NOT a Deep Cameo finish?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...