FlyingAl

Definitely a Reverse of 1940. Note the sharp definition at the right side of the steps that is the giveaway.

I recently started on a long journey that I wanted to share the start of to get a few thoughts on. What do you guys think of this idea, and should I finish it for all of the coins? Note: the half dollar study is nearly done. I can upload that as well, though I will likely do it as a PDF due to the images not pasting correctly. Here is my intro for the full die study, followed by the first two cent entries. I did not edit my intro for this post, so it can give you an idea of my view for the finished product. Here you go! This is a die study of the known cameo proof coins and their die pairs based on PCGS and NGC certification. This guide’s intention is to serve as a deterrent to counterfeiters who wish to deceive collectors. It can, however, serve as a guide for collectors who wish to search for a coin from dies that had the best details they had to offer. These dies are almost always the dies that produced cameo coins. By being able to match a coin to a die pair that produced cameo coins of a later die state, collectors can obtain a coin with much higher attractiveness than usual for a normal price. Only coins with verifiable cameo dies and cameo die pairs were included, which required high quality images. One altered coin was discovered in this undertaking, which was a major reason for its production. Such coins can be altered by taking a normal non-cameo coin and adding a solvent to the devices that make them appear white or coppery. When well done, this alteration can be extremely difficult to spot, even for a professional. As such, several coins have made their way into TPGS holders as altered coins, yet they were not spotted as such. The TPGS have been fervently hunting such coins and to correct their errors. The best tool for a collector to avoid this is to use die matching, which can be achieved by use of this guide.. By analyzing the die pairs used in the production of these coins, it is likely that no other altered coin will ever be certified. The numbers used are Cameo Numbers, abbreviated CA-X. The X will be replaced by the number of the die in the order it appears in the sequence of denomination and year order, commonly referred to as “Redbook order”. All cents will come before nickels and so forth. For dies discovered or added after the original set of study is complete, their numbers will come after the highest currently known die number. For a coin to be considered, it must be graded as a cameo by PCGS, NGC, or CAC. ANACS and ICG coins will be considered, so long as the contrast can be verified. In addition, another coin from the same die pair must show a similar degree of contrast, though it may not be certified as cameo. This is used as an anti-counterfeiting safeguard. All information relating to use dates is from Roger Burdette’s work on the subject, titled United States Proof Coins 1936-1942. Example CA-X (Cameo Number) Possible Use Dates: Dates that new die pairs were used or where the die use could be narrowed to a day or set of days. Die Markers: Markers of each die and images of those markers. Description and Coins Possible: Description of the coins and coins likely remaining. Image: Image of a coin. (Usually a TrueView from CoinFacts unless labeled as such.) . . CENTS 1936 Proof Cent CA-1 Possible Use Date: September 15th. Die Markers: Die scratches extending from the right upright of the T in TRUST, impression midway up the N in UNUM. Description and Coins Possible: There appears to only be one die pair capable of striking proof cameo 1936 cents, but since die records are missing for a large part of the year, one cannot be sure of this. The cent is the only currently known 1936 cameo proof, which makes it quite rare in the series and it commands a substantial premium. Less than ten are likely to exist today. Image: . . . 1937 Proof Cent CA-2 Possible Use Dates: March 18th, September 8th, October 4th. Die Markers: Striations off of the N in ONE and E in AMERICA. Circular die lines on the obverse portrait. Description and Coins Possible: A deep cameo reverse is common. One of two known die pairs, this is the more desirable and most contrasted. It is likely that this die produced around twenty cameo coins. Several Ultra Cameo coins were produced from this die pair, which would lead one to believe that this date and denomination is quite common when compared to other cameos. Around 30 cameos probably exist from this die alone. Image: . . . . . Feel free to put any thoughts in a comment - anything you would change or add, or any comments in general. If you were a collector of these coins, what would you want? As noted, the study is not anywhere near complete. I can also only trace dies that produced cameos for one use cycle - when dies were repolished they often lose their identifying characteristics. There are rare exceptions, but I don't think those exceptions would be of use to a collector.

I recently made my largest numismatic purchase (cost wise) over the weekend - this 1940 proof set. The images on Ebay looked quite promising, and the price even more so. I needed the half and nickel to go 65 and everything else 64 to break even. I liked my chances, so I took the shot. The set arrived today and it exceeded my expectations! I believe it may be an original set moved to a Capital Plastics Holder (more on this later). I will take this opportunity to give some background on these proofs. Since I expect there may be a few who don't want to read that, I'll put it at the bottom of this post and you can skip it if you want to. Here are the coins: Half - I grade it 67, though it is a liner coin. I could see it in a 66 holder, although it is a bit better than my 1942 in PCGS PR66. It has some light hairlines in the obverse fields, and above E PLURIBUS UNUM. It has some amazing original blue and steel gray tone from the cellophane, which I am a huge fan of. Detail is slightly below average for the year. Quarter - I grade it 67+. This is a beast of a coin, and I think that it is slightly better than my 1941 in 67. There is a light hairline just below the Y in LIBERTY, which is the only flaw I could find. It has an even, truly original gray haze that matches the half exactly. Detail is slightly above average for the year, as is eye appeal. Dime: I grade it 67. The tone here matches the quarter, though it is a little more prominent and spotty. There is one hairline between the L and I in LIBERTY, running diagonally from the nose to the L. This is the only flaw I could find. Detail is average for the year. Another great coin. Nickel - I grade it 66 (Rev of 40). A pretty solid 66, with some marks and light hairlines on the obverse. The reverse is exceptionally attractive, with very few very small light hairlines. The reverse has a great pearly sheen luster, with some blues creeping in around the rims. Tone on the obverse matches the other coins. Detail is average, recut ribbon. There are a few nice die cracks in Jefferson's hair, one shows up in the obverse photo. Cent - I grade it 64RB (though it's not red or brown). This is the nicest toned Lincoln cent that I've ever seen in person. It knocked my socks off. Deep red and greens blend with some oranges on the obverse to from an even, brightly colored mirror surface. The reverse has electric pinks, blues, and greens melding perfectly to form a beautiful electric colored sheen unlike anything I've ever seen before. Taking pictures of this coin was daunting, but I gave it my best effort. I underexposed the shots to try and get the color to show, but it does give you an idea of what the coin looks like under light. This unedited shot of the nickel caught part of the cent in the upper right, and I liked how it showed just how much these proofs can change based on lighting. Most of these colors don't show in the direct cent image. . . . Now on to the history! I will use Roger Burdette's book United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 for mintages and original values/die numbers. This book comes highly recommended, and it is my favorite numismatic book. In 1940, there were between 11,000 and 15,000 proofs reported minted (roughly) and about twenty five percent more (per denomination) were struck but destroyed due to assay or quality issues. About 11,000 proof sets could have been made, though since proofs were sold individually there is no way to know for sure. To get a "set" from the mint in 1940, one simply ordered one coin of each denomination. There was no option for a "set", so as such the words "original set" for this era simply mean an order of one coin of each denomination kept together since the day they left the mint. Each coin costed the following: Half - 75 cents Quarter - 50 cents Dime - 20 cents Nickel - 20 cents Cent - 16 cents This brought the cost of a full "set" to $1.81, with 8 cents for postage. Face value was 91 cents. One could order as many coins of each denomination as they pleased, so an order of 40 proof half dollars could be made. $456.90 of face value proofs were unsold in 1940, which is the first year that a large quantity of unsold proofs remained. This is roughly equivalent to 502 sets, though there is no way to know exactly what denomination and what quantities remained unsold. The Medal Department could usually produce orders to demand (and tried to), so large quantities of leftover proofs were uncommon. Each proof was struck once with a medal press on highly polished dies and planchets, and then inspected individually for quality. The dies and planchets used were only different from circulation dies and planchets due to the polishing. This created the mirror like fields currently shown on these proofs. Overpolishing of dies often led to detail loss, which can be seen on each coin above. This gives the appearance of a weak strike, when in reality the poor polishing job left little detail to spare. Many dies over the era were condemned as a result of overpolishing, some before they struck a single coin. Finished proofs were then placed on stray and sent to a worker to be inspected. Once inspected, finished proofs were packaged in cellophane envelopes and sent to the buyer in whatever mailing materials the Medal Department had on hand. In 1940, the nickel had an interesting variety where a leftover reverse die from 1939 was used to strike 1940 nickels. However, since the reverse design was revised in late 1939, the die was the same as one from 1938. As such, the 1940 Reverse of 1938 nickel was produced. It is suspected that this die produced 900 coins, and this accounts for the entire mintage of the variety. It remains rather scarce today. That's all I think I'll history wise add to this set, though I remain undecided about what to do with it. I had originally planned to send it to Great Collections for grading and sale (they get discounted rates and I had intended to try and get some profit out of it), but now I am considering keeping the set. I remain undecided at the moment. Decisions, decisions!

Roger, Thank you for sharing this! I'll bring the photos over here for all to see. The grades for these coins are as follows: Cent: PF64RD CAM Nickel Type 1: PR67 Nickel Type 2: PR65 Dime: PF64 Quarter: PR66 Half: PR66 I really like the look of the original pieces balanced out with the contrasted coins. The Type 2 nickel, while not designated cameo, is in my opinion fully frosted obverse and reverse and deserves the designation. It appears better than all but one of the CAM nickels on PCGS CoinFacts contrast wise. I may end up upgrading/replacing the half for one with some more contrast at a later date, but for now it is more than suitable.

I own neither of these coins, rather they were the fruits of a quick google search to answer your question.

Another: To keep the thread on track, I expect this service will be very similar to NGC and PCGS, while trying to ride on CAC's success and premiums in the market. The stickers will be eventually phased out over time by CAC raising prices for that service to a level where it becomes too expensive for the majority of coins, and then I expect it will end.

They exist.

The scratches appear to be on the plastic to me.

Can we all, just for a second, appreciate that we have an OP that actually took the time to resubmit and share the results? I know that the results were positive, but the fact that he actually resubmitted and was right is to be commended.

And what exactly makes you think this is a sandblast proof?

Thank you Kurt. I was trying to communicate this the best way I could. This is exactly what I was saying - like it or not its here to stay.

You can probably look up "1937 proof nickel pcgs" and a certified example in a video will pop up. I know there's a video from a well respected video of a CAM example on Youtube.

On the contrary, I'd say that answer is pretty satisfying. It pretty much sums up what I was thinking, with the possible exception fo the '36 Satin Buff.

Roger, you are correct that the true value of a coin must be decided by buyer and seller. However, you cannot deny that the grade assigned by a TPG sets the baseline for what the coin will sell for. Look at all of the examples of the exact same coin in a different TPG grade that sell for wildly different prices - and all that changed was the number on the label. The value changed based on the grade assigned, did it not? Several TPG graders have openly admitted that the grading services grade based upon the market valuation of a coin in certain instances. For example, a coin that would grade 65 today was previously graded 64 a decade ago because the market value of a 64 then is what the market value of a 65 is today. Like it or not, that's how it goes. Inherently, using your system will end up valuing a coin as well. No matter what, a collector will always pay more for a MS65 example over a VG10. By stating the surface preservation as a number, you've just placed the coin into a price category where a collector will likely buy it for. Is that category fixed? No. But does that price range exist? Absolutely. The grade sets the baseline. Why do I embrace this view? It's how I survive in the hobby. There's no way I could have any collection anywhere near what I have today if there wasn't this value change based on a TPG grade. It's why crackouts work. It's why cherrypicking works. It's how I finance my collection, because the system favors those who have the knowledge and experience to play the game. Do I collect this way - absolutely not! I almost never take grade into consideration when buying a coin for my 1936-42 proofs collection. Grade is the last element on my list of attributes I want in a coin. I do this because I know how the system works. I make the system work for me, not against me.

I am nearly positively certain they currently reside in Fort Knox.

I can understand why you have your differences with Roger (whether or not I agree with those reasons). I, for one, don't have any issue with the majority of his opinions. This is one difference. Roger's grading in general is decades behind where the market is, so his opinions on grading will also be decades behind. I won't buy a book Roger writes on grading, but you sure can bet I'll buy a book of his on mint history. I am sure that eventually, we will all disagree on something. After all, if you are holding for everyone to think positively of you, you'll be waiting for a very long time indeed.

This is great, thank you! The original is the best IMO.

As much as I generally agree with you Roger, I cannot disagree more with this statement. First, grading comes down to valuing a coin. It is valuation in the simplest sense. Since stars increase the value someone would pay for a coin, it most certainly is part of a grade as much at CAM, DCAM, PL, DPL and others are. We all know grades fluctuate and they always will.

Update - the coin was cracked out and sent to NGC. When viewed outside of plastic, my determination fo a star grade was confirmed, and the reverse frost popped a bit more. I remember thinking that it had an outside shot at CAM (though I doubt it would ever go CAM). I graded it 67*, with a point bump for the frost. The submission was marked as delivered by the USPS on Thursday, but the package hasn't yet shown up in the find package feature or submission tracking. I figure this is due to the hurricane delays and wish the best for all at NGC who have been affected.

I see that we have stooped low enough to allow personal insults into the mix. This thread contributes nothing to this forum. All it is succeeding in doing is lowering the reputation of those who choose to continue to participate. Let the thread die.

Quintus, quite the opposite in fact. I really like the date styling on the 1938 coins and the 8 seems to be exactly the right size to me. This could just be me though. However, the date style shifts slightly over the years and I like it less and less the more it changes. My 1942 Jefferson has quite the difference when compared to the 1938. I can only assume that over the years the hubs had to be altered slightly or some other occurrence.

I had posted about this coin over at the PCGS forums but I figured I'd pop in over here as well and share with you guys. I had recently picked up this nice 1938 nickel with gorgeous frosted obverse devices, the deepest contrast I've seen on a 1938-42 Jefferson nickel. I was blown away by it. The mirrors are super deep as well, though the reverse lacks in frost. I think this will be the perfect candidate for a star when I submit it to NGC. The coin is the FS-402 obverse and the reverse with the die cracks across "FIVE" and "AMERICA". Only three cameos have been certified by NGC and PCGS, and only seven NGC star coins. Any contrasted 1938 nickel is a rare coin indeed. The pictures are hard to get right, but I assure you the whole bust is frosted and the mirrors are jet black and very reflective. The obverse has more contrast than my 1942 CAM cent. The reverse is nice, but not quite there for CAM.

@numisport, I have considered sending it for a regrade but I'd need it to go 66CAM or 65DCAM to justify it, so it's probably going to stay in it's holder. It's a solid 65, but a 66 is probably pushing my luck.