Why would/should a Proof gold coin designated Ultra Cameo get a star from NGC?

[MarkFeld]

Please give plausible and deserved reasons if possible. Later today I will reveal the coin which prompted me to start this thread. If you already know which one I'm speaking of please keep it a secret - thanks.

[bsshog40]

Without knowing what coin you are talking about Mark, my opinion would first be based on if this coin was a modern issue or older gold.

If classic gold, then I would think that it would have exceptional luster remaining to it that would cause it to be more eye apealing than others.

If modern gold, then I would think that it might have exceptional detail than most of it's counterparts.

[gmarguli]

Answer: Because NGC felt the coin had exceptional eye appeal.

 

OK, several other possible reasons I can think of:

• The cameo is especially thick.
  
• The coin is toned - yes, gold can tone.
  
• The mirrors are especially strong.
  
• It's a very rare coin that NGC wants to keep in its slab and not have crossed to the competition.

[MarkFeld]

Answer: Because NGC felt the coin had exceptional eye appeal.

 

OK, several other possible reasons I can think of:

• The cameo is especially thick.
  
• The coin is toned - yes, gold can tone.
  
• The mirrors are especially strong.
  
• It's a very rare coin that NGC wants to keep in its slab and not have crossed to the competition.

Greg, based upon the extremely limited information you had, that was a good response - thank you. However: 1) The "especially thick" cameo should already be accounted for by the "Ultra Cameo" designation; 2) If it were attractively toned, that would be a legitimate reason for the star, in my book. But to my knowledge, this coin is not toned; 3) Typically the "'especially strong" mirrors would be part of the "Ultra Cameo" equation, but even if not, that is not an unusual attribute for Proof gold coins; 4) The star designation likely wouldn't keep the coin in an NGC slab and out of the competition's holder.

 

Please note, my debate is not with you on this issue, at least not yet.

[MikeInFL]

Other than exceptional eye-appeal (even for a DCAM), attractive toning is the only other reason I can think of...Mike

[James_OldeTowne]

I can think of at least a couple of reasons, with "toning" being the most obvious (especially for a gold coin).

[gmarguli]

However: 1) The "especially thick" cameo should already be accounted for by the "Ultra Cameo" designation; 2) If it were attractively toned, that would be a legitimate reason for the star, in my book. But to my knowledge, this coin is not toned; 3) Typically the "'especially strong" mirrors would be part of the "Ultra Cameo" equation, but even if not, that is not an unusual attribute for Proof gold coins; 4) The star designation likely wouldn't keep the coin in an NGC slab and out of the competition's holder.

 

Please note, my debate is not with you on this issue, at least not yet.

 

Not to debate (yet), but to clarify my answers - even though they apparently aren't the reason for the Star designation.

 

Thick Cameo: There are many different degrees of cameo that could qualify for the Ultra Cameo designation. While I don't have enough experience with (presumably classic) gold proofs, I do know that with coins like Franklins, there can be a dramatic difference in the thickness of the frosting between Ultra Cameos. Some of them are decent and others can be so thick looking that they almost appear fake. I know the "ultra" Ultra Cameos bring significant premiums and are in demand by specialists. Given the difference in appearance, I believe that NGC may award a Star for this.

 

Strong Mirrors: It's been my experience - which may not be accurate - but PCGS tends to like stronger mirrors in order to get their DCAM designation, while NGC will accept lesser mirrors for the UCAM as long as the frost is there. Perhaps these mirrors were exceptional? As we know, there are mirrors and there mirrors.

[Doogy]

i know you're speaking of the *********************** just sold today, and i can honestly say they did it from letting it get to the competition. Did it deserve a star? Absolutely! .....and it also helps having the star so it didn't wind up in PCGS's plastic.

 

 

[MikeInFL]

If you already know which one I'm speaking of please keep it a secret - thanks.

[Doogy]

oops, sorry; i missed that line i guess. sorry to let the cat out of the bag.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

However: 1) The "especially thick" cameo should already be accounted for by the "Ultra Cameo" designation; 2) If it were attractively toned, that would be a legitimate reason for the star, in my book. But to my knowledge, this coin is not toned; 3) Typically the "'especially strong" mirrors would be part of the "Ultra Cameo" equation, but even if not, that is not an unusual attribute for Proof gold coins; 4) The star designation likely wouldn't keep the coin in an NGC slab and out of the competition's holder.

 

Please note, my debate is not with you on this issue, at least not yet.

 

Not to debate (yet), but to clarify my answers - even though they apparently aren't the reason for the Star designation.

 

Thick Cameo: There are many different degrees of cameo that could qualify for the Ultra Cameo designation. While I don't have enough experience with (presumably classic) gold proofs, I do know that with coins like Franklins, there can be a dramatic difference in the thickness of the frosting between Ultra Cameos. Some of them are decent and others can be so thick looking that they almost appear fake. I know the "ultra" Ultra Cameos bring significant premiums and are in demand by specialists. Given the difference in appearance, I believe that NGC may award a Star for this.

 

Strong Mirrors: It's been my experience - which may not be accurate - but PCGS tends to like stronger mirrors in order to get their DCAM designation, while NGC will accept lesser mirrors for the UCAM as long as the frost is there. Perhaps these mirrors were exceptional? As we know, there are mirrors and there mirrors.

Greg, you have again provided a very good answer - perhaps that was NGC's thinking.

[MarkFeld]

Here's the coin in question: Stunning Proof 1804 $10

[Zoins]

There's a thread ATS with some posts correcting/adding information to the article.

[jtryka]

I'd put a star on both those eagles.

[MarkFeld]

I'd put a star on both those eagles.

Why?

[Zoins]

The 1804 has a pretty interesting history if it was struck with a circa 1803 die with a repunched 4.

 

A legit US Mint piece with fewer survivors than the 1913 V nickel and 1933 Saint.

[SkyMan]

Greg is completely right vis-a-vis a UCAM star. Having collected cameo Frankies for roughly 20 years now, there is NO question that some UCAM's are so monstrous that they absolutely deserve a star, and that is why NGC gives it. I have seen one in hand and seen pictures of most of the others. The coins almost look fake they are so caked with frost (and have great mirrors for contrast).

 

A Franklin UCAM star is a VERY rare bird indeed. There are currently 15 UCAM stars in the series out of all the tens of thousands of proofs that have been submitted. There are 6 years WITHOUT any UCAM stars, including surprisingly enough 1962 which is by far the most common date for UCAM at NGC.

[Keleum]

I certainly have no business commenting on a 5 million dollar coin. But would a collector of a coin that famous really care about the holder or the grade?

 

For coins like that, do the TPGs compete for the "privilege" of grading them?

[jtryka]

I'd put a star on both those eagles.

Why?

 

To me, any classic proof that has the look of a modern proof with this frost and deeply mirrored fields is deserving of a star. Today these sorts of coins are common (like the FS Jefferson I just got) but in older proofs, particularly proofs produced in the 1830s, this was just not the way the coins came out. So seeing the 1804 with a fosty golden liberty on what appears to be a disk of onyx to me deserves a star. I'd say the same of the 1838, though it's not quite as striking as the 1804.

[MarkFeld]

I'd put a star on both those eagles.

Why?

 

To me, any classic proof that has the look of a modern proof with this frost and deeply mirrored fields is deserving of a star. Today these sorts of coins are common (like the FS Jefferson I just got) but in older proofs, particularly proofs produced in the 1830s, this was just not the way the coins came out. So seeing the 1804 with a fosty golden liberty on what appears to be a disk of onyx to me deserves a star. I'd say the same of the 1838, though it's not quite as striking as the 1804.

Thanks for the answer/explanation - you and Greg have made fair points.

 

I certainly have no business commenting on a 5 million dollar coin. But would a collector of a coin that famous really care about the holder or the grade?

 

For coins like that, do the TPGs compete for the "privilege" of grading them?

You have as much business as anyone else does commenting on the coin. Some collectors don't care about the holder or the grade but others do.

 

In answer to your other question - the grading companies want the really special coins in their holders and it could be fairly argued that at times they compete (in the sense of grading the coins liberally) for the "privilege" of having them in their holders. This competition has led to some large (up)grade changes for certain rarities such as 1804 Dollars over the years.

 

[braddick]

Wow! I read where TDN had an opportunity to purchase the coins, many years ago, for 10%+ of the current price?

 

That's got to sting!

 

Did you guys also read what the previous grade/holder read?

[Tradedollarnut]

I'd put a star on both those eagles.

Why?

 

To me, any classic proof that has the look of a modern proof with this frost and deeply mirrored fields is deserving of a star. Today these sorts of coins are common (like the FS Jefferson I just got) but in older proofs, particularly proofs produced in the 1830s, this was just not the way the coins came out. So seeing the 1804 with a fosty golden liberty on what appears to be a disk of onyx to me deserves a star. I'd say the same of the 1838, though it's not quite as striking as the 1804.

 

They're great coins - but they don't really look quite that good. The seller has a habit of adjusting the contrast on their proof images.

 

I loved the 1804 $10 when I saw it ... especially in the PF64 holder it was in! But I have no problem with the 65 grade - it certainly looked it!

[BillJones]

I would give both of those eagles stars all day long. The frost and contrast is really impressive, and like the others said, you just don't see that on a 100+ year old Proof coin that often ESPECIALLY proofs of this vintage (1830s).

 

The closest I've ever handled to something like these coins was an 1899 half eagle I once sold in NGC PR-67 ultra cameo. That coin was as nice as most anything you would see in modern Proof coin holder. It didn't have a star, and the contrast was quite as defined as it is on these pieces.

[jtryka]

Thanks for the insights TDN, I should have qualified my answer to apply only if the coins actually looked like those photos. Unfortunately I've never seen those coins in person, so the photo in the article is all I have to go on (and yes, I would insist on seeing this in person before ever purchasing it!)