2001 Proof Dime - Strange Grade - CAMEO or ULTRA CAMEO?

[brg5658]

I recently purchased this coin, partly because I found the grade interesting and the "W" classification is relatively scarce on NGC coins. I contacted NGC about the dates when they assigned the "W" (white) and "T" (toned) designations to their slabs. I got an answer from NGC stating that the designations were began in 2000 and were stopped in August 2002. This coin is a CLAD 2001 10C piece, graded "PF70 White Cameo".

 

Any Dime afficionados out there guess as to why the Ultra was not included? Jaime (Schatzy), ideas?

 

Thanks for looking.

 

 

 

 

 

[bsshog40]

I'm not a dime expert but it just doesn't look like it has enough cameo to be ultra. It could be the pics also.

[MarkFeld]

It doesn't look close to Ultra to me.

[brg5658]

Well, in this case I bought it for the slab, not for the grade. This is the NGC 8.1 holder, with the NGC 7 label, but the NGC 8 hologram. This slab was used from Sept 2000 through July 2001. By feasibility of it containing the 2001-S Proof, it is guaranteed to be the 8.1 version, not the 7 version.

 

Just after photographing it the cameo effect on this is what I would consider the same as the other PF70UC dimes I have in my set. Just wondering if there is really any consistency on the differentiation between Cameo and Ultra Cameo, as I've looked at probably close to 100 PF70UC dimes, and I don't see the difference between those and this one (at least in hand). I realize my pictures are not great...sorry for that.

 

The bottom picture is the original, unbrightened, diffuse lighting picture.

 

[johnny9434]

it doesen't look ultra to me either. jmo

[coinman_23885]

I think the cameo designation is borderline, and I would probably have put this in a PF70 star holder without a cameo designation. It's definitely not an ultra/deep cameo piece.

[Schatzy]

I think the cameo designation is borderline, and I would probably have put this in a PF70 star holder without a cameo designation. It's definitely not an ultra/deep cameo piece.

 

I agree 100%.....it is borderline cameo to me (from the pictures).

 

 

Here is a toner that I got!!

[Schatzy]

The picture with the slab really shows the difference.

Here is a example of a ultra cameo obverse and cameo reverse.

See how much thicker the frost is on the obverse.

[brg5658]

Thanks everyone for your replies. Just for the record, the title of the post as "Strange Grade" was in reference to the "W" white designation. Thus, the information regarding the dates/timeframe when the "W" was used. The reason why I asked the questions "Cameo versus Ultra Cameo?" was because I'm still learning what differentiates the different grades.

 

Sometimes the star means one side is cameo, but other times the star may mean it has appealing color/toning. A grade of "cameo" seems to sometimes equate with one side UC the other side sort-of cameo, while other times "cameo" means that both sides are "sort-of" cameo but not with very deep contrast. It seems the only combination/permutation of descriptive words that is not ambiguous is the Ultra Cameo designation, which means deep cameo contrast on the obverse and reverse. Am I interpreting all of this correctly?

 

Thanks all!

[coinman_23885]

Thanks everyone for your replies. Just for the record, the title of the post as "Strange Grade" was in reference to the "W" white designation. Thus, the information regarding the dates/timeframe when the "W" was used. The reason why I asked the questions "Cameo versus Ultra Cameo?" was because I'm still learning what differentiates the different grades.

 

Sometimes the star means one side is cameo, but other times the star may mean it has appealing color/toning. A grade of "cameo" seems to sometimes equate with one side UC the other side sort-of cameo, while other times "cameo" means that both sides are "sort-of" cameo but not with very deep contrast. It seems the only combination/permutation of descriptive words that is not ambiguous is the Ultra Cameo designation, which means deep cameo contrast on the obverse and reverse. Am I interpreting all of this correctly?

 

Thanks all!

 

The term "W" has nothing to do with grade, and it was merely a designation that NGC used for a short period of time to indicate that a coin was white; similarly, a "T" appeared for toned specimens. Additionally, the cameo designation has nothing to do with grade which refers to the level of preservation (a PF70) in this case.

 

A star designation is used when the coin has exceptional eye appeal. It may be used for outstanding color, luster, or the situations you outline; however, it is important to know that a star designation can mean more than a split cameo designation (where one side of the coin exhibits more cameo than the other side) as you suggest. A star designation can be applied in other situations as well, such as when a coin demonstrates frost, but yet doesn't warrant a cameo designation. There is nothing ambiguous about any of the terms. For determining a cameo designation, always consider the limiting side to be the one with the least amount of frost. If one side is only sufficient to merit a cameo designation, but the other side is an ultra cameo, the coin receives only a cameo designation. Similarly, if a coin has one side that is completely brilliant and the other side appears to be worthy of a cameo designation, no designation is applied because BOTH sides must satisfy the criteria for the designation to apply.

[e1cnr]

oh my! the slab is a 3-way mule

 

 

the rarity of such a mismatch is probably hard to quantify

 

 

I thought the star meant excellent eye appeal for grade,

but not really sure

[jom]

I don't see how the coin is even labeled Cameo let alone DCam.

 

Someone also suggested a "star". Why? It's a 70 so what is the need for a "star"? It's a 70 for chissakes.

 

OK, I admit I find these designations and labels absurd...but that's just me.

 

jom

[coinman_23885]

oh my! the slab is a 3-way mule

 

 

the rarity of such a mismatch is probably hard to quantify

 

 

I thought the star meant excellent eye appeal for grade,

but not really sure

 

The star designation is for eye appeal, and it should be grade independent (except that lower grade uncirculated coins may have so many ticks as to destroy the eye appeal be it from toning, reflective fields, etc.). NGC has historically awarded the designation to coins that just miss a designation such as this piece; however, I would put it in a star holder indicating that the cameo contrasts are borderline, but insufficient to award a cameo designation at all.

[coinman_23885]

I don't see how the coin is even labeled Cameo let alone DCam.

 

Someone also suggested a "star". Why? It's a 70 so what is the need for a "star"? It's a 70 for chissakes.

 

OK, I admit I find these designations and labels absurd...but that's just me.

 

jom

 

I was basing the star designation on NGC's usual procedure, but I will concede that the designation would be trivial and would not warrant a premium for this coin.

 

[Coindude]

That's actually pretty strange for a modern proof not to be ucam, and I think it's just the photo, but it may have very light frosting and probably wouldn't cam by todays standards.

[mkman123]

Anyone got a picture to show the difference between cameo vs deep cameo or ultra cameo? Some coins that are ultra or deep look like normal cameos....

[brg5658]

I think the cameo designation is borderline, and I would probably have put this in a PF70 star holder without a cameo designation. It's definitely not an ultra/deep cameo piece.

 

I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "PF70 Star" holder. I thought the Star Designation was restricted to coins grading MS69 or PF69 and lower. At least that's the definition I always saw. Can someone confirm this or provide a counter-example (a coin graded PF70* for example).

 

 

[Schatzy]

I think the cameo designation is borderline, and I would probably have put this in a PF70 star holder without a cameo designation. It's definitely not an ultra/deep cameo piece.

 

I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "PF70 Star" holder. I thought the Star Designation was restricted to coins grading MS69 or PF69 and lower. At least that's the definition I always saw. Can someone confirm this or provide a counter-example (a coin graded PF70* for example).

 

PF69 and MS69 is the limit for * coins.

 

NGC applies the to qualifying US coins in its normal course of grading. It is not used for non-US coins. As they are already of the ultimate grade, any coin graded MS 70 or PF 70 will not be eligible for the . Coins already certified by NGC can be resubmitted and reviewed for using the Designation Review Service, the fee for which is $10.

Source Link

[coinman_23885]

I still wouldn't put it in a cameo holder.

[Schatzy]

I still wouldn't put it in a cameo holder.

 

Photoing a cameo or ultra cameo coin can be hard, lighting is everything. I find it very hard to believe that 2001-S doesn't even have cameo contrast.

[Schatzy]

Look at this one.....it doesn't look deep cameo but lighting has everything to do with it!!

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=131131&lotIdNo=1040

[brg5658]

When I get a chance I'll try to take some better pictures. Because this is in a holder from the 2001 era, is it also possible that the standard for "cameo" was just slightly looser? I always hear talk of certain years where the grading standards were "looser" or "stricter", but I haven't been in the hobby long enough to know when those years were.

 

My 1976 PF69UC doesn't look UC either, but it's definitely my lighting this time: Link

[brg5658]

OK guys, I got new lights and a new photo setup for proofs. Here are my new (better?) photos. Still no CAMEO, really??

 

[coinman_23885]

OK guys, I got new lights and a new photo setup for proofs. Here are my new (better?) photos. Still no CAMEO, really??

 

 

It was the photo for me, but you must agree that the original photo diminished the cameo contrasts. I can understand the cameo designation based on the new images. I do, however, still believe that the coin is not ultra cameo. I say this because of the breaks in the cameo on the top of Mr. Roosevelt's head and on the reverse.

[brg5658]

OK guys, I got new lights and a new photo setup for proofs. Here are my new (better?) photos. Still no CAMEO, really??

 

 

It was the photo for me, but you must agree that the original photo diminished the cameo contrasts. I can understand the cameo designation based on the new images. I do, however, still believe that the coin is not ultra cameo. I say this because of the breaks in the cameo on the top of Mr. Roosevelt's head and on the reverse.

 

Yes I agree. I don't think it's ultra either. I was using a diffused lighting set up before, as I'm used to photographing satin finish coins. Those coins really benefit from the diffused light, but to get real contrast on proofs I had to revisit Goodman's book and change my lighting set up.

 

Again though, I bought this coin as a representative of the NGC 8.1 Slab, and because of the relatively short-lived "W" designation paired with it. All in all, it's a nice piece, but it's not even going in my dime collection because PF70UC 2001 dimes are not hard to come by

 

Cheers!

[Coindude]

I think that's a cameo.

[Buffalo Head]

WOW!! That coin's the BOMB!! Yes I'ld say so, Cameo all the way home. Ya know I found a 2011 dime in my change that almost knocked my eyes out. I've got to say it's one of the nicest coins I've ever found in my pocket....

[bsshog40]

Even with the new pics the coin still shows the Cameo. Definately not Ultra Cameo. In your opening post, you were asking why the coin was not Ultra.

[brg5658]

Even with the new pics the coin still shows the Cameo. Definately not Ultra Cameo. In your opening post, you were asking why the coin was not Ultra.

 

Yes, but I took other photos, as several said it wasn't even Cameo, and the "star" discussion commenced thereafter. I'd say it's VERY rare for a 2001 proof to not exhibit UC. However, I found the following information somewhat interesting from NGC grading of CLAD proof dimes: 2001 seems to be an anomaly of non-UC struck clad dimes. Only 77.3% of NGC graded proof CLAD dimes were UC, but 99.3% of the silver 2001 dimes were UC.

 

Maybe this is already well known? Or there is some mitigating bias here that is in play. The possibilities I can think of are (in no particular order)

 

1) There was a mass submission of 2001-S clad proof dimes that were not pre-screened.

2) There was some particular grader at NGC during this time frame that was particularly "strict" on assigning UC status to clad dimes.

3) The 2001 clad proof strike was just a particularly weak cameo year.

 

See the (disturbing and striking) plot below.

[Catbert]

Just to clarify the use of the star designation for proof coins - it is used for strong cameo contrast, not the generally understood reason for the star for mint state coins (eye appeal). From NGC's website:

 

NGC assigns a (star) to coins with exceptional eye appeal for their assigned grade.

 

Eye appeal is the most subjective attribute of a coin, but there are norms and standards shared by numismatists. Exceptional eye appeal may include attributes such as vibrant, colorful toning; intense luster; or, in the case of Proof coins especially strong cameo contrast. To receive a (star), coins must be free of any obvious planchet irregularities, and display no bothersome spots or blemishes. Toned coins can be of a single color or multicolored but cannot have any areas that are dark brown, approaching black.