• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Photo journey of a deep cameo proof coin

34 posts in this topic

I have found that many of the very modern proof US coins have absolutely pervading cameo effect. The cameo is above and beyond anything that was observed even in the 1990s and certainly before. The cameo effect is two-fold. Firstly, the fields have a liquid/glassy appearance. Secondly, the devices have a frosty or satiny appearance. This juxtaposition creates a very striking image indeed.

 

I just wanted to share a few images of a 2011-S Lincoln cent, graded PR70DCAM by PCGS. You can see the cameo effect, and with some zooming (shown) you can see the little "nodules" that give the modern proofs more of a satiny or grainy cameo than their older counterparts.

EDIT: Added diffused light zoom photos, for much more detail.

 

120506.jpg.284b0e8973fc29d23b3643c344adaed8.jpg

120511.jpg.71f4d8916fdbb065d8d88a506ed16a53.jpg

120512.jpg.296729b9b99a423934e13e4f40024cd5.jpg

120513.jpg.cd77f3ddfaa64b80028c82e46219c242.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Catbert,

 

Thanks, I agree with you regarding the jewelry comment. The little "bumps" were surprising to me when I looked at these macro shots up close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice! Do a comparison shot with a 2008 or earlier cent made before they started using this horrible proof finish. Show the change in detail in parts of Lincoln's portrait. Actually comparing 2010 and 2008 dimes might be better, as they changed Lincoln's portrait a bit in 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What type of lens/setup did you use to get that serious closeup? Looks great. I have a Tokina 100mm macro that I love, but I don't think I can get quite that close.

 

I have a Canon 50D, with an attached Pentax Autobellows (dovetail design) with M42 adapter ends. The lens was a Rodenstock Rodagon 50mm f/2.8 enlarger lens, with the aperture closed down slightly to f/4. I then took two shots one focused on the top of the rounding of the "2", and another focused on the edge detail of the "2". I then used a focus-stacking pyramid algorithm to combine the two images to maintain sharpness of both the highest and edge parts of the date.

 

At first, I tried creating the image with direct lighting to keep the exposure times lower (and the shake/fuzziness to a minimum). But, that didn't show the detail I wanted. Thus, these two images were shot using a paper towel as a diffuser, and with a remote release and a 10-second delay timer.

 

I will try to do a comparison of new vs. older dimes. I don't have any proof UC cents from other than the 2011 one. I just know the really new ones are very grainy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I really enjoy your photographs, my butt just puckers up at the new "Cameo" technique employed by the US Mint.

 

It just seems so unnatural.

 

DSC06798D.jpg

 

Why did the US Mint change from "Frosted Proofs" to "Snakeskin Proofs™"??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I really enjoy your photographs, my butt just puckers up at the new "Cameo" technique employed by the US Mint.

 

It just seems so unnatural.

 

Why did the US Mint change from "Frosted Proofs" to "Snakeskin Proofs™"??

 

I agree. I'm not a fan of the "grainy" or (as you call it) snakeskin cameo effect. It completely destroys the detail of the design as well. Maybe it's a money saving thing? I'd love to hear from someone with details about the process itself. Jason mentioned an acid method, but some gory details about the modern "bumpy" method versus the older "frosty" method would be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The traditional method used a manually applied frisket, then sandblasting of the area to be frosty. (They did not use nitric acid - too difficult to control the degree of etching and the soft contours did not hold up will in tests.)

 

Current method uses a laser to cut the pits into the dies. Almost no manual work is involved so it is much faster and cheaper to do. Edges of pits are not as sharp as with sandblasting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The traditional method used a manually applied frisket, then sandblasting of the area to be frosty. (They did not use nitric acid - too difficult to control the degree of etching and the soft contours did not hold up will in tests.)

 

Current method uses a laser to cut the pits into the dies. Almost no manual work is involved so it is much faster and cheaper to do. Edges of pits are not as sharp as with sandblasting.

 

Thanks Roger! Very informative! The laser method makes sense as to why the current method looks "blobby" or almost like little nodules. Money saving methods lead to cheap looking products. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earlier versions looked worse. While on the CCAC, I discussed this with the plant manager at Philadelphia and with the chief engraver. The PM was going to see if they could make the spot dimensions and spacing more random. I suggested a Gaussian spacing instead of random, but I was not able to follow up on what was done.

 

(I think the original photos of the “snakeskin proofs” were from 19Lyds or possibly messydesk….my brain is going south and I don’t remember this detail.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was gradual. Experiments started in 2002, I think. Over the past several years you might be able to find proof quarters or halves with both kinds of surface, or several variations in between. I don't know when the first production prices were released in proof sets. There was a small amount of publicity on this process, so check back issues of Coin World.

 

The present Micron system is based on the coordinates of features. This is fine for "perfect" dies, but none are really perfect, so you get over- or under-run as shown on the detail images of "20." A while ago someone on PCGS posted a coin with over-riun into the field...I think it was a half dollar.

 

OK...that cost me 2 IQ points....down to 71 now --- pretty soon I can run for Congress.... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earlier versions looked worse. While on the CCAC, I discussed this with the plant manager at Philadelphia and with the chief engraver. The PM was going to see if they could make the spot dimensions and spacing more random. I suggested a Gaussian spacing instead of random, but I was not able to follow up on what was done.

 

(I think the original photos of the “snakeskin proofs” were from 19Lyds or possibly messydesk….my brain is going south and I don’t remember this detail.)

I think I coined it but like you am dealing with an uncooperative brain!

 

DSC06806-EYE.jpg

 

Snakeskin Thread from ATS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links guys, very interesting reading.

 

I took these tonight and compiled them. They are all clad Roosevelt Dimes graded PF70UC by NGC. They are years 2000, 2007, and 2011. The "Snakeskin" laser etching is noticeably prominent in 2011, and sadly (as was already noted) this method really takes away from the design detail.

 

The top images are a profile of Roosevelt, the 2nd images are full-size crops of the nostril region put side by side.

 

Also, just for the fun of it, I was able to get a bit more magnification of the "20" part of my original posted 2011 proof cent, so I added that picture here at the end also. This one is a focus-stack of 3 original images.

 

-Brandon

120544.jpg.86cb9aba4eecdae59723e1cbe7e58f2d.jpg

120545.jpg.88a9f98a348329baaa2a6f2ba84f2b30.jpg

120546.jpg.dcb534ec5d62cb964aab0b3cb4f427cc.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! That's a dramatic difference between the years... Thanks for the photos Brandon.... very cool....kind of... Also kind of disappointing in the lack of detail from the new technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting these. This has been an interesting forum and one of the most educational that we have had in a while.

 

P.S. What set up are you using to photograph the coins?

 

I will keep my setup description semi-short here, as I've been meaning to do a full write up with all of the gory details.

 

My setup is three pieces.

 

1. My camera body: I use a Canon 50D DSLR. This is a mid-range DSLR, the key being that you have a camera that allows you to swap out the lenses. Canon makes lower-priced DSLRs that work just fine, as does Nikon, Sony, etc. Again, the important part here is that you have a DSLR which allows you to remove lenses (as you will need to fit your camera body to the bellows described in part (2). My particular type of camera is show below.

 

Canon_50D_Body.jpg

 

2. A bellows (an accordion looking extension piece): The bellows is what gives you flexibility in the amount of magnification and in the types of lenses you are able to use. The most accurate bellows are those with a dovetail "rail". That is, the accordion piece slides along a piece using turn knobs. The piece along which it slides is shaped like a trapezoid or like a dovetail join in wood working. Many other types of bellows and rails exist. Some have two circular rails, some have 3 circular rails, etc. They will all work to some extent depending on your use-case.

 

One of the important things you need to know about your bellows is the type of mount that it has on each end. Canon DSLRs use what's called an EOS mount. You can by Canon compatible bellows, and mount your Canon camera directly to the bellows without any adapters. My particular bellows has M42 lens mount threads at each end. Many consider these the "universal" mount, and adapters from M42 to almost any other brand mount are both inexpensive and readily available. Thus, I purchased an M42 lens to Canon EOS body adapter (for around $4) to attach my camera body. My particular bellows is this one:

 

Pentax_AutoBellows_BF041_M42_Universal_Screwmount.jpg

 

3. A lens (in my case, enlarger or duplicating lenses): This part of the equation is the most flexible and most important. You can mount to the bellows many, many different types of lenses. For the most part, you are going to want to look at lenses with manual aperture adjustments. That means, the lens will have a turn dial type scale on it which allows you to adjust the amount of light that is entering your bellows and camera. These are called f-stops or aperture settings. I will not explain here all of what that means, but you can find information elsewhere.

 

An inexpensive and good quality choice for the lens to mount to this set-up is what is called an "enlarging lens". These lenses were heavily used back in the days of film photography to enlarge small negatives to photo paper of varying sizes. They are optimized such that they create crisp images from "corner to corner" of the image, which is referred to as having good flat field properties. Originally they would have had a light behind the lens, projecting a negative or slide image onto a piece of paper (enlarging the image). The way they are used for photography is that they are mounted to a camera body, and (in our case) a well lit coin uses the opposite route but same optic rules to get that image projected behind your lens onto your digital sensor in your camera.

 

Common sizes used for coin photography are 75mm lenses, as they allow most DSLRs to fill the frame shot with images of a Silver Dollar down through a dime of US sized coins. 50mm lenses are used for more up-close photos, and a 105mm lens can be used for imaging coins larger than US Silver dollar size. Less than 50mm can create really close-up images, but larger than 105mm for standard numismatic needs become unwieldy (that is, you need to have a copy stand telescope that mounts your camera something like 3-4 feet above the coin!). Most enlarger lenses use a 39mm standard thread mount size called M39 in mount-speak. You can find M39 to M42 adapters for a couple dollars, and they mount well to the M42 bellows. Other adapters are also available that mount to other types of bellows (e.g., if you bellows is Canon EOS native, you can find M39 lens --> Canon EOS adapters).

 

I have found a search on the BAY with the following string to be useful for finding these lenses (do not include the quotations): "enlar* lens* (50, 60, 75, 80, 90, 105)". The sizes in the parentheses are the most common and useful sizes for numismatic imaging. My recommendation is to be patient and to buy these lenses for either less than $30 BIN or to only bid on lenses in auctions. If you're just testing out the method, I recommend a Vivitar 75mm enlarging lens. They can be had for around $15, they create decent images, and it will help you know if you really want to pursue this avenue.

 

A step up from the Vivitar is the EL-Nikkor 75mm lens, which goes for around $40-$80 depending on condition. And, the holy grail (yet affordable lens) for numismatic use is sort of thought to be the Rodenstock APO-Rodagon-D 75mm f/4.0 lens. NOT the f/4.5 lens, but the f/4.0 lens. It is optimized for 1:1 imaging, has great optical characteristics, insane detail, and usually goes for around $300-$500 in mint condition, or you can also still buy one brand new for around $600. If you are patient, you can find this lens for around the $200 price range on the BAY in auctions. It's not theoretically an enlarger lens, but a "duplicating" lens, thus the "-D" at the end of the name. I have this lens, and will just say, it really is tops. When I take images with it I don't have to adjust the color, contrast, saturation, or anything else. I just crop the image, resize to 800 pixels square, and it's beautiful.

 

Well, this description has become MUCH longer than I intended, but I hope this helps you some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites