Geez - what does it take to get a CAM designation on a proof WLH ?

[TonerGuy]

Not my coin, but she sure is pretty...

 

Does any have a photo of a CAM / UCAM designated WLH proof ? (if they exist since I am too lazy to look at the pop report... )

 

I see that the sun is not frosted but Im starting to think thats just unrealistic if this coin cant get at least a CAM.

 

And why no * ?? I cant believe this coin isnt * worthy !

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1938-WALKING-LIBERTY-HALF-DOLLAR-NGC-PF-68-HIGHEST-GRADE-Below-Price-Guide-/301205356224?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item46213cfec0

[copper toning]

We have all seen rather bland proof coins made to look deep cam in photos I am guessing this might be the case here also

 

I may be wrong but I believe other threads on this subject often point toward the sun not being frosted and I do not believe any cam walking libs exist

[RWB]

There are a few cameo WL proofs. You won't seem them changing hands very often.

[Walkerfan]

There are a few cameo WL proofs. You won't seem them changing hands very often.

 

This is true. (thumbs u

[Coindude]

From those pictures it looks like the sun is lacking of frost. This is the hold back for those Walkers with cameo appearance that just don't make it. That is a beautiful coin though and I'm surprised it didn't get a star.

[coinman_23885]

From those pictures it looks like the sun is lacking of frost. This is the hold back for those Walkers with cameo appearance that just don't make it. That is a beautiful coin though and I'm surprised it didn't get a star.

 

Agreed.

[MarkFeld]

From those pictures it looks like the sun is lacking of frost. This is the hold back for those Walkers with cameo appearance that just don't make it. That is a beautiful coin though and I'm surprised it didn't get a star.

 

I have seen many proof Walking Liberty Half Dollars and Mercury Dimes whose images caused them to appear to be much more cameo-like than they really were. And that was without any manipulation of the images. So my guess is that it failed to garner a star because it looks less spectacular in hand.

[robec1347]

This is an old image of SkyMan's 1938 NGC PF66Cam. In hand the cameo is much more evident.

 

[coinman1794]

To answer the first question: it takes a lot to make CAMEO on a WLH, and this piece falls short of it. Its most notable shortcoming is the lack of frost on the sun, but there are other scattered frost breaks, too. Also, in my experience, Cameo contrast can be greatly exaggerated by photography, and there is no way to tell if the frost we do see is even really there.

 

It seems like a beautiful coin, and I would not be opposed to the STAR being used on it for that reason, but not directly for its contrast. The STAR is usually only used on Proofs when the obverse fully qualifies for the CAM or UCAM designation, and the reverse falls short. Clearly, this one does not have a CAMEO obverse, so it does not qualify for the STAR standards on the basis of its finish. The overall eye appeal is what it has going for it, and that could qualify it for a STAR.

 

 

 

[BillJones]

I bought a Mercury dime with a fair amount of cameo on it that did not make the "cameo" label. I just enjoy the coin for what it is, and oh yes! It cost me a lot less money without the label. (thumbs u

[SkyMan]

Here's mine, NGC PR66CAM. Note the depth of the mirrors and the frosted sun on this compared to the one in the OP.

 

[AHFreak]

I believe it has been mentioned already. But I figured I could add some insight... If it is possible yet for me to "specialize" in anything.. it would be the proofs/SMS mainly the cameo/ultracameo specimans... I make a living buying and selling these coins on Ebay. Now, I do not want this to sound like I am trying to disrespect this particular Ebay seller in any way... I am quite familiar with his listings, and I cant remember which, but I know I have either bought from him, or he has bought from me... I can confirm that many of the sellers on Ebay have the mindset of using photos that really highlight the "contrast".. so they use angles/lighting/distance/etc.. to really capture and highlight the cameo contrast of proof coins... I think there are sellers who are trying to be less than honest about it, i.e. making a proof look more cameo in the photo's than it really is "in-hand". then there are some who are not trying to be dishonest, and they just feel like a proof is supposed to have decent contrast, and so they make their photo's reflect that contrast. I personally believe this particular seller is not trying to be dishonest or deceitful, but rather just wanting to have eye-appealing photos. It is/can be a touchy subject. As a proof seller on Ebay, I can attest to how difficult it is to capture the exact "in-hand" look of a cameo/deepcameo frosty proof... especially if/when said proof is slabbed. it is a challenge, and IMO, easy to cross into the questionable area where it may look and seem like you are trying to represent a proof coin as having more cameo than it really does to make the $$$.

 

As a buyer of Ebay proof coins, I have become good (IMO) at buying cameo/deep cameo proofs based on photos. First of all, if you get comfortable with certain sellers, you will see how their photos compare to the "in-hand" look. As a buyer, I have sellers where I know that I can rely on the look of their pics %100, and others where I know they manipulate details so that photos look much frostier in photos than in hand. A few tips would be, to look at all the sellers photos... Does every single proof the seller is listing look cameo, even though the slabs do not reflect "cameo" designation? If so, I would suggest using caution, or at minimum, do not have high expectations of what one of their coins will look like "in-hand" based on their pictures. Another way to get an idea, is to go verify the certification number with NGC, (in the event that there are pictures)... this is not a perfect science, as I can safely say that cameo and ultra cameo proofs are not NGC's strong point, when taking photos. Some of my Ultra Cameo's that are frosty stunners in hand, do not even look cameo in NGC's photos, but for the most part, you can get an idea.

 

When buying cameo and/or deepcameo proofs based on pics, you have to exercise caution, and become familiar with sellers who you can trust and rely on.

 

 

My point, is that I do not think that W.L. proof is nearly as cameo "in-hand" as that photo makes it look... (again, not to imply anything negative about that seller, I believe he is one of the better ones on Ebay).

 

Chris.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I believe it has been mentioned already. But I figured I could add some insight... If it is possible yet for me to "specialize" in anything.. it would be the proofs/SMS mainly the cameo/ultracameo specimans... I make a living buying and selling these coins on Ebay. Now, I do not want this to sound like I am trying to disrespect this particular Ebay seller in any way... I am quite familiar with his listings, and I cant remember which, but I know I have either bought from him, or he has bought from me... I can confirm that many of the sellers on Ebay have the mindset of using photos that really highlight the "contrast".. so they use angles/lighting/distance/etc.. to really capture and highlight the cameo contrast of proof coins... I think there are sellers who are trying to be less than honest about it, i.e. making a proof look more cameo in the photo's than it really is "in-hand". then there are some who are not trying to be dishonest, and they just feel like a proof is supposed to have decent contrast, and so they make their photo's reflect that contrast. I personally believe this particular seller is not trying to be dishonest or deceitful, but rather just wanting to have eye-appealing photos. It is/can be a touchy subject. As a proof seller on Ebay, I can attest to how difficult it is to capture the exact "in-hand" look of a cameo/deepcameo frosty proof... especially if/when said proof is slabbed. it is a challenge, and IMO, easy to cross into the questionable area where it may look and seem like you are trying to represent a proof coin as having more cameo than it really does to make the $$$.

 

As a buyer of Ebay proof coins, I have become good (IMO) at buying cameo/deep cameo proofs based on photos. First of all, if you get comfortable with certain sellers, you will see how their photos compare to the "in-hand" look. As a buyer, I have sellers where I know that I can rely on the look of their pics %100, and others where I know they manipulate details so that photos look much frostier in photos than in hand. A few tips would be, to look at all the sellers photos... Does every single proof the seller is listing look cameo, even though the slabs do not reflect "cameo" designation? If so, I would suggest using caution, or at minimum, do not have high expectations of what one of their coins will look like "in-hand" based on their pictures. Another way to get an idea, is to go verify the certification number with NGC, (in the event that there are pictures)... this is not a perfect science, as I can safely say that cameo and ultra cameo proofs are not NGC's strong point, when taking photos. Some of my Ultra Cameo's that are frosty stunners in hand, do not even look cameo in NGC's photos, but for the most part, you can get an idea.

 

When buying cameo and/or deepcameo proofs based on pics, you have to exercise caution, and become familiar with sellers who you can trust and rely on.

 

 

My point, is that I do not think that W.L. proof is nearly as cameo "in-hand" as that photo makes it look... (again, not to imply anything negative about that seller, I believe he is one of the better ones on Ebay).

 

Chris.

 

 

Very well said.

[RWB]

Insightful comments, Chris.

[TonerGuy]

Thanks to everyone for making this a solid learning thread.

[jpcienkus]

I've been wanting to add a PF WLH to my collection. That "want" has just moved up in importance thanks to the thread.

[James_OldeTowne]

There are a few cameo WL proofs. You won't seem them changing hands very often.

There is one for sale in our July auction. We got it certified on behalf of the consignor, and his estate also produced a "star" for an obverse-cameo prooflike Walker.

 

The coins came out of a pretty nice hoard of extremely original examples that had been put away for something like forty to fifty years. We did NOT permit them to be dipped or conserved in any way, which is usually what happens to such coins, unless they had surface contamination (a few did).

 

SPAM: Here is a link to the 1942 cameo proof in our auction. Disclaimer: this one did, unfortunately, require conservation, but the coin is free from contaminants, now.