Should a coin receive a "Cameo" designation if the contrast is diminished?

[Insider]

I am looking for comments on this concept. We do not need to see a specific coin to discuss this.

 

Many coins with a very reflective mirror finish on their field (Proofs, PL's and DMPL's) have a contrasting "frost" on their devices. This gives the piece a "Cameo" look. When the frosting is very thick, many call this look "Deep Cameo." IF THE CONTRAST IS NOT THERE, THE COIN IS NOT A CAMEO OR DEEP CAMEO! This should be common knowledge.

 

Set Up: I have a gem Proof Ike dollar with beautiful iridescent deep blue toning covering the entire coin. Its fields are bright PL blue. The relief is darker and DEEPLY FROSTED.

Here is my dilemma.

 

Problem: I have been told by a well-known, well-respected, and long-time TPGS Finalizer that this coin does not qualify to be graded with the "Cameo" designation. His reason is there is no "Cameo" contrast due to the toning. IMHO, this can be very confusing to an "unwashed and ignorant" collector such as myself!

So I asked him, "What if I dip off the toning to expose the mirror field and deeply frosted devices. Would it qualify as a "Cameo" then. His answer was YES because NOW there is a contrast between the mirror and the frost!

 

Question: Do you believe a 100% Deep Cameo Proof with toning covering the entire coin should still rate a "Cameo" designation?

 

[MarkFeld]

I believe that the designation should be based upon how the coin looks, as is, not on how it might look if the toning is removed.

[coinman_23885]

I believe that the designation should be based upon how the coin looks, as is, not on how it might look if the toning is removed.

 

This. It depends on the coin in question.

 

Also to the OP, a coin cannot be both a proof and PL. I think it was merely a typo, but I want to be sure. EBay sellers intentionally keyword spam proof listings with "PL."

[Insider]

Thanks of reply! I respect your knowledge and opinion and believe I understand your point; But...

 

The coin left the press as a deep cameo proof with great mirror/frost contrast.

 

I should think it will always be a deep cameo proof. It is not a case of an Uncirculated coin becoming an AU after some wear.

 

I believe my example is more like an Uncirculated coin dropping to an AU grade just because it became beautifully toned.

[Insider]

Thanks for the reply.

 

Of course it cannot. However, both Proofs and PL's can be Cameo's and that is what I'm concerned about.

 

PS The specific coin in question has NOTHING to do with it. Close your eyes and imagine ANY Deep Cameo Proof. Then add toning (attractive or not) that diminishes the contrast between its DEEP Frost and the Deep mirror.

 

A coin like that inspired my question. Hope it gets resolved.

[coinman_23885]

In some cases, yes, thick toning can sufficiently obscure the mirrors and contrasts so as to render a cameo or DCAM/UCAM piece unworthy of a designation for contrasts.

[Insider]

So, what I think you are saying is the "look" and "eye appeal" determines if the coin has a deep cameo finish on its relief. Not the fact that the coin HAS a deep cameo finish under the toning.

 

Now the can of worms becomes: "What is the degree of the toning (the line) where the deep cameo finish becomes unimportant."

 

Isn't commercial coin grading confusing enough? Let's see, four TPGS's and four different interpretations.

[coinman1794]

I believe that the designation should be based upon how the coin looks, as is, not on how it might look if the toning is removed.

 

I agree with this, reason being that some coins that look like they would display full DCAM after the toning is gone will actually miss the designation. Because toning can obscure depth of mirrors and thickness of frost, getting a fair reading of the surfaces of a toner can be difficult and inconsistent.

 

[coinman_23885]

So, what I think you are saying is the "look" and "eye appeal" determines if the coin has a deep cameo finish on its relief. Not the fact that the coin HAS a deep cameo finish under the toning.

 

Now the can of worms becomes: "What is the degree of the toning (the line) where the deep cameo finish becomes unimportant."

 

Isn't commercial coin grading confusing enough? Let's see, four TPGS's and four different interpretations.

 

It isn't so much eye appeal, as whether there is prominent field to device contrasts which is the dispositive question. In some cases, it might not be possible to assess the degree of cameo contrasts at all or the depth of the mirrors if the coin is significantly toned. It depends on the look (i.e. field to device contrasts in what is visible), the amount of toning, and even the thickness of the toning itself (i.e. whether the mirrors shine through or are obscured/muted).

[RWB]

With there being no objective definition of these terms, it is whatever opinion decides. Also, one cannot reliably predict appearance, so the coin has to be evaluated "as is."

[Insider]

With there being no objective definition of these terms, it is whatever opinion decides. Also, one cannot reliably predict appearance, so the coin has to be evaluated "as is."

 

Except for this. A majority of modern Proofs are either Cameo or Deep Cameo. They have been produced that way for long enough so that most informed numismatists should be able to say "I know a cameo when I see one." If you'll agree that is the case, then perhaps we can agree on something like "fully frosted" devices. If you'll also agree that most numismatists can identify a mirror surface with the depth/reflectivity of a proof too; then I'll submit that the best examples of frost or mirror can be defined by most.

 

That said, most toning up until the dark violet to black etched corrosion product does not hide the characteristics of frosting or mirror to an informed collector.

 

That being the case (I consider myself and you to be informed) I for one CAN DETERMINE the degree of frost and mirror on 95+% of the coins I encounter. Therefore I am amazed that a professional finalizer who is way above my paygrade is of the opinion that a coin cannot be a cameo unless it is highly contrasted. It may not have the eye appeal of a bright cameo proof or its value/grade but to take an iridescent blue deep cameo coin and deny it is a cameo is pure ignorance to me.

 

That's why I posted my question. I wish to have the opinion of experienced dealers and numismatists.

[coinman_23885]

With there being no objective definition of these terms, it is whatever opinion decides. Also, one cannot reliably predict appearance, so the coin has to be evaluated "as is."

 

Except for this. A majority of modern Proofs are either Cameo or Deep Cameo. They have been produced that way for long enough so that most informed numismatists should be able to say "I know a cameo when I see one." If you'll agree that is the case, then perhaps we can agree on something like "fully frosted" devices. If you'll also agree that most numismatists can identify a mirror surface with the depth/reflectivity of a proof too; then I'll submit that the best examples of frost or mirror can be defined by most.

 

That said, most toning up until the dark violet to black etched corrosion product does not hide the characteristics of frosting or mirror to an informed collector.

 

That being the case (I consider myself and you to be informed) I for one CAN DETERMINE the degree of frost and mirror on 95+% of the coins I encounter. Therefore I am amazed that a professional finalizer who is way above my paygrade is of the opinion that a coin cannot be a cameo unless it is highly contrasted. It may not have the eye appeal of a bright cameo proof or its value/grade but to take an iridescent blue deep cameo coin and deny it is a cameo is pure ignorance to me.

 

That's why I posted my question. I wish to have the opinion of experienced dealers and numismatists.

 

You should never make assumptions about the quality of a coin without evidence specific to that coin. Variations exist. What is true for one or perhaps even a significant portion of the mintage may not be true for all.

 

As for seeing through the toning, I disagree as I think most people that have ever done a decent amount of coin conservation and/or dipping will tell you. Often you cannot see what is underneath the toning regardless of how sharp of an eye you have or how knowledgeable you are. Surprises are not fun when you overpay for something and are stuck with a loss when things don't pan out.

 

Your approach would be like making a designation/pricing decision in a blind auction.

[MarkFeld]

With there being no objective definition of these terms, it is whatever opinion decides. Also, one cannot reliably predict appearance, so the coin has to be evaluated "as is."

 

Except for this. A majority of modern Proofs are either Cameo or Deep Cameo. They have been produced that way for long enough so that most informed numismatists should be able to say "I know a cameo when I see one." If you'll agree that is the case, then perhaps we can agree on something like "fully frosted" devices. If you'll also agree that most numismatists can identify a mirror surface with the depth/reflectivity of a proof too; then I'll submit that the best examples of frost or mirror can be defined by most.

 

That said, most toning up until the dark violet to black etched corrosion product does not hide the characteristics of frosting or mirror to an informed collector.

 

That being the case (I consider myself and you to be informed) I for one CAN DETERMINE the degree of frost and mirror on 95+% of the coins I encounter. Therefore I am amazed that a professional finalizer who is way above my paygrade is of the opinion that a coin cannot be a cameo unless it is highly contrasted. It may not have the eye appeal of a bright cameo proof or its value/grade but to take an iridescent blue deep cameo coin and deny it is a cameo is pure ignorance to me.

 

That's why I posted my question. I wish to have the opinion of experienced dealers and numismatists.

 

Just because graders have a different opinion from yours on the subject does

not mean they suffer from "ignorance".

[e1cnr]

show us your blue proof IKE

[Insider]

With there being no objective definition of these terms, it is whatever opinion decides. Also, one cannot reliably predict appearance, so the coin has to be evaluated "as is."

 

Except for this. A majority of modern Proofs are either Cameo or Deep Cameo. They have been produced that way for long enough so that most informed numismatists should be able to say "I know a cameo when I see one." If you'll agree that is the case, then perhaps we can agree on something like "fully frosted" devices. If you'll also agree that most numismatists can identify a mirror surface with the depth/reflectivity of a proof too; then I'll submit that the best examples of frost or mirror can be defined by most.

 

That said, most toning up until the dark violet to black etched corrosion product does not hide the characteristics of frosting or mirror to an informed collector.

 

That being the case (I consider myself and you to be informed) I for one CAN DETERMINE the degree of frost and mirror on 95+% of the coins I encounter. Therefore I am amazed that a professional finalizer who is way above my paygrade is of the opinion that a coin cannot be a cameo unless it is highly contrasted. It may not have the eye appeal of a bright cameo proof or its value/grade but to take an iridescent blue deep cameo coin and deny it is a cameo is pure ignorance to me.

 

That's why I posted my question. I wish to have the opinion of experienced dealers and numismatists.

 

You should never make assumptions about the quality of a coin without evidence specific to that coin. Variations exist. What is true for one or perhaps even a significant portion of the mintage may not be true for all.

 

As for seeing through the toning, I disagree as I think most people that have ever done a decent amount of coin conservation and/or dipping will tell you. Often you cannot see what is underneath the toning regardless of how sharp of an eye you have or how knowledgeable you are. Surprises are not fun when you overpay for something and are stuck with a loss when things don't pan out.

 

Your approach would be like making a designation/pricing decision in a blind auction.

 

First of all, there is no need to bring in "fluff" to confuse the issue and my question. I'm going to make a llllllooooooooonnnnnnngggggg stretch and guess that you have seen an UDCAM proof Ike. I for one have never seen a MODERN CAMEO proof with toning so dark that a professional numismatist such as yourself (?) could not tell it was the usual cameo proof as over 90% are.

 

I have done a decent amount of conservation and dipping in my life and can say that while the outcome may be a surprise, the fact that the coin is a cameo is not.

 

Now I am not posting about BLACK corroded proofs. I'm posting about blue cameo proofs. I have uploaded a photo on Coin Talk Forum but I have no idea how to do it here but I will try copy and paste later.

[Insider]

With there being no objective definition of these terms, it is whatever opinion decides. Also, one cannot reliably predict appearance, so the coin has to be evaluated "as is."

 

Except for this. A majority of modern Proofs are either Cameo or Deep Cameo. They have been produced that way for long enough so that most informed numismatists should be able to say "I know a cameo when I see one." If you'll agree that is the case, then perhaps we can agree on something like "fully frosted" devices. If you'll also agree that most numismatists can identify a mirror surface with the depth/reflectivity of a proof too; then I'll submit that the best examples of frost or mirror can be defined by most.

 

That said, most toning up until the dark violet to black etched corrosion product does not hide the characteristics of frosting or mirror to an informed collector.

 

That being the case (I consider myself and you to be informed) I for one CAN DETERMINE the degree of frost and mirror on 95+% of the coins I encounter. Therefore I am amazed that a professional finalizer who is way above my paygrade is of the opinion that a coin cannot be a cameo unless it is highly contrasted. It may not have the eye appeal of a bright cameo proof or its value/grade but to take an iridescent blue deep cameo coin and deny it is a cameo is pure ignorance to me.

 

That's why I posted my question. I wish to have the opinion of experienced dealers and numismatists.

 

Just because graders have a different opinion from yours on the subject does

not mean they suffer from "ignorance".

 

Quite true. TPG's are not ignorant; yet if a modern coin is struck as a cameo proof and becomes beautifully toned IMO it is STUPID to say the coin is not a cameo proof! Makes no sense to me at all. And the same professional graders can bump a beat up coin with friction wear an entire MS grade because it's pretty - ha, ha. Anyone here dispute that FACT?

[Insider]

show us your blue proof IKE

 

Sorry I am computer literate! Just tried to copy a photo and past it here but it did not work. I just found the enter the image box. Now I have to figure out how to download from my computer.

 

No luck. I'll look for a toned cameo proof on Ebay.

 

Yeah! I'm not as dumb as I thought. No photo of the entire coin; but the cameo shows thru the toning.

[Insider]

Well? Any comments on the photo? Note: On the PCGS website a member has kindly posted photos of Ike dollars of all shades of toning that have received a Deep Cameo rating. Thank God the PCGS graders have a brain.

 

Now, that narrows the Grading service finalizer who has confused me down to NGC, ANACS, or ICG.

 

I am not arguing with any poster here. Just seeking opinions that will hopefully support my long held belief. Anyone have some toned Ikes from the three services above that received the cameo designation? That should prove to me that the finalizer is out -of-step with the rest of industry.

 

The distinction is this: As collectors we have a choice to call a toned cameo proof anything we wish, including no cameo. The TPGS's are more locked in to specific rules. An educated and informed collector needs to AT THE LEAST know those rules; yet can choose not to follow them.

 

Hopefully, more of you will comment about how the other services handle well toned cameo coins.

 

[MarkFeld]

Well? Any comments on the photo? Note: On the PCGS website a member has kindly posted photos of Ike dollars of all shades of toning that have received a Deep Cameo rating. Thank God the PCGS graders have a brain.

 

Now, that narrows the Grading service finalizer who has confused me down to NGC, ANACS, or ICG.

 

I am not arguing with any poster here. Just seeking opinions that will hopefully support my long held belief. Anyone have some toned Ikes from the three services above that received the cameo designation? That should prove to me that the finalizer is out -of-step with the rest of industry.

 

The distinction is this: As collectors we have a choice to call a toned cameo proof anything we wish, including no cameo. The TPGS's are more locked in to specific rules. An educated and informed collector needs to AT THE LEAST know those rules; yet can choose not to follow them.

 

Hopefully, more of you will comment about how the other services handle well toned cameo coins

 

 

The image you provided (of only a small part of the obverse and none of the reverse) obviously doesn't allow for us to make a determination.

 

And the fact that some toned Ikes have received the Cameo designation, proves nothing about a finalizer (who didn't award the designation in some instances) being out of step with the industry.

 

I have seen a good many toned coins receive the Cameo and Ultra Cameo designation from NGC. So if yours didn't, perhaps there was a good reason for it.

 

[coinman_23885]

You should never make assumptions about the quality of a coin without evidence specific to that coin. Variations exist. What is true for one or perhaps even a significant portion of the mintage may not be true for all.

 

As for seeing through the toning, I disagree as I think most people that have ever done a decent amount of coin conservation and/or dipping will tell you. Often you cannot see what is underneath the toning regardless of how sharp of an eye you have or how knowledgeable you are. Surprises are not fun when you overpay for something and are stuck with a loss when things don't pan out.

 

Your approach would be like making a designation/pricing decision in a blind auction.

 

I for one have never seen a MODERN CAMEO proof with toning so dark that a professional numismatist such as yourself (?) could not tell it was the usual cameo proof as over 90% are.

 

I have done a decent amount of conservation and dipping in my life and can say that while the outcome may be a surprise, the fact that the coin is a cameo is not.

 

I am a collector that occasionally flips coins to fund my interests/acquisitions. I am not a professional coin grader nor am I a large national coin dealership. I have never held myself out to be a "professional numismatist."

 

With that said, you state that more than 90% are worthy of designations. What about the other 10%? You aren't even open to the possibility that thick toning can obscure the mirrors and/or contrasts? I have been collecting coins for a long time and am confident in my skills; however, I recognize the limitations of the human eye and my own abilities. I would never claim the ability to see through thick toning with total precision. Graders must make a determination based on what they SEE not what they INFER.

[numisport]

Sounds like your TPG grader buddy reflects the PCGS view. Grading companies do vary slightly on this cameo game. Not so much for the amount of contrast required but for instance PCGS never graded coppers as cameo unless they are full red. So if you see a PCGS copper cameo that's not full red, then it probably turned dark in the holder. NGC does grade copper cameos in RB and I own a beautiful '51 Lincoln that's RB Cameo. Also moderns are assumed cameo due to die prep, chrome plating and other improvements. All are cameo after about 1978. Those early Ikes are coined from dies prepared like means used from 1950 and even earlier. They are very beautiful coins even though I don't consider the design very appealing.

[MarkFeld]

Sounds like your TPG grader buddy reflects the PCGS view. Grading companies do vary slightly on this cameo game. Not so much for the amount of contrast required but for instance PCGS never graded coppers as cameo unless they are full red. So if you see a PCGS copper cameo that's not full red, then it probably turned dark in the holder. NGC does grade copper cameos in RB and I own a beautiful '51 Lincoln that's RB Cameo. Also moderns are assumed cameo due to die prep, chrome plating and other improvements. All are cameo after about 1978. Those early Ikes are coined from dies prepared like means used from 1950 and even earlier. They are very beautiful coins even though I don't consider the design very appealing.

 

In a previous post, he stated, in part:

 

"Thank God the PCGS graders have a brain.

 

Now, that narrows the Grading service finalizer who has confused me down to NGC, ANACS, or ICG."

[coinman_23885]

Sounds like your TPG grader buddy reflects the PCGS view. Grading companies do vary slightly on this cameo game. Not so much for the amount of contrast required but for instance PCGS never graded coppers as cameo unless they are full red. So if you see a PCGS copper cameo that's not full red, then it probably turned dark in the holder. NGC does grade copper cameos in RB and I own a beautiful '51 Lincoln that's RB Cameo. Also moderns are assumed cameo due to die prep, chrome plating and other improvements. All are cameo after about 1978. Those early Ikes are coined from dies prepared like means used from 1950 and even earlier. They are very beautiful coins even though I don't consider the design very appealing.

 

If we were discussing toned copper, then I would agree that PCGS takes it too far when it will only slab (supposedly) "red" coins as cameos. There are a number of coins that are RB or possibly even BN where there is sufficient contrast and depth of mirroring to make a determination. NGC will slab any coin as a cameo that warrants it. The fact that NGC refused is telling. I would actually like to see the OP's coin. For whatever it is worth to him, I don't think a cameo designation will matter much in terms of the value. The toning (if attractive) will determine the vast majority of its value.

[Insider]

You should never make assumptions about the quality of a coin without evidence specific to that coin. Variations exist. What is true for one or perhaps even a significant portion of the mintage may not be true for all.

 

As for seeing through the toning, I disagree as I think most people that have ever done a decent amount of coin conservation and/or dipping will tell you. Often you cannot see what is underneath the toning regardless of how sharp of an eye you have or how knowledgeable you are. Surprises are not fun when you overpay for something and are stuck with a loss when things don't pan out.

 

Your approach would be like making a designation/pricing decision in a blind auction.

 

I for one have never seen a MODERN CAMEO proof with toning so dark that a professional numismatist such as yourself (?) could not tell it was the usual cameo proof as over 90% are.

 

I have done a decent amount of conservation and dipping in my life and can say that while the outcome may be a surprise, the fact that the coin is a cameo is not.

 

I am a collector that occasionally flips coins to fund my interests/acquisitions. I am not a professional coin grader nor am I a large national coin dealership. I have never held myself out to be a "professional numismatist."

 

With that said, you state that more than 90% are worthy of designations. What about the other 10%? You aren't even open to the possibility that thick toning can obscure the mirrors and/or contrasts? I have been collecting coins for a long time and am confident in my skills; however, I recognize the limitations of the human eye and my own abilities. I would never claim the ability to see through thick toning with total precision. Graders must make a determination based on what they SEE not what they INFER.

 

IMHO, Anyone can see from the part of the coin I down-loaded that the relief is CAM or DCAM and the field is not. You'll just have to take my word that the coin is a proof.

[MarkFeld]

You should never make assumptions about the quality of a coin without evidence specific to that coin. Variations exist. What is true for one or perhaps even a significant portion of the mintage may not be true for all.

 

As for seeing through the toning, I disagree as I think most people that have ever done a decent amount of coin conservation and/or dipping will tell you. Often you cannot see what is underneath the toning regardless of how sharp of an eye you have or how knowledgeable you are. Surprises are not fun when you overpay for something and are stuck with a loss when things don't pan out.

 

Your approach would be like making a designation/pricing decision in a blind auction.

 

I for one have never seen a MODERN CAMEO proof with toning so dark that a professional numismatist such as yourself (?) could not tell it was the usual cameo proof as over 90% are.

 

I have done a decent amount of conservation and dipping in my life and can say that while the outcome may be a surprise, the fact that the coin is a cameo is not.

 

I am a collector that occasionally flips coins to fund my interests/acquisitions. I am not a professional coin grader nor am I a large national coin dealership. I have never held myself out to be a "professional numismatist."

 

With that said, you state that more than 90% are worthy of designations. What about the other 10%? You aren't even open to the possibility that thick toning can obscure the mirrors and/or contrasts? I have been collecting coins for a long time and am confident in my skills; however, I recognize the limitations of the human eye and my own abilities. I would never claim the ability to see through thick toning with total precision. Graders must make a determination based on what they SEE not what they INFER.

 

IMHO, Anyone can see from the part of the coin I down-loaded that the relief is CAM or DCAM and the field is not. You'll just have to take my word that the coin is a proof.

 

The image shows only a small portion of the obverse and none of the reverse. So it would be foolish/ and reckless to conclude, based just on that, that the coin merits a Cameo or Deep/Ultra cameo designation. You're not doing much of anything to bolster your case.

[Insider]

Well? Any comments on the photo? Note: On the PCGS website a member has kindly posted photos of Ike dollars of all shades of toning that have received a Deep Cameo rating. Thank God the PCGS graders have a brain.

 

Now, that narrows the Grading service finalizer who has confused me down to NGC, ANACS, or ICG.

 

I am not arguing with any poster here. Just seeking opinions that will hopefully support my long held belief. Anyone have some toned Ikes from the three services above that received the cameo designation? That should prove to me that the finalizer is out -of-step with the rest of industry.

 

The distinction is this: As collectors we have a choice to call a toned cameo proof anything we wish, including no cameo. The TPGS's are more locked in to specific rules. An educated and informed collector needs to AT THE LEAST know those rules; yet can choose not to follow them.

 

Hopefully, more of you will comment about how the other services handle well toned cameo coins

 

 

The image you provided (of only a small part of the obverse and none of the reverse) obviously doesn't allow for us to make a determination.

 

And the fact that some toned Ikes have received the Cameo designation, proves nothing about a finalizer (who didn't award the designation in some instances) being out of step with the industry.

 

I have seen a good many toned coins receive the Cameo and Ultra Cameo designation from NGC. So if yours didn't, perhaps there was a good reason for it.

 

Mark, I consider you one of the top numismatists in the country working for possibly the top coin company in the country. I fail to see why you need to see the entire coin to see the contrast under the toning between the field and relief. As I suggested in the OP, I believe most knowledgeable numismatists can visualize a Cameo proof Ike dollar. In which case everyone will agree it is a cameo or DCAM, whatever. Now, some may have difficulty imagining the same coin with toning as toning comes in several colors and intensities.

 

Although I stupidly believed no image was required to get an answer to my question and no defense of the particular TPGS finalizer is necessary - he is a finalizer so his opinion is correct whatever it is - I posted an image. I see no reason to need more as the toning and the frost is visible.

 

I don't agree with what he told me. That's why I hoped for input from numismatists of your stature. There is no trick here, there are no shades of gray. The question is simple. Does a coin struck as a DCAM Proof lose its CAM designation when it becomes toned and the contrast is not as pronounced as it would be when it was struck or if the coin was dipped.

 

At this time, it seems PCGS will give a CAM designation to toned Cameo proof Ike Dollars. I agree with this. I'm sure the finalizer in question does not. The next time I see him I plan to bring up my findings from the three forums I posted this on. BTW, I'll guarantee he will not change his mind - no matter the outcome

[MarkFeld]

Well? Any comments on the photo? Note: On the PCGS website a member has kindly posted photos of Ike dollars of all shades of toning that have received a Deep Cameo rating. Thank God the PCGS graders have a brain.

 

Now, that narrows the Grading service finalizer who has confused me down to NGC, ANACS, or ICG.

 

I am not arguing with any poster here. Just seeking opinions that will hopefully support my long held belief. Anyone have some toned Ikes from the three services above that received the cameo designation? That should prove to me that the finalizer is out -of-step with the rest of industry.

 

The distinction is this: As collectors we have a choice to call a toned cameo proof anything we wish, including no cameo. The TPGS's are more locked in to specific rules. An educated and informed collector needs to AT THE LEAST know those rules; yet can choose not to follow them.

 

Hopefully, more of you will comment about how the other services handle well toned cameo coins

 

 

The image you provided (of only a small part of the obverse and none of the reverse) obviously doesn't allow for us to make a determination.

 

And the fact that some toned Ikes have received the Cameo designation, proves nothing about a finalizer (who didn't award the designation in some instances) being out of step with the industry.

 

I have seen a good many toned coins receive the Cameo and Ultra Cameo designation from NGC. So if yours didn't, perhaps there was a good reason for it.

 

Mark, I consider you one of the top numismatists in the country working for possibly the top coin company in the country. I fail to see why you need to see the entire coin to see the contrast under the toning between the field and relief. As I suggested in the OP, I believe most knowledgeable numismatists can visualize a Cameo proof Ike dollar. In which case everyone will agree it is a cameo or DCAM, whatever. Now, some may have difficulty imagining the same coin with toning as toning comes in several colors and intensities.

 

Although I stupidly believed no image was required to get an answer to my question and no defense of the particular TPGS finalizer is necessary - he is a finalizer so his opinion is correct whatever it is - I posted an image. I see no reason to need more as the toning and the frost is visible.

 

I don't agree with what he told me. That's why I hoped for input from numismatists of your stature. There is no trick here, there are no shades of gray. The question is simple. Does a coin struck as a DCAM Proof lose its CAM designation when it becomes toned and the contrast is not as pronounced as it would be when it was struck or if the coin was dipped.

 

At this time, it seems PCGS will give a CAM designation to toned Cameo proof Ike Dollars. I agree with this. I'm sure the finalizer in question does not. The next time I see him I plan to bring up my findings from the three forums I posted this on. BTW, I'll guarantee he will not change his mind - no matter the outcome

 

Thank you.

 

I need to see the entire coin because some coins are more frosted (and display more contrast) on some areas than on others. And lack of (or lesser) frost on some areas can disqualify a coin from receiving the Cameo or Deep/Ultra Cameo designation. Likewise, some coins are more frosted (and display more contrast) on one side than the other, and both sides count for the designations.

 

In answer to your question below, yes, a coin should and often does lose a Cameo or Deep/Ultra Cameo designation if the frost and contrast are diminished sufficiently, by the toning. Again, graders make their assessments based upon what they see, not upon what they suspect (or even strongly believe) they would see, were the toning not present. And I believe that is as it should be.

 

"Does a coin struck as a DCAM Proof lose its CAM designation when it becomes toned and the contrast is not as pronounced as it would be when it was struck or if the coin was dipped."

[ldhair]

Hi Insider.

I can post the larger image for you if you wish.

[Insider]

Hi Insider.

I can post the larger image for you if you wish.

 

Thanks, I did not bother to take one!

 

Mark is correct. A coin cannot make CAM if any part of the FROST on the relief is weak or not present. I thought my example would be clear. I'll continue to hold my opinion based on the deeply toned CAMEO proofs slabbed by PCGS that have FULL FROST on both sides and deep attractive toning as my example.

 

One trouble I have found with coin forums and photos. Either the photo is not magnified enough to authenticate a coin or a coin has an obverse strike thru in one little area of interest and the guys want to see the coin's reverse WHICH MAKES NO SENSE. The other problem is some try to make a simple question complicated by adding all kinds of "what if's."

 

Thankfully, that was not the case in this thread. Thanks to all for your comments!

 

[MarkFeld]

Hi Insider.

I can post the larger image for you if you wish.

 

Thanks, I did not bother to take one!

 

Mark is correct. A coin cannot make CAM if any part of the FROST on the relief is weak or not present. I thought my example would be clear. I'll continue to hold my opinion based on the deeply toned CAMEO proofs slabbed by PCGS that have FULL FROST on both sides and deep attractive toning as my example.

 

One trouble I have found with coin forums and photos. Either the photo is not magnified enough to authenticate a coin or a coin has an obverse strike thru in one little area of interest and the guys want to see the coin's reverse WHICH MAKES NO SENSE. The other problem is some try to make a simple question complicated by adding all kinds of "what if's."

 

Thankfully, that was not the case in this thread. Thanks to all for your comments!

 

Actually, I have seen a number of coins designated "Cameo" by the major grading services in instances where one or more areas of frost were weak. Like most things in numismatics, there is subjectivity and inconsistency in awarding such designations.