Someone from NGC Please Read-Canada Uncirculated Set Coins-Cameo designations on coins from 1968 to 1975 0

[Mohawk]

I have been a member of the NGC Collector’s Society since 2010.  I am a collector of coins as well as someone who sells coins to fund their own collecting and, for the most part, I find NGC’s grading and attributions to be the best in the business.  However, there was one decision that NGC made a few years ago that I disagree with which has caused me to reduce the number of coins I submit for grading from my own collection, though I still submit many coins for my resale venture.

One of the major things I collect are Cameo coins from Canadian Proof Like and Uncirculated Sets.  Until around 2018, Canadian coins from these sets in the date range of 1953-1974 were all considered Proof Like strikes and were eligible to have NGC attribute the as Cameo or Ultra Cameo.  In 2018, I believe, NGC made the decision to only attribute Canadian coins from collector’s sets from 1953 to 1967 as Proof Like while those from 1968 and later as being from Uncirculated Sets rather than Proof Like.  While this part of the change isn’t that big of a deal, the decision was further made to stop attributing coins from Canadian Uncirculated Sets as Cameo or Ultra Cameo regardless of whether or not these coins do actually display Cameo contrast on the devices, which a small minority of the coins from these sets do exhibit.  The pricing difference between a coin from a set between 1953 to 1974 with Cameo and one without it are often significant.  A Cameo coin is often worth the price of submission to NGC for grading while one without it often is not.  NGC’s decision to stop attributing Cameo designation on these coins is very problematic for a collector like myself, who collects these coins as a large part of their numismatic activity.

When I contacted NGC regarding these changes at the time they occurred, I was told that NGC was making these changes to more closely align with the terminology that the Royal Canadian Mint used in describing these sets.  However, NGC’s stance on these issues is somewhat inaccurate.  The truth of the matter is that the RCM never actually used the term Proof Like to describe any of these sets.  As far as the RCM was (and is) concerned, all of the sets from 1953 to the present are simply Uncirculated Mint Sets.  The term Proof Like was utilized by collectors and dealers to describe the sets as the coins in them were often a cut above the coins released into the channels of circulation, showing evidence of different techniques in their manufacture and more care in their handling.  So, if the proper Royal Canadian Mint terminology is to be used, coins from these sets should all be considered Uncirculated Set strikes as that is what the Royal Canadian Mint calls them all.  They never used the term Proof Like.  Collectors and dealers created the term and used it.  The demarcation between the pre-1968 “Proof Like” sets and the post-1968 “Uncirculated Sets” is a random demarcation that appears to have first appeared in the Charlton Guide and the terminology spread from there.

In relation to the decision to stop attributing coins from 1968-1975 as Cameo or Ultra Cameo, this is also flawed.  The process that the Royal Canadian Mint used to strike the coins in the 1968 to 1974 sets did not differ from the process used to strike the coins in the 1953-1967 sets one bit.  The only thing that changed was the composition of the dime, quarter, half dollar and dollar to a pure nickel composition rather than the 80% silver, 20% copper alloy of 1953 to 1967.  As the production methods did not change in 1968 to 1974, coins off of fresher dies will still exhibit Cameo or Ultra Cameo devices and deeply mirrored fields just as the coins from 1953 to 1967 do.  The production process of coins in Canadian Uncirculated Sets began to change in 1975, when the Royal Canadian Mint began to purposely aim for a “brilliant devices against a brilliant background”, which resulted on most of the coins in the 1953 to 1974 sets as the dies wore and lost the Cameo frosting that the dies started with when they were new.  Though some 1975 coins can still be found with Cameo (and are very rare with Cameo contrast), the Royal Canadian Mint was quickly successful in implementing the change to the fully brilliant coins that characterized Canadian Uncirculated Mint sets from the later 1970’s until 2011, when the specially made sets ended and were replaced with regular circulation strikes from the Winnipeg Mint sealed in cellophane…….a true Uncirculated Mint Set, so to speak.

There’s also a flaw in the logic of NGC not assigning cameo designations to these coins because they are considered mint state coins and it comes in how NGC handles United States Special Mint Set coinage.  These coins are considered mint state coins, but NGC will still designate such coins as Cameo or Ultra Cameo if the contrast warrants such a designation.  Of all United States issues, the Special Mint Sets are those most like the Canadian Uncirculated Set issues as they are mint state strikes made with extra care to create a premium product while not being full proofs.  I feel that Canadian Uncirculated Set coins from 1968 to 1975 should be treated the same way United States Special Mint Set coins from 1965-1967 are regarding grading and Cameo designations.

I would argue in the face of these factors, there is no reason for NGC to have discontinues attributing 1968-1975 Canadian coins from Uncirculated Sets as Cameo or Ultra Cameo and that NGC is kind of hurting those of us who hunt Cameo coins from that era by not properly attributing these coins as Cameo when they have contrast.  The production methods were the exact same as they were during the 1953-1967 silver years.  Since nickel is a much harder metal than a silver/copper alloy, cameo coins are actually harder to find for the 1968-1975 span than they are for the 1953-1967 span.  It doesn’t really matter what the sets are called, but it does matter to attribute the premium Cameo pieces as such and to score them with more points in the NGC Registry, just like they were before NGC made the decision to change it in 2018.  As a passionate collector of Canadian Proof Like/Uncirculated Set coins of the 1953-1975 era, I kindly ask that NGC consider all of these facts and begin attributing the Cameo and Ultra Cameo Canadian Uncirculated Set coins as such once more and to give them the bonus points they once had in the NGC Registry.   Hopefully, after over three years of trying, I've finally made my case.

Thank you for your kind time and attention

Edited January 14, 2022 by Mohawk
Trying to draw NGC's attention to this post.

[RWB]

The designation for US Special Mint Sets comes from the official name of the sets. Canada's 1968-1975 sets were officially called "Uncirculated." The consistent solution is to designate a coin "proof-like" or "cameo PL" based only on its field reflectivity and contrast between field and relief. This should be a suffix to the official name. Thus, a coin from a US SMS would be designated "PL" only if it met the same criteria as a PL Morgan dollar; the same for a Canadian UNC set coin.

The bottom line is that a TPG must be consistent in measurement and use of such terminology; it must be the same for all coins. Attempting to "slide the meaning" only creates  confusion -- see comments elsewhere on "PL Peace dollars" - (which do not seem to exist).

Edited January 14, 2022 by RWB

[Mohawk]

On 1/14/2022 at 5:23 PM, RWB said:

The designation for US Special Mint Sets comes from the official name of the sets. Canada's 1968-1975 sets were officially called "Uncirculated." The consistent solution is to designate a coin "proof-like" or "cameo PL" based only on its field reflectivity and contrast between field and relief. This should be a suffix to the official name.

I agree and your explanation makes sense, Roger.  I'm not trying to make a case for contrast that doesn't exist.  I have many 1968-1975 coins that clearly have cameo contrasts and reflectivity on par with the nicest 1967 U.S. Special Mint Set coins.  I'd be perfectly content with an MS Cameo PL grade from NGC on these coins.  However, I'm not happy with NGC completely ignoring cameo contrast and reflectivity that is obviously there just because the coins are considered "Uncirculated".  Which is exactly what NGC has been doing with the 1968-1975 coins since they started using the term "Uncirculated Set Issue" for them rather than "Proof-Like"

Edited January 15, 2022 by Mohawk
Typo.....isn't it always?

[Fenntucky Mike]

If a coin is PL Cameo it's PL Cameo, if it's not it's not. I don't get it. 

[Mohawk]

On 1/14/2022 at 5:36 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

If a coin is PL Cameo it's PL Cameo, if it's not it's not. I don't get it. 

Tell me about it, Mike.  That's my exact issue regarding these coins.  I'm hoping that NGC will reconsider grading them the way they have been the past few years.  It sucks to have a beautiful, PL Cameo coin come back from NGC with no acknowledgement of that status on the slab when you've paid NGC good money to grade and attribute your coin.  That happened to me one too many times since 2018.

[RWB]

On 1/14/2022 at 5:29 PM, Mohawk said:

However, I'm not happy with NGC completely ignoring cameo contrast and reflectivity that is obviously there just because the coins are considered "Uncirculated".

Understood. That is a consistent gripe involving coin denominations other than Morgans and Liberty DE. Frankly, any coin that matches the field reflectivity of a PL Morgan should be called PL. Denomination is irrelevant - or is that irreverent.....!

[Henri Charriere]

@Mohawk

I don't know anything about Canadian coins but your argument is persuasive -- even compelling, and very well written!  

[Mohawk]

On 1/14/2022 at 10:48 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@Mohawk

I don't know anything about Canadian coins but your argument is persuasive -- even compelling, and very well written!  

Thanks!! Now let's just hope that the folks at NGC see it the same way.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Mohawk