Cameo vs. Not Cameo 1 1

[MESmagner]

I have a 1952 and 1956 Franklin Halves and the 1956 is a Cameo but not the 1952. The 1956 seems to have more gloss than the 1952. What determines if they are Cameos or not?

How would I get this re-graded to get it to a Cameo?

[Mr.Bill347]

Excellent question! Who,knows? Maybe the original submitter did not check the varieties box? Maybe it was a day the grader was in a bad mood. Sure looks cameo to me. Still shows a mirror surface but figure is a little less flat and a little more shiny? Kinda like FBL on Franklins. Hard to tell on most.

[VKurtB]

I’m not seeing reverses here. Both the obverse and the reverse need to be cameo on all devices and legends, even the small eagle. 

[RWB]

There are no clear rules, and none of the TPGs seem willing to adopt any kind of consistent empirical system for determining PL, etc. and the difference in reflectivity to equal a "cameo" coin. It's all just opinion of seller and buyer.

[Woods020]

Can you post front and back of the one without cameo attribution? Try to fill the screen with the image.

[JT2]

I was taught that to be cameo, both sides of the coin had to have a frosty device sitting on a mirrored field that show the contrast between the field and the device.  if the device does nto have frostyness on both sides it is just Proof.

[VKurtB]

I’m betting the 1952’s reverse is missing some frost. 

[MESmagner]

---

[Woods020]

On 4/19/2022 at 5:19 PM, MESmagner said:

• Previous Page
• Next Page

• Previous Page
• Next Page

---

• Previous Page
• Next Page

• Previous Page
• Next Page

I tend to agree with the grading that this falls just short of cameo. Should maybe be considered a star, which NGC does when coins fall just short sometimes. With that said when you take pictures lay the coins flat and take pics straight on. The angles of the coins in your pics are not good for us to see the coins well.

[FlyingAl]

Personally, the frost is there, but the mirrors aren't. A lot of what makes a CAM proof is that the mirrors have to be deep enough, and this die seems to have been polished somewhat poorly. If you look at the '56, you see that the mirrors have a "liquid" appearance while the '52's mirrors have a cartwheel effect going on. 

I too wish the TPGs adopted a true standard for CAM. I often find that if you run you finger above the surface of a proof coin (1-2 in.) and the devices don't reflect back any you while the mirrors do, the coin is a good candidate for CAM. Of course, the true standard of CAM must have to do with the frost created during die cleanup and preparation not being removed from the devices while the mirrors have a fully polished appearance. 

[Coinbuf]

On 4/18/2022 at 3:17 PM, MESmagner said:

How would I get this re-graded to get it to a Cameo?

The how is the easy part, you would need to crack it out and resubmit as a raw coin or use the ReGrade service option that NGC offers.   As to your other question it is up to the TPG to whom you submit the coin to decide if the coin meets their criteria for a CAM.   From what I see I think NGC got it right the first time, I do not see your 52 getting the CAM designation at either of the two major TPG services.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

Cameo is so subjective, because a die's ability to leave a strong cameo affect weakens with every strike.  I do think yours is very close and a great coin, but if you resubmit it - crack it.  Don't pay the TPG to tell you that they were right.  Make them grade the coin (there is the risk of downgrade, but I fail to believe that there is not a heavy bias in reconsideration).

Personally - I would leave it where it is.  It's a beautiful, high-powered proof Franklin that any collector would love to have for a 1952 example.