DCAM Can anyone explain a bit about the 1940's - early 1960's 1 1

[Halbrook Family]

Dcam coins are on the proof modern coins right? But the 1940's and 1950's and early 1960's are hit and miss? Do I have that right? If you are looking at proof sets from those years and get a sealed proof set from say 1957 it might have dcam coins? If so would they all be dcam in the set? How does this work? Or can a quarter be dcam and the rest of the set not be dcam? What's the odds on finding them? When I see proof sealed envelopes I usually see the late 1950's ones sealed vs the 1960's. Did those originally come sealed? I got 1952 1954 and 1955 sealed proof box sets. They might be dcam and might not be right? Difference between cam and dcam? You see some of the 1950's coins just blazing mirror finish. But that don't mean it's a cam right?  

[Moxie15]

A deep cameo has 'deep' contrast between the device and the field and looks a bit like a piece of cameo jewlery. It is unlikely to find any deep cam in a sealed mint set now. They have been sought after for decades and it is unlikely to the extreme that any prrof set you buy commercially has been checked several times by numerous experts for such things. If you happen to buy an old long held collection in a private sale your odds may improve a bit. If you find one coin in a set you are lucky two or more is akin to the lottery, a nice dream but just this side of impossible.

I hope this helps

[Halbrook Family]

On 10/16/2024 at 7:09 AM, Moxie15 said:

A deep cameo has 'deep' contrast between the device and the field and looks a bit like a piece of cameo jewlery. It is unlikely to find any deep cam in a sealed mint set now. They have been sought after for decades and it is unlikely to the extreme that any prrof set you buy commercially has been checked several times by numerous experts for such things. If you happen to buy an old long held collection in a private sale your odds may improve a bit. If you find one coin in a set you are lucky two or more is akin to the lottery, a nice dream but just this side of impossible.

I hope this helps

That does. But why did they just make some cams back in the day? 

[Moxie15]

It is likely something that happened unintentionally. Now they do a sandblasting like process to the dies to intentionally create a cameo effect. I do not think they did anything like that in the 1950's 

[J P M]

On 10/16/2024 at 9:53 AM, Halbrook Family said:

When I see proof sealed envelopes I usually see the late 1950's ones sealed vs the 1960's. Did those originally come sealed?

None of the proof envelopes come sealed, if it is sealed it is due to moisture, or someone sealed it.

[Sandon]

   The process for making proof dies was different than it has been since the mid-1970s. As I understand it, the device to field contrast on pre-1971 proof coins was created with a nitric acid solution. The resulting frost that contrasted with the mirror surfaces rapidly weakened and ultimately disappeared as the dies were wiped periodically during production. Only the earliest strikes were "deep cameos", followed by some that were just "cameos", and the majority of the dies' output were coins that had little or no contrast at all. More recent proof dies have devices that were sandblasted or laser etched to produce a durable contrast, and since the mid-1970s the vast majority of U.S. proof coins have cameo or deep cameo contrast. Those from recent decades almost always receive "DCAM" (PCGS) or "UCAM" (NGC) designations at grading services.

   Very rarely, if ever, does an original 1936-70 era proof set have all cameo or deep cameo coins. I have a 1962 proof set in a lucite holder on which the cent would probably be worthy of at least a "cameo" designation, and the obverse of the half dollar has cameo contrast while the reverse has no contrast at all. The other coins in the set have no contrast on either side.

   I'm sure that @RWB may have some additions or corrections to what I have written here.

Edited October 16 by Sandon
added omitted words "proof set"

[GoldFinger1969]

Rick Tomaska has some books that go into the cameo designation (DCAM/UCAM) from the TPGs.  

[RWB]

Striking proof coins is a constant battle between die faces and planchet faces. Eventually, a polished die will adopt the average surface of a planchet - thus losing all mirror-like surface --- unless the planchets are also polished.

As Sandon stated, the last step for any die was a brief dip in nitric acid to remove any oxide or "fire scale" from the surface. This produced a smooth, finely textured surface, which quickly faded as mentioned above. But proof dies were polished to a mirror-like brilliance just before use, since the relief on a coin is incuse in a die, the fields became mirror-like and the coin relief retained its fine texture. This is what was called a Deep Cameo surface. As coins were struck the fields began to degrade and the mirrors became less reflective and the relief lost its texture. This would be called a Cameo surface.

To retain a deep cameo appearance, the Mint could polish both dies and planchets, and after the relief texture had deteriorated into brilliant, the dies could be removed and the relief re-textured using sandblasting. A frisket was used to prevent damaging the polished field. Modern proof surfaces are now made using a laser to make tiny pits in the die - results are consistently inferior to the old methods.

See my book United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 for details and a somewhat clearer description.

PS: The hobby and independent "grading companies" have never adopted a standard for Deep Cameo or Cameo, so it's all random opinion of anonymous persons. A standard is VERY simple to establish and use....but unless collectors demand consistent quality, it won't happen!

Edited October 17 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 10/16/2024 at 8:09 PM, RWB said:

PS: The hobby and independent "grading companies" have never adopted a standard for Deep Cameo or Cameo, so it's all random opinion of anonymous persons. A standard is VERY simple to establish and use....but unless collectors demand consistent quality, it won't happen!

Like pornography and Potter Stewart, I know DCAM or UCAM when I see it.  I really am NOT going to see if I can see lettering from 6" away or whatever.  Or is that the PL standard...I forget.

Whatever, on modern coins, you can CLEARLY see the black, mirrored finish and it does look nice, esp. on some of the Reverse Proofs.

Edited October 17 by GoldFinger1969

[Halbrook Family]

How many dcam or cam out in the wild have you guys found pre 1964? 

[powermad5000]

On 10/19/2024 at 1:02 AM, Halbrook Family said:

How many dcam or cam out in the wild have you guys found pre 1964?

There are tons of it. Some Franklin Halves, some Roosys, nickels would be a little harder to find but they are out there, some Lincolns, many Washington quarters. I don't personally own too many of these pieces as I think sometimes the collectors get a little too wild on the bidding and I personally don't think some are worth that much premium, but there are many out there.

Edited October 21 by powermad5000

[VKurtB]

On 10/19/2024 at 1:02 AM, Halbrook Family said:

How many dcam or cam out in the wild have you guys found pre 1964? 

I have found quite a few at auctions. Some dates are rarer than others. Example? 1953 proof cents with cameo contrast are quite scarce. They just seem to run that way. Other than that, they tend to be more common the later the date.

Edited October 21 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

Isn't there a specific "mirror test" to determine DCAM/UCAM ?

Not sure how it can work on some of these really small coins.....

[VKurtB]

On 10/21/2024 at 7:08 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Isn't there a specific "mirror test" to determine DCAM/UCAM ?

Not sure how it can work on some of these really small coins.....

There used to be, but it seems to have been abandoned. Now they use the Potter Stewart obscenity standard - they know it when they see it.