Question about PROOFS

[MikeKing]

The 1905 Proof 67 Cameo Barber dime auctioned recently by Heritage

is stated to be "Struck just two years after the end of the no-contrast era in proof coinage "

 

Can anyone explain this too me. I've seen some pretty well contrasted cameos pre-1905.

 

[CarlWohlforth]

There were some really super deep cameo proofs coins made in the late 1890s. I'm not sure what the best year was but have seen some super coin from 1898. It seems that the 1900s are much tougher for cameo proofs.

 

I'm not sure when the mint de-emphasized cameo contrast for proofs. That auction write up says 1902 is the year, though I haven't seen many 1901s or 1900s with deep cameo contrast. Cameos can be found but deep cameos are harder to find than many people think.

 

I can only guess why there was a change. But it seems clear there was a change. Hopefully we will get some more information here.

[Julian]

There were a few years in the early 1900's when the devices were not frosted, I think 01-3, or thereabouts. Then the devices started to be frosted again.

[lclugza]

I have heard it was 1899 to 1904 where the Proofs lacked cameo contrast, due to a difference in the manufacture of the Proof dies.

[lclugza]

1903 Proof quarter eagles: Cameo and no-cameo

[Julian]

Believe it or not, I think that the differences in the 1903's pictured is in the lighting. These are not cameoed like the coinage of the late 1890's.

[shylock]

Aside from two PCGS 1906's, neither NGC or PCGS have graded a CAM IH proof from 1902 through the end of the series in 1909 (an example of where the pops are valuable). The mint started fully polishing the dies during this period.

[gmarguli]

Aside from two PCGS 1906's, neither NGC or PCGS have graded a CAM IH proof from 1902 through the end of the series in 1909 (an example of where the pops are valuable). The mint started fully polishing the dies during this period.

 

 

One word of caution for people looking at these pops. PCGS hasn't been designating these coins as CAM/DCAM for that long, so it will still take time for the pops to catch up.

 

NGC has been grading them CAM/UCAM for much longer, so I would suspect that their pop data on the scarcity of these dates in CAM/UCAM is much more accurate.

 

Give PCGS a few years and they will catch up in accuracy. However, in this case the PCGS data is probably accurate since the NGC data validates it.