Is "Cameo" a recognised grade/variety ?

[secret santa]

The 1958 Halfpenny is for sale on ebay    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VIP-PROOF-1958-HALF-PENNY-NGC-PF64RB-CAMEO-LESS-THAN-10-STRUCK-IN-PROOF-/162447813742?hash=item25d2a4ec6e:g:G2EAAOSwImRYCR3Q

It has been graded by NGC as Proof 64RB Cameo but is this a recognised grade/state/variety or just NGC's own opinion ?

•  
• Quote

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Not sure exactly how it is determined, but it is designation used to describe a level of contrast and/or reflectivity on certain proof strikings..

 

[Rob]

There are probably more than 10 proof 1958s as well.

[coinkat]

A cameo designation is not a variety but used solely to modify a proof or proof like coin grade to call attention to what should be a sharp contrast in the portrait and center design focal points of the coin and the fields. Cameos usually will bring a reasonable to significant premium depending on the coin series and the depth of the contrast.

[VickySilver]

I concur with Rob and CK in that there are IMO more likely a number closer to 20 than 10, and CK in that cameo is usually more desirable. In some series such as in my post elsewhere, cameo contrast is very rare which I attempted to show in the 1936 Wreath.

There is also DC for deep cameo, as in my 1839 half crown & will post the coin number from the PCGS pop site for Great Britain:  504887.  I know it is only a photo, but please tell me how this is only a "63". BTW, the coin is at least as nice in hand!

[Nick]

4 hours ago, VickySilver said:

There is also DC for deep cameo, as in my 1839 half crown & will post the coin number from the PCGS pop site for Great Britain:  504887.  I know it is only a photo, but please tell me how this is only a "63". BTW, the coin is at least as nice in hand!

Here is the picture of VS's 1839 halfcrown:

[Rob]

At the risk of repetition, it is only a 63 because grading consistency is aspirational in name only. You need to remove the human input and work out a system that can measure wear without prejudice or sentiment.

[VickySilver]

So true!

 I apologise for digressing as I was really only trying (with Nick's help) to show an example of cameo.

[Sword]

On 14/04/2017 at 7:53 AM, Nick said:

Here is the picture of VS's 1839 halfcrown:

An absolute beauty!

I understand that the earlier proof DC coins do have significant premiums. However, for the sake of argument, if VS's superb halfcrown were to be deeply toned even with the most amazing of colours, would it lose it DC designation? 

It seem to me that the DC term tends to be mostly used for coins that are near blast white. 

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Sword

[VickySilver]

Thanks for the complement & bought for much more than an ordinary one - about 12 years ago if memory serves. 

IMHO yes, you are mostly correct although I have seen some toned Morgan $ coins that appeared to have "DC" designation. 

[terrysoldpennies]

I bought this 1953 penny last week , it was described as a Proof, but after some research came to the conclusion that its what the Americans call a Cameo.  Well, that's what I consider it to be from all that I have read .  After all, it is a Proof, but it has a matt finish to the detail on the coin , but the field is highly polished.   Its known and documented that Bright finish and Matt finish coins were made in 1953, but as far as I am aware , not so this two tone type.  Richard and I both knew nothing about them, hence this post by him, well is this just a description of the contrast between the different surfaces, or should we always describe this twin type finish on a coin as Cameo.    Also as far as I can tell,  of all the pre-decimal bronze pennies produced for 110 years this so called Cameo finish was only ever used in 1953.  I believe this type was only made for VIP sets, and have no idea as to its rarity.  Below are the three types of finish found on a 1953 Penny.      If you can tell us more, please let us know.    Terry

[terrysoldpennies]

[terrysoldpennies]

[Peckris]

"Cameo" appears to have replaced the  term "frosted", which was always the traditional way to refer to proofs with a matt raised design contrasting greatly with a mirror field.

[secret santa]

So, are these cameo/frosted coins produced intentionally from special dies and/or blanks, and for what purpose and why weren't they documented by Peck,Freeman or Gouby (i'm assuming they weren't) ? I'd just love to know more about them.

[Peckris]

Yes, there is a special process for producing 'frosted' proofs, though I couldn't quote you chapter and verse. Some seem to occur naturally as part of the process, which can be seen between 1937 and 1953. Maybe the intention was to 'frost' lightly but the effect only lasted for the first strikings? As for decimal-era, the frosted proofs began to appear in - I think - either 1980 or 1981.

I imagine that Peck, Freeman and Gouby don't document them because base metal proofs of the 19th Century are rare and  tend to be 'bronzed' (or especially silvered / gilt etc) rather than frosted. Those ARE mentioned by Freeman etc.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Peckris

[Rob]

This is potential can of worms. Some proofs never seem to appear with a cameo effect whilst others are split. You even get a cameo effect on things that are bones of contention when it comes to describing them as proofs.

In general terms, the Soho pieces tend to be cameo. George IV & William IV not. Victorian pieces are split, but also with the caveat that the contentious Heaton pieces can be unquestionably described as cameo - yet the same cannot be said for their status as proofs. Leaving aside the 1902 set which being matte proofs is something of an oddity, the 20th century commercial proof sets can be cameo, but the so-called VIPs are again split with the Georges typically not cameo whilst the Elizabeth ones mostly are.

[VickySilver]

Perhaps part of the problem is that there are no convenient "pigeon holes" and that they are something of a spectrum. I guess I just like to look at cameo/device frostiness (?) as an individual characteristic of a coin. I believe they do impart some value if giving the coin a nicer appearance & would guess the example I showed would bring a premium over a non-cameo piece & that Terry's coin would as well.

My understanding is that this is entirely a property of die preparation and subsequent wear & that a simple explanation would be either pickling or sandblasting the die surface and then polishing the high points which of course would strike as the field into the flans. Subsequent wear would to some degree polish the recessed devices and they would tend to lose both detail and the ability to impart a cameo device to the flans. Simple pickling with acid would not necessarily give as pleasant a cameo as later methods.

As was pointed out, George V & VI pieces usually lack a cameo (we did show a 1936 Wreath crown with nice cameo). and these I know.

[Nick]

8 hours ago, VickySilver said:

As was pointed out, George V & VI pieces usually lack a cameo (we did show a 1936 Wreath crown with nice cameo). and these I know.

I've seen quite a number of 1937 proof sets with cameo.  Here's an example from my set.

 

[terrysoldpennies]

Nick, are the bronze coins in the set Cameo.     Terry

[Nick]

16 minutes ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Nick, are the bronze coins in the set Cameo.     Terry

No, not really.  The cameo on the silver reduces with the size of coin.  Any cameo on the bronze is not particularly noticeable.  Here's the penny obverse.

[terrysoldpennies]

Thanks Nick , that's what I thought, in my 1953 set all the coins are cameo.     Terry

[Nick]

25 minutes ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Thanks Nick , that's what I thought, in my 1953 set all the coins are cameo.     Terry

Yes, mine too, except for the farthing.  Here's the penny obverse.

[secret santa]

Interesting stuff. It's a pity that the cameo/frosting doesn't always come over in photographs.

[Peckris]

Perhaps the difference is:

"cameo" - an effect of proof striking that sometimes comes across and sometimes doesn't 

"frosting" - a deliberate preparation that always causes a crystalline effect on raised design as opposed to the mirror fields?

Or perhaps "cameo" is simply the American term for "frosting"?