Cameo or not ? Be wary !

[secret santa]

The term "cameo" gets bandied around quite a lot without, as far as I know, an unambiguous description. It is certainly dangerous to draw conclusions from photographs as to whether a coin is cameo or not. It appears to me that the method of photography and lighting etc can make huge differences to the appearance of a coin.

For example, I own 2 1948 proof pennies and the photographs that I took with my digital SLR, macro lens and built-in flash make them look like cameos and yet when I hold them in hand they are clearly not. Terry Eagleton sent me a 1953 proof penny which looks like a cameo in hand but my photographs of it do not !

I'm assuming that a true cameo appears to have a darkish background with a lighter "frosted" raised image ?

 My photo on left

  This the original Heritage photo which is more as it appears in hand.

The basic message, as always, is to be wary of photographs and judge it in your hand wherever possible !

[Bernie]

The only true cameo penny that I was convinced of, was a picture of a rare proof 1961 penny. Unfortunately it sold for much more than I was prepared to pay for it.

[PWA 1967]

Its a stunning coin whatever they want to call it.

[Rob]

This is going to rumble on and on ad infinitum. FWIW, my take is a pre-requisite of good frosting, but absolutely mirror-like fields to complement it - as below. The field is the most crucial component in my opinion.

[zookeeperz]

I was always of the understanding that cameo proofs were those which had polished fields but the subjects remained un touched to give that effect of a cameo look. Frosted cameo is another thing entirely .I believe a special coating is a applied to give that finish. In contrast to Proof-like  which both the subject and the field are struck on highly polished dies. I have 2 coins with one side with blazing mirror fields and the reverse just normal. A 1953 canadian dollar and a 1940 rupee. Impossible to picture post cannot get the mirror effect to show How I want it. Very frustrating. So are the normal answers "probably just an early strike" errm no the obverse and reverse are chalk and cheese. I am certain they are struck from proof dies weather by accident or otherwise. Natural lustre is completely different to a mirrored finish. One looks like your looking at a reflection of a hazy sun shining on the coin giving it that cartwheel effect when spinning the coin. Mirror is like looking through a pool of water it reflects everything even my ugly mug when tying to photograph it lol

Edited November 13, 2017 by zookeeperz

[Rob]

1 hour ago, zookeeperz said:

Mirror is like looking through a pool of water it reflects everything even my ugly mug when tying to photograph it lol

The reflected view will depend on the planarity of the die's field. Many dies are slightly domed to give a dished surface and so you will only see the image at the focal point. Getting a picture of yourself is therefore a bit hit and miss.

[VickySilver]

The general production of proofs to my understanding is for there to be special care in die production, whatever that means - presumably that means the choice of die , the engraving of the design. Then the die is "pickled" in a strong acid giving an overall frosted appearance to the die.

The die is then polished; the high points/surfaces will be the field, the lower points on the die are the devices and lettering, mottos, etc. which will remain frosted. As the die is used to strike successive planchets, there is die wear and eventual loss of frosting even of the devices. This then results in the loss of cameo frosting unless the die is reprepped. Presumably the first struck coins have the most cameo frosting which is then lost. This is also the reason that different lighting can make a particular specimen to appear to retain more frosting or cameo to the devices, etc.

[secret santa]

Plenty of plausible theories but who can give the definitive answer ? The Royal Mint ?

[VickySilver]

I believe this has been stated many times but confess to not having a citation at the moment. 

[Rob]

36 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Plenty of plausible theories but who can give the definitive answer ? The Royal Mint ?

Do they care? It is the TPGs and collectors who assign the 'Cameo' designation. I wouldn't be surprised if all the RM worries about is the polished field, the sharp milling and the square edging to characters and the rims that is required for a proof.

[VickySilver]

Please see half crown in pcgs report for coin #504887

 

Although this is silver and not copper or bronze, it seems that this coin would bring a premium over a coin without such cameo.

[secret santa]

10 hours ago, Rob said:

It is the TPGs and collectors who assign the 'Cameo' designation. I wouldn't be surprised if all the RM worries about is the polished field, the sharp milling and the square edging to characters and the rims that is required for a proof.

So, Rob, are you saying that all proofs are struck in the same way but some emerge with the "super sharp" effigy and mirror fields ? i.e. all proofs are equal but some are more equal than others ?

[Rob]

36 minutes ago, secret santa said:

So, Rob, are you saying that all proofs are struck in the same way but some emerge with the "super sharp" effigy and mirror fields ? i.e. all proofs are equal but some are more equal than others ?

I don't know is the answer, but given the majority (all?) of disputed pieces are those where there is a relatively large mintage, it is quite conceivable that the really good ones are just early strikes. Clearly frosting is not a pre-requisite for a proof, as quite a few of the rare proof year coins for Elizabeth II are not frosted. Apologies for the crappy scan, but the attached 3d is clearly not frosted, yet the mintage was minimal.

[Nick]

Pictures of coin VS referenced above.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Nick

[VickySilver]

Thanks, Nick (as usual!). As stated, IMO, a coin with nice or top cameo has more visual appeal or snap & also would likely gain a premium - point being that is why cameo is important, especially an unmessed with original coin. I'll take a look as I recall a couple of later G6 proof pennies...

[craigy]

this is a contentious issue  

[terrysoldpennies]

I found this , thought it was interesting. 

https://www.thespruce.com/cameo-cam-definition-768528

[secret santa]

Yes, interesting. It would be good if we could get a Royal Mint comment/perspective.

[zookeeperz]

So it boils down to several strikes or 3 to make a proof qualify as opposed to circulation coins that are only struck once

Specially prepared dies with ( Mirror finish) as opposed to normal luster (1937 brass threepence hardly has mirrored fields) and most pundits when you read their synopsis on which coins are rare and which are just tall stories. They all comment on not being able to tell a proof apart from an unc /BU coin unless they have both in hand to reference.

Special treated dies to make everything stand out as detailed as possible.

So where do proof-likes come from because unless they are early strikes from business sets of dies it would infer these were also treated or made on pre-prepared dies. I just can't make the leap between normal lustered finish to mirrored finish if a coin came from the same die pairing?

[terrysoldpennies]

8 minutes ago, zookeeperz said:

So it boils down to several strikes or 3 to make a proof qualify as opposed to circulation coins that are only struck once

Specially prepared dies with ( Mirror finish) as opposed to normal luster (1937 brass threepence hardly has mirrored fields) and most pundits when you read their synopsis on which coins are rare and which are just tall stories. They all comment on not being able to tell a proof apart from an unc /BU coin unless they have both in hand to reference.

Special treated dies to make everything stand out as detailed as possible.

So where do proof-likes come from because unless they are early strikes from business sets of dies it would infer these were also treated or made on pre-prepared dies. I just can't make the leap between normal lustered finish to mirrored finish if a coin came from the same die pairing?

Unless they continue to use an old proof die, for circulation coins, the first few would look pretty good.  Terry

[sabrejv]

Hi,

I'm a newbie to the forum but have been reading for a few months.

A further link from the same site Terry mentioned...

https://www.thespruce.com/grading-cameo-contrast-on-us-proof-coins-768387

Sadly the link does not show UK examples but it may help clarify cameo/proof variations.

Hope it is of some use.

 

[secret santa]

Thanks sabrejv, all useful information.

[zookeeperz]

33 minutes ago, sabrejv said:

Hi,

I'm a newbie to the forum but have been reading for a few months.

A further link from the same site Terry mentioned...

https://www.thespruce.com/grading-cameo-contrast-on-us-proof-coins-768387

Sadly the link does not show UK examples but it may help clarify cameo/proof variations.

Hope it is of some use.

 

USA collectors are rather more passionate about cameo effects than the actual coin being simply a proof or a business strike. It is pretty common across nearly all aspects of collecting. What the US collector finds truly appealing and in a vast majority of cases @ very high premiums. i.e rainbow toned coins, Die cracks, Doubled dies etc for UK collectors for the majority this holds no extra pull or value to the coin. Mainly because it was probably more rare to find a coin without faults. Only buck against that trend is error coins and over dates. But cameo affect might make one guy more interested but it wouldn't make  the masses flock to the auction houses to buy them. Brits are more about the prestige of the coin. How it looks and the strike qualities . Lower mintage rare coins.  Although I do feel it is the TPG that set the extra criteria purely for commercial gain. If a coin is cameo proof that is it done and dusted. Why then does it have to be ultra cameo ? somehow suggesting that the cameo proof is somehow inferior. We could do that across the board with extra descriptions like subdued luster, 50% Luster etc. Everyone who collects UK coins this side of the pond knows that BU coins are 100% just left the mint red (for copper bronze) fully cartwheel lustered ( for silver and gold) . If anything else was added like proof-like it wouldn't add any bearing to the value per say  as the coin would be judged on it's merit as it stands. We do not have a grading system that includes proof-like. Not like USA and Canada. To the Brit collector it just means a circulation strike with exceptional eye appeal.

Yet overseas sellers of British coins always sell well over the book price and because of the different grading scale they ask BU prices for AUNC coins and as we all know that can mean £1000's in real terms. 

[terrysoldpennies]

52 minutes ago, sabrejv said:

Hi,

I'm a newbie to the forum but have been reading for a few months.

A further link from the same site Terry mentioned...

https://www.thespruce.com/grading-cameo-contrast-on-us-proof-coins-768387

Sadly the link does not show UK examples but it may help clarify cameo/proof variations.

Hope it is of some use.

 

Welcome to the Forum, its a very useful link with the staged comparison pictures.      Terry

[zookeeperz]

1 minute ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Welcome to the Forum, its a very useful link with the staged comparison pictures.      Terry

Great reading material. Just seems to me TPG abusing collectors . Call it something different  another grading tier cost?