Cameo Proof

Once you see a Cameo Proof it's pretty easy to tell the difference IMHO!

Better yet, here is a Deep Cameo SF mint proof and a "prooflike" morgan reverse side by side for comparison.



The coin on the left would be a Deep Cameo proof, and the one on the right a MS Prooflike, even though they have the same "contrastiness"

MM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Metalman

In just about every case Cameo's are worth more , and then on up with the three seperate variations of cameo.

Its really a four tied scale.

Proof
Cameo Proof
Deep cameo proof
Ultra cameo proof

Each stepping above the other in value.

Rick

---

Not to contradict Rick but I think PCI is the only one who uses all 4 grades or levels of proof with ultra being the top. I believe the top with PCGS and almost all others except NGC is deep cameo and the top with NGC is ultra cameo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoutjim99

I do believe the Cameo And Prooflike are Sybolic with Early Strikes . Sorry for The Misspelling . The Spellchecker wont work for me...

---

A good number of business strike Morgan dollars seem to be found in proof like. Virtually all US Proof Sets since the mid 70's are deep cameo. Scattered cameo & deep cameo US proof coins before circa 1974 can be found back to 1936 where my study halts. Also SMS coins of the 1965 to 1967 era can be found in cameo & deep cameo. I believe there are cameo US proof coins back to the late 1800's.

As a point of clarification, several "prooflike" Morgans were posted in this thread. The prooflike/deep prooflike designation as used by the grading companies does NOT refer to the frostiness of the devices. In fact, they're not necessarily frostier than any other Morgan. The designation refers solely to the mirror qualities of the fields of the coin. The degree of mirroring is determined by the distance in inches that you can get a clear reflection off the fields of the coin. I'm not sure what actual values they use. Maybe 4" for prooflike and 12" for deep prooflike? Don't quote me on that. They probably just eyeball it, anyway, when they're grading the coins.

Now as for what causes the frost on cameo coins. In the older days, one of the steps of proof die preparation was soaking the dies in acid. This would create a frost over the entire surface of the die. The fields were then polished, leaving the frost in the recesses of the die (the raised portions of the coins). After a number of strikes, this frost would wear off the die, and you'd get brilliant proofs instead of cameo proofs. I believe in the 1970's, they started sandblasting the dies, followed by a polishing of the fields, to achieve this effect. Also, the mint became more concerned with specifically achieving this cameo effect, and replaced dies more frequently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bitters

As a point of clarification, several "prooflike" Morgans were posted in this thread. The prooflike/deep prooflike designation as used by the grading companies does NOT refer to the frostiness of the devices. In fact, they're not necessarily frostier than any other Morgan. The designation refers solely to the mirror qualities of the fields of the coin. The degree of mirroring is determined by the distance in inches that you can get a clear reflection off the fields of the coin. I'm not sure what actual values they use. Maybe 4" for prooflike and 12" for deep prooflike? Don't quote me on that. They probably just eyeball it, anyway, when they're grading the coins.

Now as for what causes the frost on cameo coins. In the older days, one of the steps of proof die preparation was soaking the dies in acid. This would create a frost over the entire surface of the die. The fields were then polished, leaving the frost in the recesses of the die (the raised portions of the coins). After a number of strikes, this frost would wear off the die, and you'd get brilliant proofs instead of cameo proofs. I believe in the 1970's, they started sandblasting the dies, followed by a polishing of the fields, to achieve this effect. Also, the mint became more concerned with specifically achieving this cameo effect, and replaced dies more frequently.

---

To expand on this excellent explanation, it should be noted that, at some point, workers at the mint began polishing the devices of the dies as well as the fields. This process removed the cameo effect. This is especially true of modern Proofs, produced since 1950. Proof mintages climbed dramatically due to production for collectors - before 1950, 20,000 was a very high number of proofs for any given issue, while since, mintages in excess of 3 million are the rule rather than the exception. For that reason, many more Mint employees were involved in the die production. Some of these employees polished the devices, some did not. That's why modern Proofs of that era can be found with and without cameo; given the low per-die mintages, a die which would strike cameos was probably capable of striking cameos throughout its' useful life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by airedale

Here is a beautiful example of a business strike proof like or DMPL https://goccf.com/t/9695

---

That's one heckuva coin - now it's been posted twice in this thread.