PCI Grading Cameos

Got three coins from ebay today graded by PCI.

The three coins we

1962 Franklin PR68 DCAM
1964 Washington PR69 DCAM
1959 Washington PR67 CAM

In my opinion, in terms of surface condition, I would say that PCI graded
close to what I would have expected from PCGS or NGC. The Franklin would
probably drop down perhaps to a PR67 in a PCGS holder. One consistant thing
that I noticed about the PCI slabs is that they are liberal in their grading
of Cameos. The "DCAM" are closer to what I would expect from a "CAMEO" . The
CAMEO was a little weak.

Summary: When buying PCI slabs in cameo, be aware that the DCAMS may not
truly be deep.

"Mr. M." wrote in message
...
Got three coins from ebay today graded by PCI.

The three coins we

1962 Franklin PR68 DCAM
1964 Washington PR69 DCAM
1959 Washington PR67 CAM

In my opinion, in terms of surface condition, I would say that PCI graded
close to what I would have expected from PCGS or NGC. The Franklin would
probably drop down perhaps to a PR67 in a PCGS holder. One consistant
thing
that I noticed about the PCI slabs is that they are liberal in their
grading
of Cameos. The "DCAM" are closer to what I would expect from a "CAMEO" .
The
CAMEO was a little weak.

Summary: When buying PCI slabs in cameo, be aware that the DCAMS may not
truly be deep.



I have a question about deep cameos. I recall reading somewhere, maybe about
15 years ago or so, that the designation "deep" or related (e.g., ultra
deep) type of cameo refers to some specific measurements, like exactly how
far back in space the mirrored fields reflect, meaning that one could put a
ruler (or yardstick?) in front of the coin and simply count back to where
the numeral measurement was no longer clearly visible. So maybe deep would
be 8 or so inches, and ultra deep would be up to 14 inches or so, etc. Is
this true (not the actual numbers, but the empirical nature of it)? If this
is not the case, then briefly, how is this arrived at?
Thanx.

1. Deep Cameo as defined by the PCGS guide is: "A term applied to coins,
usually proof and prooflike coins, that have deeply frosted devices and
lettering that contrast with the fields - often called "black and white"
cameos. Specifically applied to those proofs dated 1950 and later that meet
deep cameo (DCAM) standards." Nothing about measurements mentioned, sounds
like the contrast is the important thing to consider.

2. PCI grading is more liberal that both NGC and PCGS in general, and this
is usually reflected in the price you would expect to pay or the price you
would expect to get for such coins.

PJZ

www.dylancoins.com


"Edwin Johnston" wrote in message
...

"Mr. M." wrote in message
...
Got three coins from ebay today graded by PCI.

The three coins we

1962 Franklin PR68 DCAM
1964 Washington PR69 DCAM
1959 Washington PR67 CAM

In my opinion, in terms of surface condition, I would say that PCI
graded
close to what I would have expected from PCGS or NGC. The Franklin would
probably drop down perhaps to a PR67 in a PCGS holder. One consistant
thing
that I noticed about the PCI slabs is that they are liberal in their
grading
of Cameos. The "DCAM" are closer to what I would expect from a "CAMEO" .
The
CAMEO was a little weak.

Summary: When buying PCI slabs in cameo, be aware that the DCAMS may not
truly be deep.



I have a question about deep cameos. I recall reading somewhere, maybe
about
15 years ago or so, that the designation "deep" or related (e.g., ultra
deep) type of cameo refers to some specific measurements, like exactly how
far back in space the mirrored fields reflect, meaning that one could put
a
ruler (or yardstick?) in front of the coin and simply count back to where
the numeral measurement was no longer clearly visible. So maybe deep would
be 8 or so inches, and ultra deep would be up to 14 inches or so, etc. Is
this true (not the actual numbers, but the empirical nature of it)? If
this
is not the case, then briefly, how is this arrived at?
Thanx.

"Edwin Johnston" wrote:

I have a question about deep cameos. I recall reading somewhere, maybe about
15 years ago or so, that the designation "deep" or related (e.g., ultra
deep) type of cameo refers to some specific measurements, like exactly how
far back in space the mirrored fields reflect, meaning that one could put a
ruler (or yardstick?) in front of the coin and simply count back to where
the numeral measurement was no longer clearly visible. So maybe deep would
be 8 or so inches, and ultra deep would be up to 14 inches or so, etc. Is
this true (not the actual numbers, but the empirical nature of it)? If this
is not the case, then briefly, how is this arrived at?

I believe you are thinking of the criteria for "proof-like" and "deep mirror
proof-like" for Morgan dollars.

Cameo and Deep Cameo are used with respect to proof coins and refers to the
level of "frost" on the devices of the coin and, thus, how much contrast there
is between the devices and the fields.

These labels can sometimes appear to be quite subjective. I've seen a number of
proof Franklin halves that some may consider to be "cameo" yet they did not get
the label from the grading services.

When I sold my proof Franklins, all of which had some level of frost on the
devices, I tried to be very careful in labelling them in my eBay auctions. In
some of those auctions I described the coin as having a "moderate cameo" finish
with a warning that one of the major grading services might, or might not,
label the coin as "cameo".




++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits

"Phil DeMayo" wrote in message
...
"Edwin Johnston" wrote:

I have a question about deep cameos. I recall reading somewhere, maybe
about
15 years ago or so, that the designation "deep" or related (e.g., ultra
deep) type of cameo refers to some specific measurements, like exactly
how
far back in space the mirrored fields reflect, meaning that one could put
a
ruler (or yardstick?) in front of the coin and simply count back to where
the numeral measurement was no longer clearly visible. So maybe deep
would
be 8 or so inches, and ultra deep would be up to 14 inches or so, etc. Is
this true (not the actual numbers, but the empirical nature of it)? If
this
is not the case, then briefly, how is this arrived at?

I believe you are thinking of the criteria for "proof-like" and "deep
mirror
proof-like" for Morgan dollars.

Cameo and Deep Cameo are used with respect to proof coins and refers to
the
level of "frost" on the devices of the coin and, thus, how much contrast
there
is between the devices and the fields.

These labels can sometimes appear to be quite subjective. I've seen a
number of
proof Franklin halves that some may consider to be "cameo" yet they did
not get
the label from the grading services.

When I sold my proof Franklins, all of which had some level of frost on
the
devices, I tried to be very careful in labelling them in my eBay auctions.
In
some of those auctions I described the coin as having a "moderate cameo"
finish
with a warning that one of the major grading services might, or might not,
label the coin as "cameo".


OK!
Yes, the level of frost would refer to the contrast, or cameo effect.
So, it may well be that I was thinking back on descriptions of "proof-like"
and "deep mirror proof-like" for Morgan dollars.
But then more questions: Don't those deep mirror proof-like Morgans have
frosted devices as well? So: Are linear measuring tools used to determine
just how deep they are? And: If so, then what might be the difference
between the P-L Morgans and Cameo proofs in terms of "deepness"? (Not that
I possess or am considering purchasing any of them -- just to know.)
Thanx again!

"Edwin Johnston" wrote:

Don't those deep mirror proof-like Morgans have
frosted devices as well?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

So: Are linear measuring tools used to determine
just how deep they are?

The test I have seen used is how far away you can read newsprint in the fields
of the coin....maybe someone else can provide the specifics.

And: If so, then what might be the difference
between the P-L Morgans and Cameo proofs in terms of "deepness"?

You're back to comparing two different things.


++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits

"Phil DeMayo" wrote in message
...
"Edwin Johnston" wrote:

Don't those deep mirror proof-like Morgans have
frosted devices as well?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

So: Are linear measuring tools used to determine
just how deep they are?

The test I have seen used is how far away you can read newsprint in the
fields
of the coin....maybe someone else can provide the specifics.
snip

Yes, I seem to recall reading something along those lines. (What type size
and font? :-)
I guess I'm done now. Muchas gracias!

The DPML designation is usually reserved for business strikes that have a
proof appearance.

If you are interested in learning more about the Cameo proof coinage of the
1950-1970 era I would recommend Rick Tomaska's book " Cameo and Brilliant
Proof Coinage".
"Edwin Johnston" wrote in message
...

"Mr. M." wrote in message
...
Got three coins from ebay today graded by PCI.

The three coins we

1962 Franklin PR68 DCAM
1964 Washington PR69 DCAM
1959 Washington PR67 CAM

In my opinion, in terms of surface condition, I would say that PCI
graded
close to what I would have expected from PCGS or NGC. The Franklin would
probably drop down perhaps to a PR67 in a PCGS holder. One consistant
thing
that I noticed about the PCI slabs is that they are liberal in their
grading
of Cameos. The "DCAM" are closer to what I would expect from a "CAMEO" .
The
CAMEO was a little weak.

Summary: When buying PCI slabs in cameo, be aware that the DCAMS may not
truly be deep.



I have a question about deep cameos. I recall reading somewhere, maybe
about
15 years ago or so, that the designation "deep" or related (e.g., ultra
deep) type of cameo refers to some specific measurements, like exactly how
far back in space the mirrored fields reflect, meaning that one could put
a
ruler (or yardstick?) in front of the coin and simply count back to where
the numeral measurement was no longer clearly visible. So maybe deep would
be 8 or so inches, and ultra deep would be up to 14 inches or so, etc. Is
this true (not the actual numbers, but the empirical nature of it)? If
this
is not the case, then briefly, how is this arrived at?
Thanx.