Are "cameo" proofs considered varieties?

[Robert]

The way I understand it, before about 1970 only the first few proof coins of a run were "cameo" and the rest are just "brilliant" (?) proofs. The early cameos command a premium I believe. During the 70s that changed. Cameos are the norm and non-cameos are now unusual.


I was wondering of Cameos are to be considered a die variety?



BTW is this correct? The cameo effect is made by sand blasting the entire die, then polishing the "field" areas so that you get a contrast on the struck coin. After a few (how many?) strikes the sand blasted look on the raised parts of the coin goes away.

[coop]

Bob: I believe you are correct in your assumption of Cameos. But I don't believe they are a Variety as they are the norm and not a different thing created by one die as is the case of varieties. RPM #1 was created by the die that created that variety. The Cameo in the older dies was just EDS strikes and non cameo ones were later die states. Correct me if I'm wrong. Of course that all changed as you mentioned in the 1970s'.

[coppercoins]

Cameo is a die state of a proof die, for lack of a better simile. It has nothing to do with being a variety since supposedly all proof dies back to the early 40s started out with the cameo to some degree.

Die varieties have something to do with something doubled on a coin as a result of the die making process. Cameo is not doubling, thus is not a die variety.

[GarryN]

There is a body of opinion that the term cameo and Ultra Cameo and the like are just made up designations to sell coins and create markets. Full split bands is used on Mercury dimes, full steps on Jeff nickels and there may be something used for Roosevelt dimes soon.

So I tend to agree.

[coppercoins]

There already is something for Roosevelt dimes - FT (full torch) - PCGS just started grading with this suffix a few months ago (sometime during the summer).

The biggest problem I have with the whole CAM, DCAM, UCAM thing is that the standard for what is and what isn't wavers so much - there doesn't seem to be a set standard, so like with eye appeal, it's more or less a good "guess"....well, with the price differences some of the coins are achieving for DCAM compared to CAM, I would want a much more precise way of measuring them.

My PERSONAL way of handling it is to call what I see, CAM is a lighter frost and DCAM is very heavy - the prices, however, for what I sell between the proof grades, depends strictly on the grade, not the CAM designation I give the coin.

[GarryN]

The other thing is that there are already many CAM, DCAM and UCAM in holders without the designation just like the "Full Torch" , so if a collector feels he needs the designation, he has to get it "reholdered" (a new word in the lexicon) and gee, PCGS and NGC get a few extra dollars. What a concept!

[coppercoins]

In my opinion a sad case of capitalizing on the collector which does not bode well on the holder companies. Reminds me a lot of CONECA when they dropped the system John Wexler worked on for years, thus leaving collectors with hundreds to thousands of invalid die numbers on their coins - they had to send them back in for re-attribution if they wanted CONECA recognized numbers...and it wasn't free as it should have been.