There is no way IMHO to capture a coin like this. You can take a picture to capture the full mint Bloom, which this coin has hands down, which will the hide any marks, or you can compromise like I do, which advertises marks but gives a better representation of what the coin looks like in hand. It should be obvious, at least it is to me from my pictures that the coin has full, unimpaired Mint Bloom.
We all have our opinions, but only a comparison with same photo technique for each coin provides any meaningful information. What did you expect with a poor photo of a nice coin?
@amwldcoin said:
There is no way IMHO to capture a coin like this. ...
For the purposes of being able to compare it with other coins, I disagree. While no static photo can capture a coin exactly as you see it in hand, especially one with luster, you can come a lot closer than the photo of coin 2.
There are ways to nicely (and honestly, and correctly) photograph almost any coin. It's always a bit of a compromise, but I think it hasn't been shown to its best advantage. So, I agree with most of what you're saying, but I can't see that it has "full mint Bloom". It looks like it has areas of wear with little to no visible mint luster in those areas. You said yourself that it has a bit of rub. We all have bias when looking at our own photos and it's easy to mentally "fill in" what we know is there. Other people are left with only what they can see.
I think I'm reasonably good at interpreting photos, and like @messydesk says, no photo can perfectly capture what can be seen in-hand.
Probably I was overly harsh in my earlier post, but you put it out there for critique. I don't think it's so odd that some would prefer coin number 1, but identical photo conditions would make the comparison more fair and more meaningful.
Yes, it has a bit of wear. They are both graded AU58+. When I say Full mint bloom I'm obviously talking about the overall luster of the coin...minus the small amount of rub. There is no impairment what so ever to the surfaces or luster of the coin from being dipped or whatever which some here seem to imply.
@BryceM said:
There are ways to nicely (and honestly, and correctly) photograph almost any coin. It's always a bit of a compromise, but I think it hasn't been shown to its best advantage. So, I agree with most of what you're saying, but I can't see that it has "full mint Bloom". It looks like it has areas of wear with little to no visible mint luster in those areas. You said yourself that it has a bit of rub. We all have bias when looking at our own photos and it's easy to mentally "fill in" what we know is there. Other people are left with only what they can see.
I think I'm reasonably good at interpreting photos, and like @messydesk says, no photo can perfectly capture what can be seen in-hand.
Probably I was overly harsh in my earlier post, but you put it out there for critique. I don't think it's so odd that some would prefer coin number 1, but identical photo conditions would make the comparison more fair and more meaningful.
I've thought about my description a bit. I think the best way to describe coin #2 is....picture a nice, fresh 1880-S Morgan Dollar. That's the type surfaces and luster this coin has. Believe you me, Barber Halves are difficult to find with surfaces and luster like this...even in better MS grades.
This is the kind of thread I love, great discussion about key issues in grading and evaluating surfaces. Kudos to amwldcoin on starting such a discussion. Question, is either CAC or to your knowledge if not, have they been to CAC for bean consideration?
The consensus here is that #2 image is not so great, that may have led to my interpretation. It would be good to see a better image for this one.
The dealer who made the coin I bought it from offered to send it to CAC and I passed. So no, Coin #2 has not been to CAC and will probably not have a chance to make that journey until I die. I don't know about Coin #1.
As far as images I would wager coin #2 is better represented than coin #1! Under the same lighting as coin #2 I would wager coin #1 is dark enough where the colors are muted. Maybe this comment will draw a comment from the photographer.
I will also add this comment. I have a complete set in 58....35 of which are 58+. This is a top contender for the most eye appealing coin in my set. Coin #1 has me rethinking whether it is worth the thousands of dollars I have had to spend to make a the 58+'s I have made myself.
@spacehayduke said:
This is the kind of thread I love, great discussion about key issues in grading and evaluating surfaces. Kudos to amwldcoin on starting such a discussion. Question, is either CAC or to your knowledge if not, have they been to CAC for bean consideration?
The consensus here is that #2 image is not so great, that may have led to my interpretation. It would be good to see a better image for this one.
Any One coming to the Dalton,Ga. show this weekend want to see my coin in person? I would love opinions expressed other than my own...positive or negative.
@amwldcoin said:
Any One coming to the Dalton,Ga. show this weekend want to see my coin in person? I would love opinions expressed other than my own...positive or negative.
I saw coin 2 in person today. Could it have been dipped? Maybe. Is it all of the 58+ and more. Absolutely. Great looking coin.
Comments
There is no way IMHO to capture a coin like this. You can take a picture to capture the full mint Bloom, which this coin has hands down, which will the hide any marks, or you can compromise like I do, which advertises marks but gives a better representation of what the coin looks like in hand. It should be obvious, at least it is to me from my pictures that the coin has full, unimpaired Mint Bloom.
For the purposes of being able to compare it with other coins, I disagree. While no static photo can capture a coin exactly as you see it in hand, especially one with luster, you can come a lot closer than the photo of coin 2.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
There are ways to nicely (and honestly, and correctly) photograph almost any coin. It's always a bit of a compromise, but I think it hasn't been shown to its best advantage. So, I agree with most of what you're saying, but I can't see that it has "full mint Bloom". It looks like it has areas of wear with little to no visible mint luster in those areas. You said yourself that it has a bit of rub. We all have bias when looking at our own photos and it's easy to mentally "fill in" what we know is there. Other people are left with only what they can see.
I think I'm reasonably good at interpreting photos, and like @messydesk says, no photo can perfectly capture what can be seen in-hand.
Probably I was overly harsh in my earlier post, but you put it out there for critique. I don't think it's so odd that some would prefer coin number 1, but identical photo conditions would make the comparison more fair and more meaningful.
BTW, what is the grade of the coin?
Yes, it has a bit of wear. They are both graded AU58+. When I say Full mint bloom I'm obviously talking about the overall luster of the coin...minus the small amount of rub. There is no impairment what so ever to the surfaces or luster of the coin from being dipped or whatever which some here seem to imply.
What they said. #1
Coins are not the same as silverware.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I've thought about my description a bit. I think the best way to describe coin #2 is....picture a nice, fresh 1880-S Morgan Dollar. That's the type surfaces and luster this coin has. Believe you me, Barber Halves are difficult to find with surfaces and luster like this...even in better MS grades.
This is the kind of thread I love, great discussion about key issues in grading and evaluating surfaces. Kudos to amwldcoin on starting such a discussion. Question, is either CAC or to your knowledge if not, have they been to CAC for bean consideration?
The consensus here is that #2 image is not so great, that may have led to my interpretation. It would be good to see a better image for this one.
Best, SH
The dealer who made the coin I bought it from offered to send it to CAC and I passed. So no, Coin #2 has not been to CAC and will probably not have a chance to make that journey until I die.
I don't know about Coin #1.
As far as images I would wager coin #2 is better represented than coin #1! Under the same lighting as coin #2 I would wager coin #1 is dark enough where the colors are muted. Maybe this comment will draw a comment from the photographer.
I will also add this comment. I have a complete set in 58....35 of which are 58+. This is a top contender for the most eye appealing coin in my set. Coin #1 has me rethinking whether it is worth the thousands of dollars I have had to spend to make a the 58+'s I have made myself.
Thought I would Bump this one time for those who might have missed it.
Any One coming to the Dalton,Ga. show this weekend want to see my coin in person? I would love opinions expressed other than my own...positive or negative.
Yup
I saw coin 2 in person today. Could it have been dipped? Maybe. Is it all of the 58+ and more. Absolutely. Great looking coin.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.