@koynekwest said:
Thanks, Joe!
Here's another one with the coins side by side. This time the proof is on the left-
Of course it is and another superb illustration of what a proof buffalo nickel looks like to a business strike. I think this is probably the best smoking gun illustration to show the difference between the two, if ever in doubt.
Thanks again for showing that my coin brother. A superb example 👌
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
@koynekwest said:
Thanks, Joe!
Here's another one with the coins side by side. This time the proof is on the left-
One like that on the left is indicative of a fresh collar and a strong strike - but not guaranteed to be a proof, although it can be an indication.
It is a proof, a 1963 proof Jefferson 5c. I've never seen a business strike nickel of either a Buffalo or a Jefferson 5c that's of uniform width all the way around, showing no beveling where the edge meets the rim, and is shiny, like a proof. Here's another image, showing the numerous lines found on business strikes and the lack thereof on a proof-
Dies, collars, and all else aside-it's the way a coin is struck that differentiates proofs as you well know I'm sure. Proofs are struck on a hydraulic press, which imparts distinct characteristics on the edges and rims. I realize you have struck many coins whereas I've never struck a single one. However, I've studied proof coins, especially nickels thoroughly to arrive at my conclusions.
@koynekwest said:
Thanks, Joe!
Here's another one with the coins side by side. This time the proof is on the left-
One like that on the left is indicative of a fresh collar and a strong strike - but not guaranteed to be a proof, although it can be an indication.
It is a proof, a 1963 proof Jefferson 5c. I've never seen a business strike nickel of either a Buffalo or a Jefferson 5c that's of uniform width all the way around, showing no beveling where the edge meets the rim, and is shiny, like a proof. Here's another image, showing the numerous lines found on business strikes and the lack thereof on a proof-
Dies, collars, and all else aside-it's the way a coin is struck that differentiates proofs as you well know I'm sure. Proofs are struck on a hydraulic die, which imparts distinct characteristics on the edges and rims. I realize you have struck many coins whereas I've never struck a single one. However, I've studied proof coins, especially nickels thoroughly to arrive at my conclusions.
I agree with your analysis, Ron. Especially when it’s put together with other aspects of the coin struck. I think the outside of the rims make a strong argument it’s a proof . Yes die markers are another good way but as we can see here on this thread it doesn’t necessarily work all by itself.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
Concerning the above pictures of the edge of a proof nickel, this particular 1915 nickel had edges that resembled the coin on the left, and thus was a business strike.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@koynekwest said:
I think that edge is the final determinant of a proof/non-proof.
I think that’s especially true with that hard alloy-Nickel. Although our nickels are 75% copper, nickel is extremely hard to work with. It gets hot when worked and will take its toll on tooling/dies.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
The 1915 comes with an excellent strike. Full strikes for this date are not unusual. But the one posted here was ridiculous. Even a 1915 matte proof doesn't always show that kind of detail. This less than honest seller did a helluva job this time around. Too good, as a matter of fact.
@koynekwest said:
The 1915 comes with an excellent strike. Full strikes for this date are not unusual. But the one posted here was ridiculous. Even a 1915 matte proof doesn't always show that kind of detail. This less than honest seller did a helluva job this time around. Too good, as a matter of fact.
I have no idea how they made the lettering so blocky and the rims so bold in their listing pic compared to what @BUFFNIXX received.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
don't ask me why, but sometime during the course of this thread the image of the Buffalo made me think of the $10K 1933-S Walker. after looking at it I think it's the color. I haven't re-read that old thread but I don't believe there was any at length discussion about image manipulation, things tended to be more about the coin be authentic or a fake. now, with both images and armed with what has been said here, I wonder if that's the case?? was the Walker image taken with lighting and photo-editing that shows detail which isn't really present, color that is juiced and some slight overall distortion??
@koynekwest said:
They are expert image manipulators. How they did this one is beyond me.
I have to admit I tried and cannot duplicate their imaging. I got close but it seems like they are doing something else like some sort of overlay with the images. I can't explain away the rims in the listing compared to the coin received. Nor the details. Especially the lettering.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
Bringing up the 1933 Walker in relation to this Buff is a very good analogy and idea, Keets. We all wrestled with that one too, and in the end still left scratching out heads.
Joe is an excellent coin photographer. The hear him say he can't reproduce the 1915 image tells us we are not wrong to question the coin.
For me, to have a coin struck up (picturewise) like that takes some out of this world editing. I'm still speechless.
Then, to have a chamfered edge on the coin smacks of tomfoolery.
It's almost like "Double Secret Probation".
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@keets said:
don't ask me why, but sometime during the course of this thread the image of the Buffalo made me think of the $10K 1933-S Walker. after looking at it I think it's the color. I haven't re-read that old thread but I don't believe there was any at length discussion about image manipulation, things tended to be more about the coin be authentic or a fake. now, with both images and armed with what has been said here, I wonder if that's the case?? was the Walker image taken with lighting and photo-editing that shows detail which isn't really present, color that is juiced and some slight overall distortion??
Agree and one of the diagnostics the two have in common is that the shadows are all on the south or 6 o’clock position.
Super interesting!
The Buffalo clearly has a great deal of digital post processing enhancements on top of the hard texture lighting.
The Walker image is much flatter with less obvious manipulations.
One can do a tremendous bit of stuff in photoshop or Lightroom.
I’m considering doing some experiments in an attempt to reproduce this.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
I would suspect that not only is that 1915 nickel not a proof it's also very slightly circulated. I see a trace of wear on the high points of the reverse.
I find it hard to believe that these amazing effects were achieved with just lighting, shadows, and digital contrast enhancements.
I think they have developed some kind of temporary film or coating that is easily removed after the photography session. Something that harmless acetone would thoroughly wash off.
They haven't achieved these kind of photo enhancements on any slabbed coin, have they?
There used to be a saying "The camera does not lie."
It is now obsolete.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
There used to be a saying "The camera does not lie."
It is now obsolete.
It always lied, that was the problem. It never recorded reality but what the photographer wanted. The selection of lens, angle, depth of field, lighting, etc has always been used to create a story or alter a story. Even simple things like omission of something or including something in a composition can dramatically change the interpretation of what’s seen.
Digital photography just made it a lot easier and a lot cheaper to achieve.
Here is one attempt to duplicate GSC images by casting hard shadows. This is a slabbed coin so it's not as good as I can do with a raw coin. But with that said here's what I came up with. I think t's close.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
@bolivarshagnasty said:
CHD, that does look a lot like the images GS has used. Your 2nd image makes the coin look more chiseled.
Thank you. I think it’s similar especially around the knot and the hair above the braid.
I did this with a single 150 watt daylight bulb low at about 11:00.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
Nice work Joe!
Without even the using skim lighting, and using some coin photos I had in my file, I was able to quickly do this.
And, this was with my lowest level of digital manipulation software.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
using less light works on Proof coins to enhance the Deep Cameo appearance and show watery fields. also, as Russ so dramatically showed many years ago, the right angle makes hairlines/die polish magically disappear. there is also the "lamp shade technique" that's still used even by members here to diffuse light and give a deceptive appearance with Proof coins.
I suppose there's a simple lesson to be learned: it can be nearly impossible to know what a coin actually looks like from a digital image.
I gave up on my camera(s) and skill, perhaps one day I'll try again when I'm bored and have more time. I once envisioned my retirement allowing time to do stuff like that. what a myth I perpetrated on myself. as the saying goes, I'm busier than a one-armed paper hanger.
It's unreal the difference in the above coins after lighting changes. I have Photoshop CS5 and I wonder if some of the later photoshop's have an enhancing filters suchas the old sharper filters that may be used by GSC?
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I was wondering the same thing. I think the depend on buyers who aren't at all picky, either through ignorance or whatever, and fully accept what they get, whether it looks much different than the pictured item or not.
I think that GSC uses axial lighting to "enhance" the detail in the strike. Here is an example of a 1913 T1 Buffalo shot with a single light from around the 1 o'clock position at about 45 degrees or so. I know it's a different Type altogether, but it was the only raw Buffalo I had with decent details.
Here is the same coin shot using a single diffused light in an axial setup. I enhanced the contrast and sharpened the image and reduced to a smallish 625px x 625px image. The detail between the two is pretty striking. The rims start to develop a sharper look and LIBERTY starts to look more defined. The right field in front of the face is dark, just like in the GSC image.
Wow... I knew that this seller juiced images but this is well over the top... the coin in the OP doesn't look anything like it does "in hand".
FWIW... I've seen other vendors on ebay that use more professional looking photography but in the back of my head, I'm thinking that the image isn't the same as the actual coin... so, I've started giving more credence to the photographic skills of the average Joe with crappy phone pics. At least if the image is in focus I can usually get a decent representation of what the coin will actually look like once I get it.
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
Comments
Thanks, Joe!
Here's another one with the coins side by side. This time the proof is on the left-
Of course it is and another superb illustration of what a proof buffalo nickel looks like to a business strike. I think this is probably the best smoking gun illustration to show the difference between the two, if ever in doubt.
Thanks again for showing that my coin brother. A superb example 👌
One like that on the left is indicative of a fresh collar and a strong strike - but not guaranteed to be a proof, although it can be an indication.
It is a proof, a 1963 proof Jefferson 5c. I've never seen a business strike nickel of either a Buffalo or a Jefferson 5c that's of uniform width all the way around, showing no beveling where the edge meets the rim, and is shiny, like a proof. Here's another image, showing the numerous lines found on business strikes and the lack thereof on a proof-
Dies, collars, and all else aside-it's the way a coin is struck that differentiates proofs as you well know I'm sure. Proofs are struck on a hydraulic press, which imparts distinct characteristics on the edges and rims. I realize you have struck many coins whereas I've never struck a single one. However, I've studied proof coins, especially nickels thoroughly to arrive at my conclusions.
I’ve found Non proof Lincoln’s in mint sets that have thick and sharp shiny edges.
I agree with your analysis, Ron. Especially when it’s put together with other aspects of the coin struck. I think the outside of the rims make a strong argument it’s a proof . Yes die markers are another good way but as we can see here on this thread it doesn’t necessarily work all by itself.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1015357/proof-like-1996-d-cent-or-is-it-just-decent-results-are-in#latest
Concerning the above pictures of the edge of a proof nickel, this particular 1915 nickel had edges that resembled the coin on the left, and thus was a business strike.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I think that edge is the final determinant of a proof/non-proof.
I think that’s especially true with that hard alloy-Nickel. Although our nickels are 75% copper, nickel is extremely hard to work with. It gets hot when worked and will take its toll on tooling/dies.
Hey they have 30 day return privilege and they pay for the return postage.
So why not? I have gotten some nice coins from them.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
HEY FORGOT TO MENTION THIS COIN WAS SENT TO ME IN AN OLD PVC FLIP!
THE MUST NOT HAVE THOUGHT TOO MUCH OF THE COIN.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The 1915 comes with an excellent strike. Full strikes for this date are not unusual. But the one posted here was ridiculous. Even a 1915 matte proof doesn't always show that kind of detail. This less than honest seller did a helluva job this time around. Too good, as a matter of fact.
despite all the ad hominem stuff, I have found this to be an informative thread. thanks for the education, folks.
I have no idea how they made the lettering so blocky and the rims so bold in their listing pic compared to what @BUFFNIXX received.
They are expert image manipulators. How they did this one is beyond me.
don't ask me why, but sometime during the course of this thread the image of the Buffalo made me think of the $10K 1933-S Walker. after looking at it I think it's the color. I haven't re-read that old thread but I don't believe there was any at length discussion about image manipulation, things tended to be more about the coin be authentic or a fake. now, with both images and armed with what has been said here, I wonder if that's the case?? was the Walker image taken with lighting and photo-editing that shows detail which isn't really present, color that is juiced and some slight overall distortion??
There is an eerie resemblance between those two.
I have to admit I tried and cannot duplicate their imaging. I got close but it seems like they are doing something else like some sort of overlay with the images. I can't explain away the rims in the listing compared to the coin received. Nor the details. Especially the lettering.
Bringing up the 1933 Walker in relation to this Buff is a very good analogy and idea, Keets. We all wrestled with that one too, and in the end still left scratching out heads.
Joe is an excellent coin photographer. The hear him say he can't reproduce the 1915 image tells us we are not wrong to question the coin.
For me, to have a coin struck up (picturewise) like that takes some out of this world editing. I'm still speechless.
Then, to have a chamfered edge on the coin smacks of tomfoolery.
It's almost like "Double Secret Probation".
Pete
Agree and one of the diagnostics the two have in common is that the shadows are all on the south or 6 o’clock position.
Maybe positioning the light from 12 o’clock and at a shallow angle creates Long shadows.
Super interesting!
The Buffalo clearly has a great deal of digital post processing enhancements on top of the hard texture lighting.
The Walker image is much flatter with less obvious manipulations.
One can do a tremendous bit of stuff in photoshop or Lightroom.
I’m considering doing some experiments in an attempt to reproduce this.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
I would suspect that not only is that 1915 nickel not a proof it's also very slightly circulated. I see a trace of wear on the high points of the reverse.
I find it hard to believe that these amazing effects were achieved with just lighting, shadows, and digital contrast enhancements.
I think they have developed some kind of temporary film or coating that is easily removed after the photography session. Something that harmless acetone would thoroughly wash off.
They haven't achieved these kind of photo enhancements on any slabbed coin, have they?
yes, pictures of slabbed coins are also manipulated.
I have an "Enhance" feature on one of my picture programs that works pretty well on some pictures. Maybe GS has a "Super Duper Enhance" feature
.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
There used to be a saying "The camera does not lie."
It is now obsolete.
After this thread I’ve gotta say I agree 100%.
Thank you for your generous input. I know I appreciate it.
It always lied, that was the problem. It never recorded reality but what the photographer wanted. The selection of lens, angle, depth of field, lighting, etc has always been used to create a story or alter a story. Even simple things like omission of something or including something in a composition can dramatically change the interpretation of what’s seen.
Digital photography just made it a lot easier and a lot cheaper to achieve.
Here is one attempt to duplicate GSC images by casting hard shadows. This is a slabbed coin so it's not as good as I can do with a raw coin. But with that said here's what I came up with. I think t's close.
CHD, that does look a lot like the images GS has used. Your 2nd image makes the coin look more chiseled.
Thank you. I think it’s similar especially around the knot and the hair above the braid.
I did this with a single 150 watt daylight bulb low at about 11:00.
You're gettin' there, Joe.
Nice work Joe!
Without even the using skim lighting, and using some coin photos I had in my file, I was able to quickly do this.
And, this was with my lowest level of digital manipulation software.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
I worked on Joe's 1916 a bit. Not quite there though. Making it smaller and changing the color helped. I can't get that clay like appearance.
You guys are gettin' closer.
Here's a raw 21 I picked up that does have a great strike I tried to improve on it's appearance with lighting and nothing else.
All ya'll practicing so you can apply for a job at GSC?
using less light works on Proof coins to enhance the Deep Cameo appearance and show watery fields. also, as Russ so dramatically showed many years ago, the right angle makes hairlines/die polish magically disappear. there is also the "lamp shade technique" that's still used even by members here to diffuse light and give a deceptive appearance with Proof coins.
I suppose there's a simple lesson to be learned: it can be nearly impossible to know what a coin actually looks like from a digital image.
I gave up on my camera(s) and skill, perhaps one day I'll try again when I'm bored and have more time. I once envisioned my retirement allowing time to do stuff like that. what a myth I perpetrated on myself. as the saying goes, I'm busier than a one-armed paper hanger.
It's unreal the difference in the above coins after lighting changes. I have Photoshop CS5 and I wonder if some of the later photoshop's have an enhancing filters suchas the old sharper filters that may be used by GSC?
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
So just return with no comment to seller or SNAD?
I am curious how many times you can return before they block you.
That is a very good question.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I was wondering the same thing. I think the depend on buyers who aren't at all picky, either through ignorance or whatever, and fully accept what they get, whether it looks much different than the pictured item or not.
I think that GSC uses axial lighting to "enhance" the detail in the strike. Here is an example of a 1913 T1 Buffalo shot with a single light from around the 1 o'clock position at about 45 degrees or so. I know it's a different Type altogether, but it was the only raw Buffalo I had with decent details.
Here is the same coin shot using a single diffused light in an axial setup. I enhanced the contrast and sharpened the image and reduced to a smallish 625px x 625px image. The detail between the two is pretty striking. The rims start to develop a sharper look and LIBERTY starts to look more defined. The right field in front of the face is dark, just like in the GSC image.
What do you think @crazyhounddog
Something more had to be done to the GSC image to simulate a strike like that IMO.
Wow... I knew that this seller juiced images but this is well over the top... the coin in the OP doesn't look anything like it does "in hand".
FWIW... I've seen other vendors on ebay that use more professional looking photography but in the back of my head, I'm thinking that the image isn't the same as the actual coin... so, I've started giving more credence to the photographic skills of the average Joe with crappy phone pics. At least if the image is in focus I can usually get a decent representation of what the coin will actually look like once I get it.
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
I got my refund today. All of it.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Good for you. Im glad for ya👌