Home U.S. Coin Forum

Okay, new and better images for constructive criticism and help please, thank you.

I am posting some of the coins I have not photographed yet, and ones I have, as I am getting better at the coin photography. I found taking the images of the gold coins particularly difficult actually, especially in capturing the lister. but these are "better" than my first several tries at taking them. As a neophyte in numismatics, I would love to hear weigh-ins on grades, unusual aspects, etc... All of these are going to be sold for my client. I do not know if they will do it on their own, or allow me to sell them for them, just trying to protect them from getting ripped off, thank you all!

The first three are: 1) 1861, gold $2.50, Quarter Eagle, PCGS# 7791, Coronet Head, Liberty Head, New Reverse;
2) 1910, gold $2.50, Indian Head, PCGS# 7941, incuse; 3) 1927, gold $2.50, Indian Head, PCGS# 7951, incuse.






Comments

  • Here are two "group" images of the gold quarter eagles... Not sure it changes much though...


  • DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,522 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The cent looks good, the gold pictures still need work though. I’m not sure what to do but I’m sure someone else could give you tips

  • Steven59Steven59 Posts: 8,290 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Crop alot of that background around the coins out of the picture. It will enlarge the coin to see more details.

    "When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"

  • @Deplorable Dan, thank you!

    @Steven59, I was cropping more closely previously, and just through to try a bit more background, guess not!

  • robecrobec Posts: 6,599 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 17, 2022 4:11PM

    I’m not sure if you’re using a phone or camera but these photos can be cropped with your phone easily.

  • dunkleosteus430dunkleosteus430 Posts: 471 ✭✭✭✭

    The photos look good, although as others have mentioned would look nicer if they were cropped. I'm pretty sure the 1927 quarter eagle is cleaned, and the 1861 also looks altered, but I'm not sure about the 1910 (I'm not the best at catching details stuff. I could be wrong on any of these.)
    Your cent is beautiful given its age, but it is a relatively common coin in high grade and probably wouldn't be worth grading. It's still pretty nice.

    Young Numismatist

  • 2 x 1945, Mercury Head Dimes, PCGS# 5056, not FB. Not getting the muted luster on these, not sure why, I haver taken them many different ways... I thought I was doing better with the photos... I have two different lightings in these images. The first does not show any luster, but is much more clear, the second shows some luster, but is blurry! Frustrating










  • Mercury dimes are AU and not worth grading.

    Young Numismatist

  • hummingbird_coin, Thank you! That is all I really need to know, as those are the "best" of that grouping! Have a great holiday season! Greg.

  • @browntrout said:
    hummingbird_coin, Thank you! That is all I really need to know, as those are the "best" of that grouping! Have a great holiday season! Greg.

    If you have a large group of Mercury Dimes, consider looking for 1921, 1921 D, or 1916 D coins. They could be worth a lot more. Also, XF better dates (1919 D 1926 S etc.) are worth looking for as well.

    Young Numismatist

  • 1964-D, 2 rolls (43 total pieces and 51 pieces, for a total of 94 coins), Roosevelt Dimes, PCGS# 5129/85129, possibly uncirculated, from the first roll, 5 may be Full band (FB) and the other 38 are not full band. Here are images of two "of the best" from the rolls.







  • @hummingbird_coins, I will double check for those dates again, before putting this project to bed, thank you!

  • vplite99vplite99 Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think that most of your pictures are excellent. Would you mind sharing what "camera" you are using.

    I hate to admit it, but your photos are much better than mine, and I have been selling on eBay for 18 years.

    Vplite99
  • @vplite99, Funny! Thank you for the kind words, you have given me a laugh! I am using two things. 1) An iPhone Xs (an older iPhone actually), and 2) An old Sony HDR-SR11, Super SteadyShot camera. I have a brand new camera, but am not well versed in it yet. I am using two desk lamps with 800 Lumen, LED 10DADL9 blues, and a grey and black mouse pad as the background! I am frequently having to take a lot of images though, due to my newbieness, to get the ones I am posting! Sincerely, Greg.

  • oh, and my tiny hand shaking is the worst thing, and I have tried a bunch of different ways to eliminate that, and will find the right one eventually.

  • 1884-O (appears to be “O” on the back, but it is stapled down), Morgan Dollar, PCGS# 7154 (MS), in Envelope and Flyer, “A Silver Dollar 1884, Uncirculated, From the Home of the Silver Dollar, Wallace, Idaho.” Non-cameo.




  • 11 x Kennedy Half's, 8 1964's (with separate images of the "best one"), 1 x 1965 with slight toning (with separate images to show the slight toning, 1 x 1966, 1 x 1967. Happy to take more of any if there is a possible reason, just ask and let me know which one!








  • Moran Dollars, 1 x 1881, 2 x 1882, 1 x 1898. Here are the individual images of each.








  • Here are the individual images of the 4 x 1921 Morgans.








  • Mr_SpudMr_Spud Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Use the timer to prevent shaking the camera. I set my phone on a jar and use the timer set at 10 seconds. Then you won’t have to take as many shots

    Mr_Spud

  • @Mr_Spud, thank you! I had not thought about using the timer! Makes sense!

  • 1 x 1944 Walking Liberty Half. This one confuses me, as it looks worn, but pristine at the same time...??? So, I am posting it. There are a bunch of these, but this was the only one that stood out.


  • jonathanbjonathanb Posts: 3,416 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @browntrout said:
    1 x 1944 Walking Liberty Half. This one confuses me, as it looks worn, but pristine at the same time...???

    You've used the word "pristine" several times. What do you think that word means?

    The half dollar is clearly worn. Therefore it is not pristine. The two words are mutually exclusive.

  • @jonathanb, yes, you are right about that. It might be a bit of hyperbole, but, I find the conflict in what I am perceiving confusing. I am sure this is one of the problems of a neophyte. Of course, it is not pristine, period, and especially because of the wear I see. Thank you, Greg.

  • I am posting these only because I find the toning/patination odd. There are three "toned" coins, with two in the first image, and the other in a paper sleeve. I have put the two on the bottom with a "normal" buffalo colored nickel on top for comparison. Just curious why these are so different in color from the other 40...





  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,826 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @browntrout said:
    I am posting these only because I find the toning/patination odd. There are three "toned" coins, with two in the first image, and the other in a paper sleeve. I have put the two on the bottom with a "normal" buffalo colored nickel on top for comparison. Just curious why these are so different in color from the other 40...

    Nothing unusual. Album toning. Environmental effects. You'll see all kinds of hues from light gold to rainbows to brown and black and rust-colored.

  • lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @browntrout said:
    1 x 1944 Walking Liberty Half. This one confuses me, as it looks worn, but pristine at the same time...??? So, I am posting it. There are a bunch of these, but this was the only one that stood out.


    .
    Soak this one in acetone and see if that greenish looking stuff comes off.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    For the most part, I find your pictures excellent - The Kennedy halves did have too much glare. In general, far better pictures than I can produce. Good luck with the project. Cheers, RickO

  • @browntrout said:
    2 x 1945, Mercury Head Dimes, PCGS# 5056, not FB. Not getting the muted luster on these, not sure why, I haver taken them many different ways... I thought I was doing better with the photos... I have two different lightings in these images. The first does not show any luster, but is much more clear, the second shows some luster, but is blurry! Frustrating

    >
    >
    >

    >
    >

    The easiest way to tell that they are AU or below is to look at the top and bottom bands on the Reverse. If they show even the slightest ware then they are AU. Below is a good site to learn the basics on grading Mercury Dimes...my personal favorite dime, even if they aren't of great value by the average collector.

    Below is a good site. Go to the slide for AU 55 and that's what I mean about the slightest wear. It doesn't take much for it to qualify as AU or below. BTW, Mercury dimes are a good dime to learn on as there are plenty that are AU, XF, or even VF that look respectable in your book without costing you an arm and a leg. Fill them in as you get money for them. That's how I did mine and then as I got more solvent I started replacing coins with better coins and coins that I couldn't afford before...my 16D, 21P, and 21D. Now I'm going through again replacing anything that isn't uncirculated FSB...except for the 16D and I'm happy with an AU. If you would be interested I have some complete sets from 41 to 45 with most of them BU and some FSB. PM me for prices and I'll make sure I have them.

    https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/how-to-grade-mercury-dimes-768393
    >
    >

    This one is in my book. I selected a toned one so you could see how well-defined everything is. Add a 45P with full bands to your list of coins to look for. Also, I know this is going to make others cringe...maybe you too...but a coin is worth what you are willing to pay for it. You'll find that the older you get the more money you have for such indulgences so are willing to pay more for the coins that you want. So long as you don't hurt your family don't feel ashamed about what you spend.

    >
    >

  • @jmlanzaf, thank you for the comments about the toning. I just was not sure if I needed to pay attention to this or not for these... It seems very "normal" looking, but they stood out so much, I thought I better ask.

    @lilolme, interesting, acetone huh? Very interesting! As an antiques guy, I always tell people do not clean anything, unless a conservator has suggested it, and then, ONLY do it if you think you are truly capable of doing so!

    @ricko, thank you again for your kindness and help too.

    @PeterS, Wow! Fantastic information, and I will check the links too, thank you! Lessons are very welcome, thanks! I am actually working on all of this for a customer at no cost at this time. It is a HUGE learning curve! I have not yet gotten involved in this for myself, but your words of wisdom and lessons are in my mind if I do, and I will print out your comments for reference purposes, especially if I get addicted to this, which might happen! Thank you all, Greg.

  • nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 18, 2022 10:32AM

    I’ll take a crack at this Greg.
    The modern stuff, BU 1964 dimes and Halfs are subject to that conundrum of only having significant value IF they achieve MS 67 or above grades- which is an expensive long shot. MS-66’s on the dimes are only valued around $20-25. Grading this material is a calculated risk best left to those specialists that thrive chasing these conditional rarities. The risk/reward ratio is not attractive for many of us.
    Overall, the exception being the 1909-vdb, 1884 Morgan from Idaho and one of the 1921 Morgan dollars.
    The majority of the coins shared appear XF to AU.
    Speaking very generally, on those Mercury Dimes and Buffaloes- key date, older coins with mint marks may be worthy of note but overall, the Philadelphia coins are not worth any effort. You can just toss all those P mints into a pile. And the Mercury dimes, unless they’re better date/mm’s pre 1940- they’re likely not worth much effort digging through.
    Also speaking very generally, toning does not bring a premium unless it is in MS/BU examples.
    It is preferred on circulated coins though usually doesn’t command a premium. Conversely, a very bright truly circulated coin would generate suspicions.
    I hope this helps some.

    Edited to add: That 1884 Morgan dollar in the Idaho envelope appears to be of possible gem quality. The O’s are fairly common but this coin appears the exception in the bunch quality wise.

    Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

  • lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @browntrout said:

    @lilolme, interesting, acetone huh? Very interesting! As an antiques guy, I always tell people do not clean anything, unless a >conservator has suggested it, and then, ONLY do it if you think you are truly capable of doing so!

    .
    I suggested the acetone because that coin appears to have PVC on it. Actually there are several that appear to possibly have some PVC. PVC is often greenish but not always. Older flips and coins pages (and other stuff) had PVC in them to make them soft, flexible (as I understand it). I just did some acetone soaks and still doing a second round at link below where I also took a picture of one of the many pages and with some flips / pages that have PVC in them. See the green on the edges and the brownish look to the surface of others.

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1084743/acetone-light-green#latest
    .

    .

    Here is another discussion on it.

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1077719/please-allow-me-to-introduce-myself-i-am-pvc-update-completed#latest
    .
    .
    Looking at the pictures you provided it appears that many of the coins could have some PVC on them. Here are some I noticed but I don't know the lighting or anything but suspicious. This is not all of them.

    Some have a brownish look that I am also suspicious of due to what some others look like with the green.

    You might want to go back and look at all of them. Maybe.
    .


    .
    On the above 50c it appears the lighting could have something to do with it but when I see this at 10 o/c it appears more like PVC.

    .
    Not as much on the Morgan but look at the fields at 3 and 9 o/c and small on eagle lower breast.


    .
    Therefore I suggested the acetone soak. But first I think you should review and then be comfortable with it. If so, then start with only one.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • TomBTomB Posts: 20,725 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've scanned the thread and have some suggestions/comments for you. It is up to you to read and understand it as well as to follow my advice. Here goes...

    The 1909 VDB Lincoln cent looks like a nice MS piece. I'd hazard a guess of MS64RD, which places its value at about $75 if already certified by PCGS. However, the cost of certification can run $30 or so, which means that I would not certify this coin. The gold coins appear real, but they are circulated. These are easily sold raw for decent money, but if you want to certify them for added authentication purposes then go ahead, but I don't know that they will generate the additional funds to offset the certification costs. The Mercury dimes are just circulated coins that aren't worth much more than bullion. The Roosevelt dimes are a typical BU roll and this has value, but the value is almost entirely tied to the silver content. Again, these are bullion related coins. The JFK half dollars are all bullion pieces, as well. They appear MS, but the 1964 coins will be worth their 90% bullion content while the 1965-1967 pieces are only 40% silver and typically sell at a discount to that because 40% silver is not nearly as desirable. The WLH is another bullion piece. The Buffalo nickels are generic circulated coins with a dollar or two (or a few dollars) each. Lastly, the foreign will likely be lower grade silver and often foreign coins that aren't silver are sold in large bulk lots by the pound.

    You wrote that you ordered a Red Book. If it has arrived then you should be able to use it to get a feel for grading and for values. Nearly everything here is intimately tied to its bullion value and is easily sold to any coin shop. You will net essentially nothing more by piecing them out and attempting to sell on your own or through ebay or through some auction house. In general, these pieces are the definition of generic. I would also advise against using acetone to treat any of these coins as they simply aren't worth the time, effort, pollution or cost. Blow them out.

    This is the type of collection that I (and many others) have seen myriad times and it simply isn't worth your time.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @browntrout
    I have not read the thread. Glanced at it and looked at the pictures. If many of these coins do have PVC on them and you have not noticed it, then I will suggest again that you go back and review and learn to identify the PVC. As to what to do next depends on what you are doing with them and if suggested by TomB you are just going to sell, then doing nothing might be best. Or you could still try one and maybe learn something from it.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • @nwcoast, Wow! Thank you again! Great info to learn from, thank you! I have taken a screen shot and am printing your comments out to refer to as I do my "final" work on these today! Thank you for your kind efforts, Greg.

    @lilolme, Thank you. Interesting stuff. I CAN see the green on the page of coins you are talking about. Makes sense about the PVC "staining." I know what the green is now, after looking at these images. I have two table lamps I am using now, "Banker's Lamps," one has a green exterior! I will look again at the coins to make sure. I think you point about the light is correct, it is casting a bit of a green color, despite the interior being white glass... Damn it, another newbie error! Hahaha.

    @TomB, Hey! Thank you! Great comments, great advice. I have take a screen shot again, and printed this out for future reference and re-grounding! Fantastic! Greg.

    @lilolme, It may be worth trying out, to learn, for future reference. I think there are some loose coins that have this kind of coloration on them, and I can look, and give it a shot to an "unimportant" coin. But, yes, the main goal is to protect my customer, and if they want to sell them after what I have learned, that is fine (my benefit has been in the learning). But, if they let me sell them, then great, I get a little bump form it this time. Next time I try, I will want to be paid for my efforts though, I know that for sure now! LOTS of work, effort and learning, and I am still VERY clear how much of a newbie I am in this world! Thanks, Greg.

  • Okay, here is the 1884 Morgan, in the Wallace, ID flyer and envelope, WITHOUT the green bankers lamp on, taken from two different angles: This had gotten rid of the green tinge - sorry about that, learning, learning! I know not to do that, as nmcoast was kind enough to have told me only use WHITE, and I forgot!




  • By the way, I am happy to retake images of any of the others if you think it may change your opinions, WITHOUT the green desk lamp on! Just let me know. But, for now, I am not going to take the time otherwise, as the advice all seems to apply, regardless, except the PVC comment! Thanks.

  • nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sorry to report that the recent photos of that 1885-O had knocked my opinion of it down a couple of notches to 64 or so….

    Any other opinions are welcome of course.

    Overall, unless they’re key, or semi-key dates, they’re isn’t a huge incentive to split hairs on the grades.

    Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

  • Okay, in going through the lists of "most important" Morgans, I pulled only this ONE coin. I had noted this coin had an odd planchet, but was also on the "important Morgans" list too, an 1886-O, PCGS# 7168. I suspect everyone here is familiar with this odd discoloration, with this odd "folded in" discoloration in the planchet. Does this make it more special, normal as it "happens all the time in these," or make it worse?

    You will see my zoom in on the odd discoloration above the head, and there is a bit of it down to the right corner too...






  • @nwcoast, got it! I took a fast look at the PCGS page as well for this, and see the value is just not there at a 64 or 65 to grade it! Thank you, Greg.

  • TomBTomB Posts: 20,725 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's just a stain on the coin that hurts its eye appeal. Nothing is "folded in" on the planchet.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @browntrout
    First these seem to be fairly good photos.
    I am not saying you need to do anything to these especially if selling raw as is. But I still see signs of potential PVC on the 1884 Morgan. Check in front of and below arrow heads, down by L (E to D) and I see more not in this cropped enlargement. On the obverse it is in the fields in front of the forehead and nose and I believe some around liberty (y) most of which is cropped out of this enlargement. So I am suspicious of the hazy areas also but could be something else.



    .

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • @TomB, Thank you again for your input. Under 30X it sure looks like it is part of the coin. I found another with that same kind of thing on, I think a Peace Dollar, and I will post it, and it looks like there is a die crack running through it too. However, I could easily understand this being staining. Thank you.

    @lilolme, this one has been inside of its paper holder with the plastic since it was purchased by the owners, so that would not surprise me at all. Interesting to see what you see, thank you!

  • So, there were two more Morgans with this odd coloration/staining. Here they are. The third is the Peace Dollar with the crack and discoloration/stain.












  • jonathanbjonathanb Posts: 3,416 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @browntrout said:
    Under 30X it sure looks like it is part of the coin.

    If you want to learn about coins, stop looking at them under 30x magnification.

    Just LOOK at the coins you have. They are (pick one) dirty, stained, oxidized, environmentally damaged, etc. They have a standard value based on their silver content, that's all.

    I continue to say that you are doing a DISservice to your clients by going off into the weeds with posts such as this one. If a client comes to you with particleboard furniture asking how much they could make from it, how long would it take you to give them an answer? These coins are particleboard furniture. Move on, please, for your sake and theirs.

  • @jonathanb, I have stopped looking at the under 30X, thanks. Yes, I have found that essentially all only have silver value, an limited to no numismatic value. Other than working on the bills, which is the last step, I am finished with these. I have had an intense series of lessons in this process, which was my personal main goal, as well as protecting them as best as I can. Thanks for your continued input and directness. Happy holidays, Greg.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file