Speaking of doctored gold, have a look at this.

originalisbest

Not looking to denigrate this seller (or praise them) - don't know a thing about them. But this piece sure reminds me of what was going on with Legend's $20. Could it be this was a "practice" piece for the doctor?

Doctored?


Anyway, as to gold buying, I just did take the plunge! Got the following Indian $10 and a 1 oz. eagle recently (yah, a REALLY big spender I'm not. But to me, they're cool.)

originalisbest

TTT

So no one has an opinion?

BigE

Original, I can't tell if that coin is doctored-I am still trying to find out if the one I have is----BigE

coinguy1

The coin looks fine to me. We're dealing with images, which are often hard to gauge and I think we should be responsible in such assessments.

airplanenut

Look at a silver/clad coin that has been hit by a rim... you will notice it becomes dark... those weird colors look like hits that scanned poorly.

Jeremy

nwcs

Another thing to remember is that this image is in a highly compressed jpeg format. jpeg is a lossy compression which means the higher the compression ratio the worse the image looks. It creates the artifacts on the coin that make it look worse. This one has a particularly high compression ratio which caused a diffusion pattern to be used instead of color to simulate the color taken out which created the look you're seeing on the surface. Looks like a nice coin.

KlectorKid

What grade is your indian? But about the other coin, it looks like a bad scan, but there may still be a possability it has been doctored.

darktone

I think the 1899 just has a bad picture. This is a common date and a common condition so there would really not be much to gain. I really like your indian! mike

Mike31415

Looks okay to me, but sometimes its hard to tell from a pic.

Mike

dorkkarl

it is rather odd, i think. may be just a poor digi-pic though.

K S

coppercoins

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can tell one way or the other with scans. They very typically don't show how the coin actually looks, they are a mere representation of the coin in a poorly lit, digital interpretation. I find it amusing when people try to determine toning as being real or baked-on, coins being cleaned or original, or the exact grade of a coin looking at a scan. It's impossible folks! Even in digital photographs certain things don't show up and other things show too well - these are pictures, people. There's nothing that can adequately represent the coin enough to make such judgements reliable. Seeing it in person is really the only way to be able to tell everything that you are trying to read from pictures.

originalisbest

Mark's right, I don't mean to be raising any flags if not justified in doing so.

Rather, the comment that you can only tell so much from a scan or a given pic is quite on the money. To me at a glance, it just seemed that the surfaces of the $10 in question really looked a lot like Laurie's piece that (happily) she got worked out.

Probably more fair to say, hey - the coin's probably fine - I just don't happen to care for this particular one's surfaces (as far as I can tell from the photo, that is.) Nevermind tho, this seller's got a lot of other perfectly nice pieces.

Thanks for the compliment on my new Indian $10! I like it a lot too. It's a '10-S in PCGS AU-55, and, true enough, the photo (taken by the dealer I got it from) displays it to its best advantage. That is, in person its ticks, etc. are (to me) a bit more noticeable - but that's AU-55 gold for you, it's to be expected. Besides, I took a look in person before I bought it, and I like it just fine (it's the first Indian $10 I've ever owned, so I gotta like it!)

I suppose the lesson is - a pic can give you a very good idea of what to expect - but ultimately nothing beats an in-person examination. Sometimes the coin looks a bit nicer than it really is, and sometimes, just the opposite.