You can tell if a coin is NOT nice from a scan!
roadrunner
Posts: 28,303 ✭✭✭✭✭
Coinguy1's recent post highlighted some differences in the eye appeal between a pair of 1853 Arrows and Rays half dollars.
What seems to have been left out from the ensuing discussion is that it is indeed very possible to get the jist of a coin's grade from a scan. Just the blending of the colors (or lack of them) and the certain "fabric" of the photo gives hints to the state of mint luster and overall friction. While this is not as good as "in the hand" grading, it's a lot more accurate than 50%. On the flip side, it is indeed very easy to discern a coin that is not all there, and it is usually very apparent in the scan. I cannot recall seeing a doggy coin that looked bad in a scan and GOOD in person. But I can recall seeing many nice coins that looked a-ok in a scan and measured up once "in the hand." Scans are worth plenty. Just another tool to utilize in one's grading education. That's my 2 cents.
roadrunner
What seems to have been left out from the ensuing discussion is that it is indeed very possible to get the jist of a coin's grade from a scan. Just the blending of the colors (or lack of them) and the certain "fabric" of the photo gives hints to the state of mint luster and overall friction. While this is not as good as "in the hand" grading, it's a lot more accurate than 50%. On the flip side, it is indeed very easy to discern a coin that is not all there, and it is usually very apparent in the scan. I cannot recall seeing a doggy coin that looked bad in a scan and GOOD in person. But I can recall seeing many nice coins that looked a-ok in a scan and measured up once "in the hand." Scans are worth plenty. Just another tool to utilize in one's grading education. That's my 2 cents.
roadrunner
0
Comments
There are cheap ones and very expensive ones.
Naturally, the better the scanner ( or camera ) the
better the image.
I've gotten very acceptable results from my $250 scanner.
I've gotten better results from my $350 digital camera, though
it's required a lot more work with settings, lighting, etc.
I can see why a lot of folks prefer the simplicity of a scanner.
.
All the coins that had scans on internet auctions I won turned out to look lots better than the scan and I was pleased while most coins that had camera pictures didn't look anything near as good as the picture did. Most of the souped up unrealistic pictures came from board member dealers, and strangly enough they were the hallowed toned coin dealers, and I just laugh & laugh when their pictures are questioned and all the asskissers fill the thread with how they bought coins from that dealer and they look just like the pictures. They are either lying or blind.
It's really hard to tweak a scan and make a coin look better without being obvious that it was tweaked. With cameras it's very easy to get a deceitful picture that looks lots better than the coins.
I probably can't always tell a camera shot vs. a scan but I can tell I coin with a problem in many cases. Saves on asking to see the thing. Glad you see my point. It's hard to enhance the look of good luster whether the coin is toned or not. It either "looks" right or it doesn't.
roadrunner
roadrunner and Dog, just Shut Up.....
Ken