1902 matte halfcrown poll: (1) or (2)?

wybrit · December 25, 2004 8:46PM

And why?

Both are proofs.

(1)

(2)

(Voted "Equal" so I can see the numbers)

PuddlePirate · December 25, 2004 9:13PM

I like the second coin because of the way the color tone highlights the devices.

ajaan · December 25, 2004 9:34PM

#1. Are those adjustment marks or hairlines on #2?

wybrit · December 25, 2004 9:45PM

Wipe marks on #2, probably from the mint.

spinaker2000 · December 25, 2004 10:22PM

I like #1 better, the streaks on the second are a little distracting. Give ya $5 for #2!!

wybrit · December 25, 2004 10:24PM

Give ya $5 for #2!!

$5 plus your proof 1958 GB halfpenny and we have a deal.

spinaker2000 · December 25, 2004 10:26PM

Sylvestius · December 25, 2004 10:42PM

1st definately, i couldn't live with the marks on the second, i'd have to sell it. The first coin is an absolute beauty though.

JoesMaName · December 25, 2004 10:57PM

I vote for #1

It may just be the photo but the fine details on #1 look much sharper especially in the hair and beard.
The steaks on #2 are distracting, though this may just be the lighting used for the photo. I'd guess indirect lighting was used, it tends to exaggerate toning/coloration variation.

Edit - Was thinking about it and realized you could probably come up with two photos such as yours while using the same coin - just by adjusting lighting!

wybrit · December 25, 2004 11:02PM

Edit - Was thinking about it and realized you could probably come up with two photos such as yours while using the same coin - just by adjusting lighting!

In a thread on an 1887 crown, I do just that.

These are definitely two different pieces, however.

coinkat · December 25, 2004 11:31PM

One looks quite attractive... mostlikely it is not original. Two looks more original, however, if it was wiped at the mint and is hairlined in any way as a result, then One wins hands down

AuldFartte · December 26, 2004 12:03AM

#1 for me,too. Incredible detail

The marks on #2 are a bit distracting

... so, how much ya' want for #2 ???

farthing · December 26, 2004 12:11AM

I voted for #2 - #1 looks too good. As Cosmic has pointed out wipe marks are all too common on these matte proofs.

wybrit · December 26, 2004 12:12AM

I guess we shall see. I am shipping both off to NGC soon.

coinrookie · December 26, 2004 12:52AM

Wipe marks are too distracting. #1 gets my vote.

Steve

MacCrimmon · December 26, 2004 1:59AM

I voted #1, but it appears both were shot with different lighting. The lighting on #1 is the type that you said, "can hide a multitude of sins".

MSD61 · December 26, 2004 2:15AM

Same I voted for number one. I couldn't get past the wipe marks on number 2.

agraded · December 26, 2004 3:02AM

Sorry to be the dissenter here but original Matte Proof silver often tones in a very dark and streaky manner. I'm not sure if this is due to wiping at the mint (mostly done on gold coins I thought) or just the manufacturing process but I suspect the latter. Attractive or not #2 looks like it is has nice original surfaces, while #1 may not. As Mac pointed out the image in #1 is slightly overexposed and this can hide a number of sins. I'll take coin #2 every time. If I couldn't live with the toning it could be dipped as a last resort but I have a several similarly toned Matte Proofs (most are somewhat more evenly toned but the same charcoal color) and it would fit right in. Just my 2 cents.

Bob

cosmicdebris · December 26, 2004 5:29AM

If number 1 truely looks like the image I would take number 1 any day over number 2. These are hard to come by without the marks.

And if number 1 truely looks like the image I maybe interested in buying it before you send it to NGC. Let me know.

rhound1977 · December 27, 2004 1:20AM

#1 flat out looks better than #2, IMHO.....

Aethelred · December 27, 2004 2:01AM

I voted or #1 because I don't like the streaky toning on #2.

wybrit · December 27, 2004 10:04AM

I don't care for the streaky toning either, but I like the hairlines on #1 even less - that's why #1 went up for sale today.

AuldFartte · December 27, 2004 10:07AM

I don't see it on your site. Is it on Ebay?

edit to add: Never mind. I found it.

coinkat · December 27, 2004 10:08AM

the hairlines on one don't show in the picture... I am changing my vote for number two.

I am not a fan of hairlines either

wybrit · December 27, 2004 10:15AM

Coinkat, it was not my best picture. I do like the strike and details on the coin. If there were no hairlines, though, I suspect it would be more like #2.

I'm sure a lot of members would recast their votes knowing the "secret."

coinkat · December 27, 2004 10:19AM

just kidding around... the pictures are quite nice.

agraded · December 27, 2004 10:52AM

I don't care for the streaky toning either, but I like the hairlines on #1 even less - that's why #1 went up for sale today.

I thought #1 looked a little under the weather...

When does #2 go on the auction block and does it look completely original?

Bob

PS Here is a reverse detail shot of a 1902 MP Florin I've had forever with similar toning. Maybe I should sell it....Britannia looks like she's been on a bender (but completely original).

MP1902FLdetail

wybrit · December 27, 2004 10:59AM

Bob, #2 isn't up for sale until I find a better example. I picked up #1 at a show this year. The guy was pretty desperate to sell (now I see why...).

agraded · December 27, 2004 11:20AM

Tom, I've got one like your #1...kinda washed out (lightly cleaned). If #2 looks to be a fully original coin you could dip it and then everybody will fall in love with it. Yeah I know....I don't dip coins either. Oh well, someone will appreciate it for what it is...an original and unmessed with example (how dull).

Bob

1902 matte halfcrown poll: (1) or (2)?

Comments