The TrueView lighting is as perfectly balanced as I've seen. This can not be achieved in plastique due to the hazing caused by the bulbs and orientation of filaments required.
Even though it's a medal, I would dearly love for Phil to capture my Victorian Coronation medal....same type colours, but proof surfaces.
I guess for an image of a coin #2 is cool, but if I were "in the market" for this particular coin, I'd prefer the real deal, #1. ps. flip-side: If I were eBaying the coin, putting the image in my registry, using it as an icon, or otherwise showing it off, I guess I'd use image #2.
shylocks is much more representative of the coin the second photo has a great neagtive in that it showsa washed out coin which i am sure the coin is not this kills the second image for me as it is not a true image
shylocks image is more true and the coin much better in person in my opinion
the second image is more fake looking and does not show the coin in a true light in fact the photo makes it look enhanced photoshoped
and this is not a good or bad thing but the first image of shylocks is a more true HONEST IMAGE and then when someone sees the coin sight seen in person then they love the coin forits true sight seen viewing and makes them like it more
whereas the second image will leave them disappointed when they view this coin in hand sight seen
the lustre is absolutely satiny and amazing much more so with the shylock image the first one and this says it all about what the coin truly looks like if you have never seen it in person and you know anything about mintstate trades
<< <i>I just looked at the images again, but on a different monitor. This time, I prefer Shylock's images - I guess I just neutralized my first vote. >>
Here is the whole problem with viewing pictures. Monitors are different. Shylocks looks best on my monitor. The True View is way to light and sort of washed out.
TDN which one is closest to the real look the coin has ?
So, the darker image, the one that does clearly show the fingerprint and raw detail, and to me, looks "real", is a fake... And, the brightly lighted one that looks like a "new and improved model", is also a fake... Uh boy...
I've looked at thousands of choice to gem mintstate silver coins of the 19th century over the past 30 years and it is obvious to me that the luster on photo #2 GLOWS! There is nothing washed out about its appearance. There is something unmistakeable about the glow of untouched luster under toning that I cannot discribe. But here it is. You see this type of luster very rarely on todays conserved crap. 19th century MS68's or lower, that have been dipped do not have this glow. I'd be on someone's doorstep in a heartbeat if such a coin was being sold raw....and there were doubts about what to "grade" it. Just amazing. I can tell far more about the coin from photo 2. The fingerprint still shows and is totally a non-factor. Considering that nearly every gem seated coin was handled (and sometimes often) there are probably traces of prints on many more coins than you think.
The first coin is way too dark and gives the appearance of a deeply toned coin. The surfaces appear far more scuffy and marked in this lighting. If I were bidding just by the photo, #2 would appear 1-2 grades higher. I would grade the first coin MS65+ as it appears somewhat chattered. The 2nd photo shows the superb surfaces of a MS67 coin.
No brainer imo. #2. And when or if the coin ever sells, #2 would get you FAR more money, everytime by lining up the bidders.
#2 hands down, especially the obverse. #2 is much more evenly lit -- maybe just a tad overlit, but if I were selling the coin this is the image I would want in the catalog. This is one of those coins that every image falls short of, it's so lustrous and dynamic looking in person, but #1 falls way short.
The only half decent pic I took was the full slab reverse. You get a better indication of the luster at a more realistic size & distance, and you also have the label color to gauge the color balance against.
TDN - you had your fun and I deserved it due to a previous post
How about a rematch? You know I thought my 1876 obverse image was a dog. I cringed when I first saw it out of my camera and winced when you posted it here. I have to admit "Trueview" does a wonderful job. But there's something about that name that bugs me, it's so PCGS. Now they take the "truest" photos too? I'll get over that...
The only advantage I had over PCGS was you paid me better and let me enjoy the privilage of your wonderful company, which is priceless. The disadvantages I had were imaging through slabs, in a bank room under certain time constraints, using lights and a camera stand that had to be portable enough to carry 3000 miles. How about a rematch comparing 600 x 600 images of your 1877-S Trade Dollar?
Hey, if your gonna have a rematch, you gotta have me hanging around, distracting you and asking questions, trying to learn....
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
Comments
Even though it's a medal, I would dearly love for Phil to capture my Victorian Coronation medal....same type colours, but proof surfaces.
The Trueview pics are simply awesome.
https://www.ebay.com/mys/active
ps. flip-side: If I were eBaying the coin, putting the image in my registry, using it as an icon, or otherwise showing it off, I guess I'd use image #2.
Russ, NCNE
Bruce showed me the coin last Feuruary in Long Beach. I would say image #2 is more accurate.
bruce scher
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
shylocks image is more true and the coin much better in person in my opinion
the second image is more fake looking and does not show the coin in a true light in fact the photo makes it look enhanced photoshoped
and this is not a good or bad thing but the first image of shylocks is a more true HONEST IMAGE and then when someone sees the coin sight seen in person then they love the coin forits true sight seen viewing and makes them like it more
whereas the second image will leave them disappointed when they view this coin in hand sight seen
<< <i>I just looked at the images again, but on a different monitor. This time, I prefer Shylock's images - I guess I just neutralized my first vote. >>
Here is the whole problem with viewing pictures. Monitors are different. Shylocks looks best on my monitor. The True View is way to light and sort of washed out.
TDN which one is closest to the real look the coin has ?
Ken
Dunno - never seen it raw.
Seriously - I think I've only ever seen 2-3 of my coins raw. How would we know how they photograph in the nude?
And, the brightly lighted one that looks like a "new and improved model", is also a fake...
Uh boy...
19th century MS68's or lower, that have been dipped do not have this glow. I'd be on someone's doorstep in a heartbeat if such a coin was being sold raw....and there were doubts about what to "grade" it. Just amazing. I can tell far more about the coin from photo 2. The fingerprint still shows and is totally a non-factor. Considering that nearly every gem seated coin was handled (and sometimes often) there are probably traces of prints on many more coins than you think.
The first coin is way too dark and gives the appearance of a deeply toned coin. The surfaces appear far more scuffy and marked in this lighting. If I were bidding just by the photo, #2 would appear 1-2 grades higher. I would grade the first coin MS65+ as it appears somewhat chattered. The 2nd photo shows the superb surfaces of a MS67 coin.
No brainer imo. #2. And when or if the coin ever sells, #2 would get you FAR more money, everytime by lining up the bidders.
roadrunner
The only half decent pic I took was the full slab reverse. You get a better indication of the luster at a more realistic size & distance, and you also have the label color to gauge the color balance against.
Any way you look at it this is a good looking coin.
How about a rematch? You know I thought my 1876 obverse image was a dog. I cringed when I first saw it out of my camera and winced when you posted it here. I have to admit "Trueview" does a wonderful job. But there's something about that name that bugs me, it's so PCGS. Now they take the "truest" photos too? I'll get over that...
The only advantage I had over PCGS was you paid me better and let me enjoy the privilage of your wonderful company, which is priceless. The disadvantages I had were imaging through slabs, in a bank room under certain time constraints, using lights and a camera stand that had to be portable enough to carry 3000 miles. How about a rematch comparing 600 x 600 images of your 1877-S Trade Dollar?
Lakes - That was one of the advantages I forgot to mention
But it also resulted in me being a little hungover for the last day in the bank room
The lighting and contrast are supurb, along with the detail in #2.