Let's review: mailman GOOD. photography BAD.

coinpictures · January 27, 2006 11:59AM

Have I mentioned how much I hate shooting slabs... especially proofs in slabs...

Anyway, that wacky mailman was fairly nice to me again today. 3 coins from Ron Guth and 2 from NEN.

1. Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach 3 Marks, 1910A. PCGS PR64CAM. I don't particularly care for this one. The surfaces are pretty nice, but (1) I honestly don't think it deserves the CAM designation. No matter how I turn the coin in hand, I can't really get the good frost-field contrast that I would expect from a cameo, and (2) there's a lot of haze in the fields I don't care for. I think this one is going back. Sorry for the sh*tty photography. BLEAGH.

2. Germany 1 Mark, 1912D. NGC MS66. Old NGC holder. Fairly colorful toning, albeit a bit uneven.

3. Germany 1/2 Mark, 1919A. NGC PF65. Old NGC holder. Nice toning, but a bit spotty.

All three coins were under Krause (but close to it). Not quite as thrilled as I had hoped I would be. I've got full return privilege. Thoughts?

And now the NEN coins. Am digging both of these. As is usually the case, both are considerably nicer in hand than NEN's photos indicated. Both are nicley lustrous.

1. Great Britain 1d, 1876 H. PCGS MS64BN. This one actually looked pretty dull and lifeless on NEN's site, but actually has lustrous bronze toning. PCGS may have goofed though; it looks like there may be just a hint of wear along Britannia's legs?

2. Great Britain 1d, 1858 LD No WW. NGC MS64BN. Even the pics below don't capture the coin properly. It's so wild it needs an on/off switch.

I was concerned about paying too much for this one, but seeing it close up, it's worthwhile. What appears to be wear on the high points of the hair, base of bust, and shield, is actually change in hue.

lordmarcovan · January 27, 2006 12:02PM

<< <i>Have I mentioned how much I hate shooting slabs... especially proofs in slabs... >>

If you haven't, I'll mention it for you.

But you do it a darn sight better than I do!

wybrit · January 27, 2006 12:51PM

Those are pretty nice photos through slabs.

I like the copper 1d - very nice!!

You have the coin and the 3-D view, but I don't think that's wear on the bronze 1d.

rhound1977 · January 27, 2006 9:45PM

I really like the coppers, and slabs are a pain in the but to photograph. I try to shoot my coins before I submit
them however ones bought that way....

AuldFartte · January 27, 2006 11:28PM

I love the Vickies

Gotta agree with Wybrit - I don't think there's any rub on the penny either.

3Mark · January 28, 2006 3:24AM

Coinpictures:

The 1910 3 mark SWE was mine at one time and it took me at least 3 years to replace it with a better one. I guess I could have dipped it for you, but the top to my jewel lustre was stuck

3Mark

SYRACUSIAN · January 28, 2006 3:44AM

I guess I could have dipped it for you, but the top to my jewel lustre was stuck

I hope it still is.

Not quite as thrilled as I had hoped I would be. I've got full return privilege. Thoughts?

I like both marks, they're my favourites of this great haul. They're simply silver, not copper, once you get used to this metal, it ain't that bad.

coinpictures · January 28, 2006 9:52AM

<< <i>Coinpictures:

The 1910 3 mark SWE was mine at one time and it took me at least 3 years to replace it with a better one. I guess I could have dipped it for you, but the top to my jewel lustre was stuck

3Mark >>

Is that because they don't come up often (low mintage) or that most are lower grade than this one?

3Mark · January 28, 2006 11:57PM

Is that because they don't come up often (low mintage) or that most are lower grade than this one? >>

A little of both, unknown amount struck in proof (per Jaeger) and I had several that only were proof 63. Just a hard coin in gem proof. Since I collect all of the German 3 marks in proof, I have found that some are easier than others

Just paid "moon" money for a 1914 Prussia 3 marks (PCGS PR65).3Mark

coinpictures · January 29, 2006 2:03AM

Hmm.... if it's a particularly tough proof, perhaps I should hang onto it, despite what I perceive to be its shortcomings. I'm into it for $180. Thoughts?

I haven't seen anyone comment on the spots on the 1/2 Mark proof. Do they bother anyone else, or am I just being too picky? It really does have nice gentle toning, but every time I look at it up close I want to give the coin a good scrubbing (figuratively) and wash those spots away.

coinpictures · January 30, 2006 3:28AM

Bumping for more opinions, especially #1 and #3...

Preussen · January 30, 2006 4:11AM

Based on your (good, as always) pics, the coins all look nice, at least to me. What's important is whether You like them...but of course, you already know that

On the 3 Mark, if it's a good price, I believe I'd hang onto it until a better one came along, but that's just me & my 2¢

- Preussen

3Mark · January 30, 2006 5:24AM

The proof 1/2 mark looks okay to me. The only alternative is to dip it and then you have no toning

I prefer toning and that's my 2¢ worth

3Mark

Udo · January 30, 2006 5:24AM

Dan:

I think $180 for the Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach is OK.

But basically, that's true for the 3 Mark coin as well as for the 1/2 Mark or any other coin, if you don't like a coin 100% then don't buy it. If you know that there are spots on the coin, they'll be the first thing you see everytime you look at the coin.
Such coins are nothing more than replacement characters, maybe you'll keep them for a while but sooner or later you'll sell them, because a better one showed up or you just don't like it. Why wasting time with coins you don't like 100%?

Just my 2 Pfennig.

Let's review: mailman GOOD. photography BAD.

Comments