<< <i>The coin has absolutely not been dipped or processed.
It was in the same family for 150 years, then to Doug, then to NGC. The same photographer took both photos. The first image was raw; the second with prongs.
Why on earth would anyone think that Doug would mess with a coin like that? It's absurd and unthinkable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The "lines" in the upper obverse are planchet streaks that are known to exist on high grade 43-O LL $5's. They are like adjustment marks.
If you have a fresher coin in your collection, I want to see it. >>
Why would a member of the PCGS Board of Experts send their raw coins to NGC to be certified and carry more NGC coins in their inventory? Just curious.
The first thing I thought of when I saw the two pictures was the dodge/burn tool in photoshop which can be used for any size of "spot" correction and is a pretty neat tool for playing around artsy images.
I'm not implying that DW did this, but it definately could be done this way.
For what it's worth, I like the darker image with the spot on the neck.
Want to buy an auction catalog for the William Hesslein Sale (December 2, 1926). Thanks to all those who have helped us obtain the others!!!
BS, on the other hand, should know better. (He also should probably know better than to sell on the BST AT'ed NGC Peace dollars that have been discussed here a half dozen times. ). >>
RYK, Low Blow... But if your taking upon yourself to form your opinion of it being AT based on an image, then why can't I >>
Actually, BS, my point is very relevant to this thread.
1. It is extremely poor form for dealers to bash coins offered for sale by other dealers. It's not fun to have your inventory picked apart, is it?
2. Offering an AT Peace dollar from a known NGC-graded hoard of Peace dollars speaks to your ability to know what is right and what is wrong. Unless of course you know it is AT and are knowingly trying to sell such a coin for an absurd premium. But I choose to believe that you are honest and are just uninformed. I can probably dig up the first four or five digits of the serial number of your coin.
<< <i>The coin has absolutely not been dipped or processed.
It was in the same family for 150 years, then to Doug, then to NGC. The same photographer took both photos. The first image was raw; the second with prongs.
Why on earth would anyone think that Doug would mess with a coin like that? It's absurd and unthinkable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The "lines" in the upper obverse are planchet streaks that are known to exist on high grade 43-O LL $5's. They are like adjustment marks.
If you have a fresher coin in your collection, I want to see it. >>
Why would a member of the PCGS Board of Experts send their raw coins to NGC to be certified and carry more NGC coins in their inventory? Just curious. >>
You do not really expect to get a correct answer? I think he had a coupon for 1 free grade.
Sweet coin BTW
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
The pictures don't look like "before and after" pictures to me. Rather, they simply look like different lighting or some other photography technique.
But this thread shows what can happen when you post a coin that is currently for sale on a dealer's website. No matter how well respected the dealer may be, forum members express their opinions about what they see. And those opinions can be negative.
p.s. BTW, I have taken quite a few shots of prooflike gold with spots, and I can state unequivocally that you can make spots appear darker and lighter with a simple change in lighting -- and I suspect that's precisely what's gone on here. The clue is the relative contrast between details and fields in the two shots that indicate a change in lighting technique (and contrast, to include the spot in question). Said a bit differently, when you use the light to "flash" the mirrors (as in the first photograph), it makes the spots look darker. When you use the light in a more indirect fashion (as in the 2nd set of photos), the spots appear less prominent. I'm out of town on business right now, so I don't have access to my library of photos, but when I get home, if this topic is still being actively debated, I will post a few shots that show precisely this effect. The coin in question is my avatar, and Mr. Feld has seen it in hand as well.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
So does the coin look more like pic #1 or pic #2 in hand. "Robert" selected pic #1, the "redneck Liberty" pic, as being the image of pure freshness, but fellow Stumptowner Doug(ie Fresh) used the different angle of pic #2, presumably since it was representative of the coin's appearance. I can accept that a tilt or different light could yield the change of appearance, but still, if liberty is a redneck like pic #1, I'd be a little surprised if I opened my $24.5K package thinking I'd be gettin' a coin that looks like pic #2. On the other hand, if the coin really looks more like pic #2, is this a midwesterner's joke about how redneck ladies are hot, or is it radiologist humor; i.e., "this is what happened when we forgot about the patient, Liberty, L., in the x-ray room - lol? Or is it something else? "Are you looking at my goiter?"
<< <i>p.s. Alan, I have no idea what you are trying to say. >>
I took Realone's reply based on what RYK posted...
It was in the same family for 150 years, then to Doug, then to NGC. The same photographer took both photos. The first image was raw; the second with prongs. Why on earth would anyone think that Doug would mess with a coin like that? It's absurd and unthinkable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
<< <i>I don't think anyone on here is suggesting they are, but frankly, you should know better than to say what you did.
FWIW I was rather surprised, because to the best of my recollection you're a pretty level-headed dude. >>
I am a pretty level-headed dude and that's why I think it's silly to think that under no circumstances would it have ever been sent in to have the spot removed to be able to sell the coin to a broader market.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
Level headed people don't say things such as this...
<< <i>this coin has been totally skinned >>
<< <i>The PL surfaces are now impaired. >>
...based on a photo.
That said, I think RYK's response was a bit over the top (even if he does believe it, and I think he does, and furthermore I think he has good reason to). Keep in mind you're suggesting that DW dipped and stripped the coin in hopes of selling it for more money. Basically accusing probably the biggest proponent of original gold of dipping/doctoring a coin is blasthemous to someone like RYK (and others, I'll wager), and frankly I would consider it libel if I were DW.
How would you feel if I suggested your broadstrikes were made in your basement, and made this announcement after looking at pictures of your coin? I'd wager you wouldn't be to happy either.
That doesn't change the veracity of either of your statements, but in fairness, RYK was only defending his friend, mentor, and his most frequeted coin dealer. You, to the contrary, took a (unfounded, IMO) swipe at someone widely recognized in the industry as virtuous, based entirely on your (poor, IMO) interpretation of photographs.
That's not level-headed, at least how I define the term.
Have a good evening....Mike
p.s. Al's just pissed he got the cold shoulder the other day, and I've come to expect such things from him (god love him!).
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
So it appears I did upload a few pics of the coin I was referring to a few post above.
Exhibit 1... Now you see it:
Exhibit 2... Now you don't
I can say with absolute certainty that nothing at all was done to this coin between photographs.
Bottom line: Be very careful when judging copper spots on prooflike gold, as a small change in lighting can make a large difference in the appearance of copper spots in the resulting photographs.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>Level headed people don't say things such as this...
<< <i>this coin has been totally skinned >>
<< <i>The PL surfaces are now impaired. >>
...based on a photo.
That said, I think RYK's response was a bit over the top (even if he does believe it, and I think he does, and furthermore I think he has good reason to). Keep in mind you're suggesting that DW dipped and stripped the coin in hopes of selling it for more money. Basically accusing probably the biggest proponent of original gold of dipping/doctoring a coin is blasthemous to someone like RYK (and others, I'll wager), and frankly I would consider it libel if I were DW.
How would you feel if I suggested your broadstrikes were made in your basement, and made this announcement after looking at pictures of your coin? I'd wager you wouldn't be to happy either.
That doesn't change the veracity of either of your statements, but in fairness, RYK was only defending his friend, mentor, and his most frequeted coin dealer. You, to the contrary, took a (unfounded, IMO) swipe at someone widely recognized in the industry as virtuous, based entirely on your (poor, IMO) interpretation of photographs.
That's not level-headed, at least how I define the term.
Have a good evening....Mike
p.s. Al's just pissed he got the cold shoulder the other day, and I've come to expect such things from him (god love him!). >>
MikeInFL, I never stated that it was doctered by the dealer... But am entitled to my opinion that it was most likely conserved for reasons of enhancement by NCS.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
For the record, I think everyone is entitled to their opinions (positive or negative), even based just upon images. But, I also think, that regardless who the seller is, if someone has a coin for sale, opinions about it should be expressed as opinions, not stated as facts. To me, at least, there is an important difference between saying "That coin looks like it was dipped, or otherwise worked on", vs. saying "That coin has been dipped or otherwise worked on".
I am generally against dipping. But even if the subject coin had been dipped by its owner in order to try to obtain a higher grade and price, that would have been his right. He has the same right to dip coins that others, who are less concerned with and who speak less about originality, do.
I think and hope that this thread will be beneficial to a good number of posters.
That is either some really creative lighting/photography or the coin has had some assistance in lightening a beautiful metal variation on a gold coin. I would hope that it is creative photography which IMO works against the coin in the more recent pics.
And I love... you knew I couldn't stop there....
How some are condemning others for judging a pic yet they are looking AT THE SAME PICS and making blanket statements how they are certain the coin has not been touched based on THEIR interpretation of the same pics. Either you can or you can't.......not both.
<< <i>Level headed people don't say things such as this...
<< <i>this coin has been totally skinned >>
<< <i>The PL surfaces are now impaired. >>
...based on a photo.
That said, I think RYK's response was a bit over the top (even if he does believe it, and I think he does, and furthermore I think he has good reason to). Keep in mind you're suggesting that DW dipped and stripped the coin in hopes of selling it for more money. Basically accusing probably the biggest proponent of original gold of dipping/doctoring a coin is blasthemous to someone like RYK (and others, I'll wager), and frankly I would consider it libel if I were DW.
How would you feel if I suggested your broadstrikes were made in your basement, and made this announcement after looking at pictures of your coin? I'd wager you wouldn't be to happy either.
That doesn't change the veracity of either of your statements, but in fairness, RYK was only defending his friend, mentor, and his most frequeted coin dealer. You, to the contrary, took a (unfounded, IMO) swipe at someone widely recognized in the industry as virtuous, based entirely on your (poor, IMO) interpretation of photographs.
That's not level-headed, at least how I define the term.
Have a good evening....Mike
p.s. Al's just pissed he got the cold shoulder the other day, and I've come to expect such things from him (god love him!). >>
MikeInFL, I never stated that it was doctered by the dealer... But am entitled to my opinion that it was most likely conserved for reasons of enhancement by NCS. >>
Broadstruck, Good morning! Fair enough. Next time, please consider stating your opinion as an opinion rather than a statement of fact. To me and others there's quite a difference....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>Mike, for the record I was making a general statement, that no one in this hobby is above reproach especially when money is involved......I believe you alerted me to that fact. As far as getting the cold shoulder, it isn't the first time, it won't be the last time, I am getting used to it by now
As far as comparing different sets of photos in the last set of your icon coin, I still see the copper spots, they just look lighter in one as compared to the other and can easily see how lighting/angles can come into play. When reviewing the RYK photos I can see how lighting/angles can change the look of the coin too and wouldn't dare make some of the statement that other members have made regarding explaining the differences in the photos.....I believe you taught me that as well. However that being said it is also impossible not to think that the coin couldn't have been messed with since dipping and the likes afterall is so prevalent in this hobby and considered conservation by the major tpg's and to think a dealer wouldn't do the same is absurd. But the only way one could or should make a factual statement on the coin's appearance is if they have seen it in hand and not off a photo(s) therefore i have learned again from you not to comment in a negative manner (or positive manner ) and keep any plausible or possible suspicions to myself. Bottomline I can't see squat from RYK's photos.......I have experimented with mark goodman with lighting / angles on proof like coins and have found incredible variances that can confuse many on lookers both expert and layman. >>
There's nothing wrong with a little skepticism, and in this hobby at least I feel it is well-warranted. However, there's quite a difference between a skeptical opinion and a statement of fact, and as you stated we should all know better than to pass judgement on photographs. Enjoy your day....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Obviously, BS and RO do not understand DW's market and clientele. He knows that he can get more money without dipping the coin than he can by dipping the coin and that certainly supports his decision (and goes along with his natural inclination) to not dip the coin. Why would he possibly ruin the coin and reduce its value? The notion is totally absurd on a number of levels.
BTW, for clarification, my confidence that the coin has not been dipped is based on my discussion with DW, not speculation and studying the images. I have found him to be 100% truthful when describing coins to me in the past.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>That is either some really creative lighting/photography or the coin has had some assistance in lightening a beautiful metal variation on a gold coin. I would hope that it is creative photography which IMO works against the coin in the more recent pics. >>
I actually hope the opposite. I don't see why a prominent, reputable dealer in rare gold would set up a customer for a disappointing surprise by showing the second picture on the website and delivering a coin with a dark hickey. In doing so, he would set himself up to be accused of all sort of nasty deceptive practices. That just doesn't make sense to me. The last thing you want to deliver to a customer is an unpleasant surprise.
I have no dog in this fight, I have only met DW once (briefly), and did not know that this coin was on his website when I first looked at the pictures, and have no reason to doubt him.
But, when I saw the two sets of pictures it looked to me that there was no way it was the same coin, (unmodified) in both pics. After reading the thread, I still cant believe it. Of course it could be and I might be totally wrong, this is just my opinion from the pics.
I agree with CG1 that opinion based on an inspection of a photo is often stated as absolute fact on the forum, when it should not be.
Edited to add: BTW in the spirit of full disclosure, i have to admit I have also (briefly) met RYK!
I'm with AT (as in Angry Turtle). No stake here and just voicing an opinion, like everyone else.
I have a bit of experience with coin photography and am reasonably aware of what can be done to enhance or correct pictures, how different lighting affects the outcome, etc. I am struggling with this one.
On more than one occasion our host has conserved coins of mine without my asking, though always when the coins were returned for regrades and the guarantee. (For the record, I was not unhappy about it.) Nothing was said about it or what was done. The coins simply arrived in new holders, same cert#s.
When someone makes an educated guess about something without asserting it is an opinion it should be understood that it is not a statement of fact. Obviously none of us knows if the coin is original or conserved. We choose to believe for our own reasons. Lance.
<< <i>That is either some really creative lighting/photography or the coin has had some assistance in lightening a beautiful metal variation on a gold coin. I would hope that it is creative photography which IMO works against the coin in the more recent pics. >>
I actually hope the opposite. I don't see why a prominent, reputable dealer in rare gold would set up a customer for a disappointing surprise by showing the second picture on the website and delivering a coin with a dark hickey. In doing so, he would set himself up to be accused of all sort of nasty deceptive practices. That just doesn't make sense to me. The last thing you want to deliver to a customer is an unpleasant surprise. >>
I have no idea which set of images is more accurate. But I am confident, that before shipping it to a potential buyer, the seller will be discussing/describing the coin, anyway.
My college profs cautioned me to avoid phrases like, "I think...', as they were often redundant. Context would make clear whether a statement was written as fact or opinion.
In this case, it was clear to me that BS's statements were opinion, even if not explicitly stated as such.
<< <i>My college profs cautioned me to avoid phrases like, "I think...', as they were often redundant. Context would make clear whether a statement was written as fact or opinion.
In this case, it was clear to me that BS's statements were opinion, even if not explicitly stated as such. >>
On the other hand, when opinion is stated as fact, it's not necessarily as clear to some people as it is to others. And it has the potential to mislead some posters, as well as harm sellers, unfairly. I think that a little bit of redundancy is a small price to pay, in order to avoid such results.
<< <i>My college profs cautioned me to avoid phrases like, "I think...', as they were often redundant. Context would make clear whether a statement was written as fact or opinion.
In this case, it was clear to me that BS's statements were opinion, even if not explicitly stated as such. >>
On the other hand, when opinion is stated as fact, it's not necessarily as clear to some people as it is to others. And it has the potential to mislead some posters, as well as harm sellers, unfairly. I think that a little bit of redundancy is a small price to pay, in order to avoid such results. >>
BS gave an uninformed opinion (as it were) with extreme confidence, repeated multiple times, in multiple posts, in a way that was misleading and unfair. In fact (notice use of the word "fact"), he is wrong.
I think that I am going to start a thread or two and give some very strong "opinions" on some of BS's coins on the BST, and we will see how he likes it.
<< <i>My college profs cautioned me to avoid phrases like, "I think...', as they were often redundant. Context would make clear whether a statement was written as fact or opinion.
In this case, it was clear to me that BS's statements were opinion, even if not explicitly stated as such. >>
On the other hand, when opinion is stated as fact, it's not necessarily as clear to some people as it is to others. And it has the potential to mislead some posters, as well as harm sellers, unfairly. I think that a little bit of redundancy is a small price to pay, in order to avoid such results. >>
BS gave an uninformed opinion (as it were) with extreme confidence, repeated multiple times, in multiple posts, in a way that was misleading and unfair. In fact (notice use of the word "fact"), he is wrong.
I think that I am going to start a thread or two and give some very strong "opinions" on some of BS's coins on the BST, and we will see how he likes it. >>
Robert: I think you're starting down the path of taking this a bit too personally. Just my honest opinion.
<< <i>My college profs cautioned me to avoid phrases like, "I think...', as they were often redundant. Context would make clear whether a statement was written as fact or opinion.
In this case, it was clear to me that BS's statements were opinion, even if not explicitly stated as such. >>
On the other hand, when opinion is stated as fact, it's not necessarily as clear to some people as it is to others. And it has the potential to mislead some posters, as well as harm sellers, unfairly. I think that a little bit of redundancy is a small price to pay, in order to avoid such results. >>
BS gave an uninformed opinion (as it were) with extreme confidence, repeated multiple times, in multiple posts, in a way that was misleading and unfair. In fact (notice use of the word "fact"), he is wrong.
I think that I am going to start a thread or two and give some very strong "opinions" on some of BS's coins on the BST, and we will see how he likes it. >>
Robert: I think you're starting down the path of taking this a bit too personally. Just my honest opinion. >>
TDN: Is that a fact or an opinion?
Okay, my opinion is that you are correct. I do not like seeing a lovely coin disparaged, any more than I like seeing it defiled. Alas, it is only a coin, and that's a fact!
I realize RYK has already stated that nothing was done to the coin so this is written after the fact. However, I see no reason to doubt his statement given the two images since it is not unusual to shift lighting position or the angle of a coin when it is in a holder vs. when it is raw. Any slight shift can change how spots might be viewed.
<< <i>This coin has, apparently, been put away since the 1850's:
I am not sure you can get a whole lot fresher than that, especially when the current market defines fresh as a coin that has not been sold (publicly) for a few years (or auctions). >>
It's certainly a gorgeous coin. While I agree that pictures can be quite different for the same coin, it's also interesting that in the picture where the spot on the neck is much much lighter, the other spots appear darker than in the other picture. I'm not doubting anyones word, just expressing my observation based on just the pictures.
IMO: surfaces unchanged (undoctored) between the two sets of photos.
coin tilted in one set of pictures to minimize field marks, spots on neck and elsewhere looks worse, but color looks good
other set, tilted and lit such that it makes the spot look better, but scuffs and and tics look worse, and color a little lighter and washed out. (see Liberty's hair, eagles wings, etc)
actually, having both sets of images gives one a much better idea of how this coin looks in hand than having either one set or the other.
Comments
was looking at the wroung picture.
<< <i>The coin has absolutely not been dipped or processed.
It was in the same family for 150 years, then to Doug, then to NGC. The same photographer took both photos. The first image was raw; the second with prongs.
Why on earth would anyone think that Doug would mess with a coin like that? It's absurd and unthinkable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The "lines" in the upper obverse are planchet streaks that are known to exist on high grade 43-O LL $5's. They are like adjustment marks.
If you have a fresher coin in your collection, I want to see it.
Why would a member of the PCGS Board of Experts send their raw coins to NGC to be certified and carry more NGC coins in their inventory? Just curious.
I'm not implying that DW did this, but it definately could be done this way.
For what it's worth, I like the darker image with the spot on the neck.
<< <i>
<< <i>IJ, no need to apologize.
BS, on the other hand, should know better. (He also should probably know better than to sell on the BST AT'ed NGC Peace dollars that have been discussed here a half dozen times.
RYK, Low Blow... But if your taking upon yourself to form your opinion of it being AT based on an image, then why can't I
Actually, BS, my point is very relevant to this thread.
1. It is extremely poor form for dealers to bash coins offered for sale by other dealers. It's not fun to have your inventory picked apart, is it?
2. Offering an AT Peace dollar from a known NGC-graded hoard of Peace dollars speaks to your ability to know what is right and what is wrong. Unless of course you know it is AT and are knowingly trying to sell such a coin for an absurd premium. But I choose to believe that you are honest and are just uninformed. I can probably dig up the first four or five digits of the serial number of your coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>The coin has absolutely not been dipped or processed.
It was in the same family for 150 years, then to Doug, then to NGC. The same photographer took both photos. The first image was raw; the second with prongs.
Why on earth would anyone think that Doug would mess with a coin like that? It's absurd and unthinkable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The "lines" in the upper obverse are planchet streaks that are known to exist on high grade 43-O LL $5's. They are like adjustment marks.
If you have a fresher coin in your collection, I want to see it.
Why would a member of the PCGS Board of Experts send their raw coins to NGC to be certified and carry more NGC coins in their inventory? Just curious. >>
You do not really expect to get a correct answer? I think he had a coupon for 1 free grade.
Sweet coin BTW
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>cool! does the "story" convey with the purchase? >>
If I were buying the coin, I would try to get a handwritten letter from the owner.
But this thread shows what can happen when you post a coin that is currently for sale on a dealer's website. No matter how well respected the dealer may be, forum members express their opinions about what they see. And those opinions can be negative.
<< <i>And anyone who speaks authoritavtively about a seller of a coin's handling of a coin is misguided too. >>
I've been collecting for 35 years and have never seen even the most respected dealers walk on water!
<< <i>
<< <i>And anyone who speaks authoritavtively about a seller of a coin's handling of a coin is misguided too. >>
I've been collecting for 35 years and have never seen even the most respected dealers walk on water!
I don't think anyone on here is suggesting they are, but frankly, you should know better than to say what you did.
FWIW I was rather surprised, because to the best of my recollection you're a pretty level-headed dude.
<< <i>p.s. Alan, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I took Realone's reply based on what RYK posted...
It was in the same family for 150 years, then to Doug, then to NGC. The same photographer took both photos. The first image was raw; the second with prongs. Why on earth would anyone think that Doug would mess with a coin like that? It's absurd and unthinkable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
<< <i>I don't think anyone on here is suggesting they are, but frankly, you should know better than to say what you did.
FWIW I was rather surprised, because to the best of my recollection you're a pretty level-headed dude. >>
I am a pretty level-headed dude and that's why I think it's silly to think that under no circumstances would it have ever been sent in to have the spot removed to be able to sell the coin to a broader market.
<< <i>this coin has been totally skinned >>
<< <i>The PL surfaces are now impaired. >>
...based on a photo.
That said, I think RYK's response was a bit over the top (even if he does believe it, and I think he does, and furthermore I think he has good reason to). Keep in mind you're suggesting that DW dipped and stripped the coin in hopes of selling it for more money. Basically accusing probably the biggest proponent of original gold of dipping/doctoring a coin is blasthemous to someone like RYK (and others, I'll wager), and frankly I would consider it libel if I were DW.
How would you feel if I suggested your broadstrikes were made in your basement, and made this announcement after looking at pictures of your coin? I'd wager you wouldn't be to happy either.
That doesn't change the veracity of either of your statements, but in fairness, RYK was only defending his friend, mentor, and his most frequeted coin dealer. You, to the contrary, took a (unfounded, IMO) swipe at someone widely recognized in the industry as virtuous, based entirely on your (poor, IMO) interpretation of photographs.
That's not level-headed, at least how I define the term.
Have a good evening....Mike
p.s. Al's just pissed he got the cold shoulder the other day, and I've come to expect such things from him (god love him!).
Exhibit 1... Now you see it:
Exhibit 2... Now you don't
I can say with absolute certainty that nothing at all was done to this coin between photographs.
Bottom line: Be very careful when judging copper spots on prooflike gold, as a small change in lighting can make a large difference in the appearance of copper spots in the resulting photographs.
<< <i>Level headed people don't say things such as this...
<< <i>this coin has been totally skinned >>
<< <i>The PL surfaces are now impaired. >>
...based on a photo.
That said, I think RYK's response was a bit over the top (even if he does believe it, and I think he does, and furthermore I think he has good reason to). Keep in mind you're suggesting that DW dipped and stripped the coin in hopes of selling it for more money. Basically accusing probably the biggest proponent of original gold of dipping/doctoring a coin is blasthemous to someone like RYK (and others, I'll wager), and frankly I would consider it libel if I were DW.
How would you feel if I suggested your broadstrikes were made in your basement, and made this announcement after looking at pictures of your coin? I'd wager you wouldn't be to happy either.
That doesn't change the veracity of either of your statements, but in fairness, RYK was only defending his friend, mentor, and his most frequeted coin dealer. You, to the contrary, took a (unfounded, IMO) swipe at someone widely recognized in the industry as virtuous, based entirely on your (poor, IMO) interpretation of photographs.
That's not level-headed, at least how I define the term.
Have a good evening....Mike
p.s. Al's just pissed he got the cold shoulder the other day, and I've come to expect such things from him (god love him!).
MikeInFL, I never stated that it was doctered by the dealer... But am entitled to my opinion that it was most likely conserved for reasons of enhancement by NCS.
I agree with the first respondent
In more ways than one, now.
I am generally against dipping. But even if the subject coin had been dipped by its owner in order to try to obtain a higher grade and price, that would have been his right. He has the same right to dip coins that others, who are less concerned with and who speak less about originality, do.
I think and hope that this thread will be beneficial to a good number of posters.
or
the coin has had some assistance in lightening a beautiful metal variation on a gold coin.
I would hope that it is creative photography which IMO works against the coin in the more recent pics.
And I love...
you knew I couldn't stop there....
How some are condemning others for judging a pic yet they are looking AT THE SAME PICS and making
blanket statements how they are certain the coin has not been touched based on THEIR interpretation of
the same pics.
Either you can or you can't.......not both.
I hate posting after Mark....
<< <i>
<< <i>Level headed people don't say things such as this...
<< <i>this coin has been totally skinned >>
<< <i>The PL surfaces are now impaired. >>
...based on a photo.
That said, I think RYK's response was a bit over the top (even if he does believe it, and I think he does, and furthermore I think he has good reason to). Keep in mind you're suggesting that DW dipped and stripped the coin in hopes of selling it for more money. Basically accusing probably the biggest proponent of original gold of dipping/doctoring a coin is blasthemous to someone like RYK (and others, I'll wager), and frankly I would consider it libel if I were DW.
How would you feel if I suggested your broadstrikes were made in your basement, and made this announcement after looking at pictures of your coin? I'd wager you wouldn't be to happy either.
That doesn't change the veracity of either of your statements, but in fairness, RYK was only defending his friend, mentor, and his most frequeted coin dealer. You, to the contrary, took a (unfounded, IMO) swipe at someone widely recognized in the industry as virtuous, based entirely on your (poor, IMO) interpretation of photographs.
That's not level-headed, at least how I define the term.
Have a good evening....Mike
p.s. Al's just pissed he got the cold shoulder the other day, and I've come to expect such things from him (god love him!).
MikeInFL, I never stated that it was doctered by the dealer... But am entitled to my opinion that it was most likely conserved for reasons of enhancement by NCS. >>
Broadstruck, Good morning! Fair enough. Next time, please consider stating your opinion as an opinion rather than a statement of fact. To me and others there's quite a difference....Mike
<< <i>Mike,
for the record I was making a general statement, that no one in this hobby is above reproach especially when money is involved......I believe you alerted me to that fact.
As far as getting the cold shoulder, it isn't the first time, it won't be the last time, I am getting used to it by now
As far as comparing different sets of photos in the last set of your icon coin, I still see the copper spots, they just look lighter in one as compared to the other and can easily see how lighting/angles can come into play. When reviewing the RYK photos I can see how lighting/angles can change the look of the coin too and wouldn't dare make some of the statement that other members have made regarding explaining the differences in the photos.....I believe you taught me that as well. However that being said it is also impossible not to think that the coin couldn't have been messed with since dipping and the likes afterall is so prevalent in this hobby and considered conservation by the major tpg's and to think a dealer wouldn't do the same is absurd. But the only way one could or should make a factual statement on the coin's appearance is if they have seen it in hand and not off a photo(s) therefore i have learned again from you not to comment in a negative manner (or positive manner ) and keep any plausible or possible suspicions to myself. Bottomline I can't see squat from RYK's photos.......I have experimented with mark goodman with lighting / angles on proof like coins and have found incredible variances that can confuse many on lookers both expert and layman. >>
BTW, for clarification, my confidence that the coin has not been dipped is based on my discussion with DW, not speculation and studying the images. I have found him to be 100% truthful when describing coins to me in the past.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>That is either some really creative lighting/photography
or
the coin has had some assistance in lightening a beautiful metal variation on a gold coin.
I would hope that it is creative photography which IMO works against the coin in the more recent pics. >>
I actually hope the opposite. I don't see why a prominent, reputable dealer in rare gold would set up a customer for a disappointing surprise by showing the second picture on the website and delivering a coin with a dark hickey. In doing so, he would set himself up to be accused of all sort of nasty deceptive practices. That just doesn't make sense to me. The last thing you want to deliver to a customer is an unpleasant surprise.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
But, when I saw the two sets of pictures it looked to me that there was no way it was the same coin, (unmodified) in both pics. After reading the thread, I still cant believe it. Of course it could be and I might be totally wrong, this is just my opinion from the pics.
I agree with CG1 that opinion based on an inspection of a photo is often stated as absolute fact on the forum, when it should not be.
Edited to add:
BTW in the spirit of full disclosure, i have to admit I have also (briefly) met RYK!
I have a bit of experience with coin photography and am reasonably aware of what can be done to enhance or correct pictures, how different lighting affects the outcome, etc. I am struggling with this one.
On more than one occasion our host has conserved coins of mine without my asking, though always when the coins were returned for regrades and the guarantee. (For the record, I was not unhappy about it.) Nothing was said about it or what was done. The coins simply arrived in new holders, same cert#s.
When someone makes an educated guess about something without asserting it is an opinion it should be understood that it is not a statement of fact. Obviously none of us knows if the coin is original or conserved. We choose to believe for our own reasons.
Lance.
<< <i>
<< <i>That is either some really creative lighting/photography
or
the coin has had some assistance in lightening a beautiful metal variation on a gold coin.
I would hope that it is creative photography which IMO works against the coin in the more recent pics. >>
I actually hope the opposite. I don't see why a prominent, reputable dealer in rare gold would set up a customer for a disappointing surprise by showing the second picture on the website and delivering a coin with a dark hickey. In doing so, he would set himself up to be accused of all sort of nasty deceptive practices. That just doesn't make sense to me. The last thing you want to deliver to a customer is an unpleasant surprise. >>
I have no idea which set of images is more accurate. But I am confident, that before shipping it to a potential buyer, the seller will be discussing/describing the coin, anyway.
In this case, it was clear to me that BS's statements were opinion, even if not explicitly stated as such.
<< <i>My college profs cautioned me to avoid phrases like, "I think...', as they were often redundant. Context would make clear whether a statement was written as fact or opinion.
In this case, it was clear to me that BS's statements were opinion, even if not explicitly stated as such. >>
On the other hand, when opinion is stated as fact, it's not necessarily as clear to some people as it is to others. And it has the potential to mislead some posters, as well as harm sellers, unfairly. I think that a little bit of redundancy is a small price to pay, in order to avoid such results.
<< <i>
<< <i>My college profs cautioned me to avoid phrases like, "I think...', as they were often redundant. Context would make clear whether a statement was written as fact or opinion.
In this case, it was clear to me that BS's statements were opinion, even if not explicitly stated as such. >>
On the other hand, when opinion is stated as fact, it's not necessarily as clear to some people as it is to others. And it has the potential to mislead some posters, as well as harm sellers, unfairly. I think that a little bit of redundancy is a small price to pay, in order to avoid such results. >>
BS gave an uninformed opinion (as it were) with extreme confidence, repeated multiple times, in multiple posts, in a way that was misleading and unfair. In fact (notice use of the word "fact"), he is wrong.
I think that I am going to start a thread or two and give some very strong "opinions" on some of BS's coins on the BST, and we will see how he likes it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>My college profs cautioned me to avoid phrases like, "I think...', as they were often redundant. Context would make clear whether a statement was written as fact or opinion.
In this case, it was clear to me that BS's statements were opinion, even if not explicitly stated as such. >>
On the other hand, when opinion is stated as fact, it's not necessarily as clear to some people as it is to others. And it has the potential to mislead some posters, as well as harm sellers, unfairly. I think that a little bit of redundancy is a small price to pay, in order to avoid such results. >>
BS gave an uninformed opinion (as it were) with extreme confidence, repeated multiple times, in multiple posts, in a way that was misleading and unfair. In fact (notice use of the word "fact"), he is wrong.
I think that I am going to start a thread or two and give some very strong "opinions" on some of BS's coins on the BST, and we will see how he likes it. >>
Robert: I think you're starting down the path of taking this a bit too personally. Just my honest opinion.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>My college profs cautioned me to avoid phrases like, "I think...', as they were often redundant. Context would make clear whether a statement was written as fact or opinion.
In this case, it was clear to me that BS's statements were opinion, even if not explicitly stated as such. >>
On the other hand, when opinion is stated as fact, it's not necessarily as clear to some people as it is to others. And it has the potential to mislead some posters, as well as harm sellers, unfairly. I think that a little bit of redundancy is a small price to pay, in order to avoid such results. >>
BS gave an uninformed opinion (as it were) with extreme confidence, repeated multiple times, in multiple posts, in a way that was misleading and unfair. In fact (notice use of the word "fact"), he is wrong.
I think that I am going to start a thread or two and give some very strong "opinions" on some of BS's coins on the BST, and we will see how he likes it. >>
Robert: I think you're starting down the path of taking this a bit too personally. Just my honest opinion. >>
TDN: Is that a fact or an opinion?
Okay, my opinion is that you are correct. I do not like seeing a lovely coin disparaged, any more than I like seeing it defiled. Alas, it is only a coin, and that's a fact!
I will no longer opine on this thread.
<< <i>The only real mystery left is, why isn't this permanently impounded in the 3 rivers collection? >>
wrong plastic. no cac. ;-)
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>This coin has, apparently, been put away since the 1850's:
I am not sure you can get a whole lot fresher than that, especially when the current market defines fresh as a coin that has not been sold (publicly) for a few years (or auctions). >>
AWESOME!
coin tilted in one set of pictures to minimize field marks, spots on neck and elsewhere looks worse, but color looks good
other set, tilted and lit such that it makes the spot look better, but scuffs and and tics look worse, and color a little lighter and washed out. (see Liberty's hair, eagles wings, etc)
actually, having both sets of images gives one a much better idea of how this coin looks in hand than having either one set or the other.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry