<< <i>I believe that the rim hit was clearly hidden by the PCGS gasket before.....I think that is 1000 time more plausible then PCGS added a rim hit or any other hits to the coin....I am surprised so many of the kool-aide drinkers are chiming in on this one.
The before pictures leave a lot to be desired as far as lighting, white balance and clarity so to be 100% convinced that the rim hit was not there is folly to me. >>
You don't see the denticles undisturbed and then damaged? It appears quite clear and gaskets don't create deticular deformation which can be seen - by several here. Blow them up - look closely. We shall wait for appearance in hand, of course. I can't say I am hopeful from the images.
The gasket is covering part of the denticles...surely you guys can see that? funny how there is a dark spot you can see through the gasket at the very spot the rim hit is... coincidence....I think not.
It's astounding to me that so many would think PCGS damaged the coin...it's silly really and based on zero facts. Crappy before images while in the slab vs a raw true view and you think you know the coin was damaged....that's really sad.
<< <i>The gasket is covering part of the denticles...surely you guys can see that? funny how there is a dark spot you can see through the gasket at the very spot the rim hit is... coincidence....I think not.
>>
OK - then why aren't the denticles separated in the earlier photograph?
So I'll concede it likely gasket - what about all the other comments re the Obv? I am hearing the coin looks awful now and others are seeing the darker areas as described earlier, rim hit or not. We shall see when it comes next week.
They are still separated...what are you talking about? You keep saying that but I see no difference on the first half of the denticles that would be visible outside of the gasket.
Plus the image posted by Leo makes no sense as the location of the hit is almost missing from his image...the hit is Mid C in America but he is comparing that rim area on the new photo to a much lower section of an old blurry photo?
<< <i>They are still separated...what are you talking about? You keep saying that but I see no difference on the first half of the denticles that would be visible outside of the gasket.
Plus the image posted by Leo makes no sense as the location of the hit is almost missing from his image...the hit is Mid C in America but he is comparing that rim area on the new photo to a much lower section of an old blurry photo? >>
I was showing the gasket.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
You can see about 95% of the denticles at the top of the reverse in the old photo as the coin is resting towards the bottom of the gasket...so the gasket is covering more of the rim and denticles at the bottom of the coin vs the top.....the gaskets still allow the coins to shift a bit so it's never going to be seated perfectly centered in the holder, which means you will see more rim at some point and less rim at others.
I've conceded the point. That leaves the overall appearance, the darker areas all mentioned earlier... The thumbed look, loss of that PL blueish "skin". The coin as now imaged appears darker on the right hand 1/3 of the Rev? Side by side looks a bit odd. In hand will settle all. I will learn either way
<< <i>They are still separated...what are you talking about? You keep saying that but I see no difference on the first half of the denticles that would be visible outside of the gasket.
Plus the image posted by Leo makes no sense as the location of the hit is almost missing from his image...the hit is Mid C in America but he is comparing that rim area on the new photo to a much lower section of an old blurry photo? >>
I was showing the gasket. >>
Why? If your comparing why wouldn't you show the rim hit from the raw image vs the matching location on the old photo, which is turn would show a dark spot through the gasket in exactly the correct location?
<< <i>I've conceded the point. That leaves the overall appearance, the darker areas all mentioned earlier... The thumbed look, loss of that PL blueish "skin". The coin as now imaged appears darker on the right hand 1/3 of the Rev? Side by side looks a bit odd. In hand will settle all. I will learn either way
Eric >>
It looks like there was some sort of stain on the coin on the right side of the reverse...if that was removed then the right side would likely be a bit shinier and in images anything shiny or PL will look dark so it actually makes sense and your probably right about that. Think proof coins where they are totally silver in hand but when shot straight on the camera makes the fields look black.
<< <i>It looks like there was some sort of stain on the coin on the right side of the reverse...if that was removed then the right side would likely be a bit shinier and in images anything shiny or PL will look dark so it actually makes sense and your probably right about that. Think proof coins where they are totally silver in hand but when shot straight on the camera makes the fields look black. >>
I believe I can see still the Rev. blemish as described - it is the areas around it that appear darker. Look from a distance and maybe it will look as it does to me. I will say these LCD screens are not my favorite for this stuff. But I'll stick to my observations about the overall appearance.
<< <i>They are still separated...what are you talking about? You keep saying that but I see no difference on the first half of the denticles that would be visible outside of the gasket.
Plus the image posted by Leo makes no sense as the location of the hit is almost missing from his image...the hit is Mid C in America but he is comparing that rim area on the new photo to a much lower section of an old blurry photo? >>
I was showing the gasket. >>
Why? If your comparing why wouldn't you show the rim hit from the raw image vs the matching location on the old photo, which is turn would show a dark spot through the gasket in exactly the correct location? >>
Maybe there's something good to watch on TV.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
I never meant to slam your coin. I apologize for the wild goose chase. I am very stressed - caring for an ill parent (the awful Dem., for 18 years by my myself) and have the flu to boot now. I thought I saw something - I was very wrong. I do wonder about my other listed observations, but would never lightly start something like this. Apologies all around. I'm sorry. I was wrong.
Best wishes, Eric
Edit to add: Apologies of course to our generous hosts.
I never meant to slam your coin. I apologize for the wild goose chase. I am very stressed - caring for an ill parent (the awful Dem., for 18 years by my myself) and have the flu to boot now. I thought I saw something - I was very wrong. I do wonder about my other listed observations, but would never lightly start something like this. Apologies all around. I'm sorry. I was wrong.
Best wishes, Eric >>
I don't think you slammed the coin....I just thought your observations were incorrect which is why I challenged them. Neither of us has seen the coin before or after in hand so it's just a bit of speculation from both of us really
I think Leo was the real trouble maker with his gasket attacks.....I was horrified he would pick on a defenseless gasket like that and post nude photos
It took a remarkably long time for them to ship the coin, just got it today.
I have to say the coin looks GREAT in hand, especially compared to what it was. The trueview pics seem to really emphasize the dirt and dark areas - they are much less noticeable in hand with the naked eye. I think in this case the coin restoration service was worth it.
And the mystery surrounding the rim ding? -----> Definitely a gasket issue. I'm sure the ding was there the whole time, although I admit I don't really see it in the initial pictures. The gasket hides it really well.
Comments
<< <i>I believe that the rim hit was clearly hidden by the PCGS gasket before.....I think that is 1000 time more plausible then PCGS added a rim hit or any other hits to the coin....I am surprised so many of the kool-aide drinkers are chiming in on this one.
The before pictures leave a lot to be desired as far as lighting, white balance and clarity so to be 100% convinced that the rim hit was not there is folly to me. >>
You don't see the denticles undisturbed and then damaged? It appears quite clear and gaskets don't create deticular deformation which can be seen - by several here. Blow them up - look closely. We shall wait for appearance in hand, of course. I can't say I am hopeful from the images.
Eric
Thanks Leo - I wasn't going to do that w/o permission as I said in an earlier post. You've shown it. Good work too!
Best wishes and thanks,
Eric
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>The gasket is covering part of the denticles...surely you guys can see that? funny how there is a dark spot you can see through the gasket at the very spot the rim hit is... coincidence....I think not.
OK - then why aren't the denticles separated in the earlier photograph?
So I'll concede it likely gasket - what about all the other comments re the Obv? I am hearing the coin looks awful now and others are seeing the darker areas as described earlier, rim hit or not. We shall see when it comes next week.
Eric
Plus the image posted by Leo makes no sense as the location of the hit is almost missing from his image...the hit is Mid C in America but he is comparing that rim area on the new photo to a much lower section of an old blurry photo?
<< <i>They are still separated...what are you talking about? You keep saying that but I see no difference on the first half of the denticles that would be visible outside of the gasket.
Plus the image posted by Leo makes no sense as the location of the hit is almost missing from his image...the hit is Mid C in America but he is comparing that rim area on the new photo to a much lower section of an old blurry photo? >>
I was showing the gasket.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
That leaves the overall appearance, the darker areas all mentioned earlier... The thumbed look, loss of that PL blueish "skin". The coin as now imaged appears darker on the right hand 1/3 of the Rev? Side by side looks a bit odd. In hand will settle all. I will learn either way
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>They are still separated...what are you talking about? You keep saying that but I see no difference on the first half of the denticles that would be visible outside of the gasket.
Plus the image posted by Leo makes no sense as the location of the hit is almost missing from his image...the hit is Mid C in America but he is comparing that rim area on the new photo to a much lower section of an old blurry photo? >>
I was showing the gasket. >>
Why? If your comparing why wouldn't you show the rim hit from the raw image vs the matching location on the old photo, which is turn would show a dark spot through the gasket in exactly the correct location?
<< <i>I've conceded the point.
That leaves the overall appearance, the darker areas all mentioned earlier... The thumbed look, loss of that PL blueish "skin". The coin as now imaged appears darker on the right hand 1/3 of the Rev? Side by side looks a bit odd. In hand will settle all. I will learn either way
Eric >>
It looks like there was some sort of stain on the coin on the right side of the reverse...if that was removed then the right side would likely be a bit shinier and in images anything shiny or PL will look dark so it actually makes sense and your probably right about that. Think proof coins where they are totally silver in hand but when shot straight on the camera makes the fields look black.
<< <i>It looks like there was some sort of stain on the coin on the right side of the reverse...if that was removed then the right side would likely be a bit shinier and in images anything shiny or PL will look dark so it actually makes sense and your probably right about that. Think proof coins where they are totally silver in hand but when shot straight on the camera makes the fields look black. >>
I believe I can see still the Rev. blemish as described - it is the areas around it that appear darker. Look from a distance and maybe it will look as it does to me. I will say these LCD screens are not my favorite for this stuff. But I'll stick to my observations about the overall appearance.
Thanks for your posts!
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>They are still separated...what are you talking about? You keep saying that but I see no difference on the first half of the denticles that would be visible outside of the gasket.
Plus the image posted by Leo makes no sense as the location of the hit is almost missing from his image...the hit is Mid C in America but he is comparing that rim area on the new photo to a much lower section of an old blurry photo? >>
I was showing the gasket. >>
Why? If your comparing why wouldn't you show the rim hit from the raw image vs the matching location on the old photo, which is turn would show a dark spot through the gasket in exactly the correct location? >>
Maybe there's something good to watch on TV.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I never meant to slam your coin. I apologize for the wild goose chase. I am very stressed - caring for an ill parent (the awful Dem., for 18 years by my myself) and have the flu to boot now. I thought I saw something - I was very wrong. I do wonder about my other listed observations, but would never lightly start something like this. Apologies all around. I'm sorry. I was wrong.
Best wishes,
Eric
Edit to add: Apologies of course to our generous hosts.
1) YES
2) NO
3) +1
4) -1
I'll race you to 50,000.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Dear ProofCollection and The Room,
I never meant to slam your coin. I apologize for the wild goose chase. I am very stressed - caring for an ill parent (the awful Dem., for 18 years by my myself) and have the flu to boot now. I thought I saw something - I was very wrong. I do wonder about my other listed observations, but would never lightly start something like this. Apologies all around. I'm sorry. I was wrong.
Best wishes,
Eric >>
I don't think you slammed the coin....I just thought your observations were incorrect which is why I challenged them. Neither of us has seen the coin before or after in hand so it's just a bit of speculation from both of us really
I think Leo was the real trouble maker with his gasket attacks.....I was horrified he would pick on a defenseless gasket like that and post nude photos
I have to say the coin looks GREAT in hand, especially compared to what it was. The trueview pics seem to really emphasize the dirt and dark areas - they are much less noticeable in hand with the naked eye. I think in this case the coin restoration service was worth it.
And the mystery surrounding the rim ding? -----> Definitely a gasket issue. I'm sure the ding was there the whole time, although I admit I don't really see it in the initial pictures. The gasket hides it really well.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Best wishes,
Eric
http://ProofCollection.Net
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
peacockcoins