The Tale of Two Photos - 1963 Jefferson
TommyType
Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭✭✭
I'm in the market for a nice 1963 Jeff, and I saw this on GC this week:
I wasn't exactly "smitten" with the look. A little washed out, with some hits and chatter. But did notice it was in a secure holder, and therefore must have a TruView!
So....Will I be happy when I get it? It wasn't expensive, so I figured I'd take a shot....
Easily distracted Type Collector
2
Comments
I've had it both ways where the TrueView has hidden some things when I've received the coin and also where photos on GC/Heritage have hidden some things that the TrueView showed clearly.
So really it's a crapshoot. Good Luck!
Nice coin. Tough date in that grade and up.
I think the color in the TV is probably more accurate. You should be pleased.
? Why not buy a roll of these that were put together in 1963? It's a 15-cent coin.
I'll let the true "modern collector" deal with the myth that gem coins just tumble out of rolls on a regular basis....(One has already chimed in).
But for me, it's a matter of time and money. I know I essentially paid for the certification fees with this purchase. But with little time invested, I got (what I hope will be), a nice example of the date for my business strike "birth year set". I guess I COULD have made a personal project out of it....but I choose not to. The $30 spent is neither a drain on my time nor money.
(And stop being a negative Nancy!)
Hope you're right! The TruView is a much warmer, attractive coin....even given the chatter and hits.
I'll try to remember to update this with my thoughts once it comes in the mail....
A hobby is about using time to learn, search, discover ... and also fail.
I am amazed that people will spend $30 for a 15-cent item. Maybe this is the "nudge" revelation of economics at work. (The concept just won the Nobel Prize in economics.) But, people don't act rationally - they don't read labels, they adopt fads that are potentially harmful, they waste huge sums on bottled water, and accept that the word "healthy" on a label has any meaning at all..... And, they do this even when they know it is detrimental to themselves! (Yeah, OK, I do some of this too....but $30 for a 15-cent coin? And you forgo all the fun!)
The "negative" part is giving up all the pleasures of a hobby, to acquire predigested pap in which the collector has invested nothing. Maybe one collector will read this and understand -- and maybe it's a lone wolf cry?
PS: The color of the slab image is very close to neutral, according to Photoshop.
I hereby declare that all collectors are to do their own research. No taking shortcuts and buying BOOKS based on someone else's research. They are just preying on your laziness. A few months or years in the Library of Congress will be good for you! I can't believe some of you pay $30 and more for a BOOK that SOMEONE ELSE researched for you!
(In short, I know you aren't trying to be offensive, Roger....But you are being VERY disrespectful to what I, and others, have chosen to spend OUR time on. Frankly it was very offensive.
And your "15-cent" coin trades at a much higher value than you have independently decided it is worth. I wasn't the only bidder. I wasn't the only one who desired the coin. I think in this case your "high and mighty" position is wrong. There is value added by those who have gone before us, and found these higher quality coins. Those of us who come behind them can choose to either do the same....or pay the going rate. I made my choice. You are free to make yours.)
I must be the only one here connected to the Matrix because I have never seen a coin that has the vibrant colors that are displayed on every TrueVue
Commems and Early Type
That's kind of why I asked. I personally don't actually OWN any coins that have TruView images. I took a shot that it was the more accurate photo.....I guess I'll find out.
The TruView certainly looks better than the slab image... Hope it works out well for you. Cheers, RickO
I don't like the slab image either, but the TV is nice. The step detail seems much stronger on the TV as well.
Through the miracle of "living really close to the Great Collections home office", it arrived in the mail today. (And that's with a Monday postal holiday!)
Anyway, my findings:
I find it to be somewhere between the two photos. It's NOT as washed out as the GC pictures make it look. It's actually a rather warm nickel color, closer to the TruView....which is great!
On the other hand, the TV does a really good job of hiding the marks and nicks that show up on the GC photo, (and actual coin). I don't have enough experience with TV's to say if that's intentional, of just a "happy accident".
As for the coin....I like it! There is a strong eye appeal to it. Part of that is just the "old" design that beats out the current "flat as a pancake" relief any day. Part is the titanium(?) colored darkening of the metal. And the luster is all there. Might the marks and nicks make it a 65 in a more fair and accurate world? Maybe....I won't claim expertise.
But on the "does it look good?" scale, I'll give it a solid 9 at a distance.....8 under magnification.
Thanks for the comments. It was a learning experience. (Both about GC photos, and TruView photos). I have a submission of 9 coins in now that are getting the freebie TruViews as well, so I hope to be better prepared next time around!
Your comments, while they are what you believe to be true, are simply your beliefs and not truth.
If you think an average roll quality coin is an MS66....well, I don't know what to say.
The modern coin market is alive and well, and just because you have not sanctioned it with your approval, means very little.
But your remarks on a coin that the OP was merely asking a question about, that HE was interested in (maybe you weren't...big deal...) came across as very haughty, condescending and arrogant.
We are all interested in coins in this forum.....the OP likes high grade Jeffs and is putting together a birthyear set.
Is that OK?
Many of us here deal in moderns, buy them, sell them, "make" them.....put in a lot of effort, study, and plain old hard work too.
I'm sure a lot of us are aware of certain dates that are really scarce if not actually rare in gem condition, their strike nuances,
planchet qualities, etc. Are you?????
That information comes from studying, looking, learning.
Just because it is something you trivialize does not mean it is without value.
o> @TommyType said:
Well stated, sir.
I wish there was an "Agreex100" thingie to click on.
Mannie
Quoting from RogerB: "A hobby is about using time to learn, search, discover ... and also fail."
...Which is exactly what students of modern coinage do. They search, research, discover new things, question the status quo, and have essentially, by their hard work, and research literally written the book on post 1965 USA coinage.
These dealers and collectors have determined which dates are the true modern keys.
They didn't have a book to tell them to look out for 1914-D, 1931-S.
They figured it out for themselves.
A while back when I searched two 4000 nickel US mint bags dated 69D and 70D, one of the things i did during all the sorting was setting aside all the ones I thought were nicely struck MS64 and higher. I think I ended up with a couple of rolls from each bag. But the bulk of those coins were dogs and most rolls come from bags whether they're from the mint, the brinks or banks. A lot of handling takes place so they do take a beating. I've have better success with mint sets and I believe the following coin came from one. i need to re-photo it someday to really show the gold blue toning better, it's that nice of a coin. It might be from the old #1 CQ non FS #1 set I bought years back. (Did I get that right?) a few collectors here ended up with some of those coins. Resides in a PCGS MS66 holder. Congrats to TommyType, as long as he's happy with it.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Was only attempting to point out some issues. Sorry the OP took offense - none was intended.
Choices are our own to make.
Leo, it's good to read one of your posts. Always interesting. It's about time. Where you been?
No harm, no foul.
Guess I was a little spun up by the "15-cent coin" comment, since clearly it isn't in this grade. Our "Modern" experts continue to point out the rarity of true gems for many dates that many of us seem to THINK should be an easy pull...but really aren't.
Now, while I do think the "coin in question" is an eye appealing coin, on a par with the TruView image as far as strike and color.....I will admit that the nicks and hits may make it a 65 vice 66 in many eyes. I've looked at enough of them over the last 6 or 8 months to have a fairly good idea what is required....and I think the macro "eye appeal" may have pushed this higher than the technical grade might have otherwise allowed. Probably isn't the only coin, or series, where that is often the case....
But, you take your chances. I do honestly like it, so in that sense it was a successful purchase....but I may have paid $30 for a $10 coin. (I won't die from the hit).
It was a lesson in "reading photographs". It's not often you get two options going into the decision.
Added: By the way, this is why I feel much more comfortable with buying in person vice via pictures! If this were a more expensive decision, I really don't think I would have pulled the trigger. It's probably cost me some really good coins in the past....and saved me from some really bad ones as well. Long Live the Coin Show!!
Added-Added: (Not going to do a new post...this thread probably needs to die...) But after getting home and looking at the coin in question again....I think I was too hard on her! The only mark visible with a naked eye is the one under "MONTICELLO". The rest are light or hidden. I'm going to re-introduce the idea that it might be a 66. (Until I grade it in a month, and decide it's either a 67 or 64.
)
I've often said that viewing and grading coins by photo is no where near an exact science. All someone has to do is slightly tilt a coin to hide flaws.
I've gotten bit myself.
Pete