<< <i>Is it possible that the coin has had some subtle work? I find it odd that it got a point and a half upgrade when some of the negative qualities were no longer that apparent. >>
I agree, I think the coin was helped between trips to PCGS. I don't think lighting angles are hiding the obverse left stain, I think it was removed. Notice the spot above "IN" is also missing, and the "line" over the ray next to Liberty's leg. Notice the new dark line across the eagle on the reverse, which would likely get there from someone subtly adding a little toning to blend their work.
-Paul >>
This is what went through my head as well. MJ >>
Yes and yes, that is what I have been getting at also.
Eric >>
I don't agree. The stain is still there. The spot above IN is still there. They are just not so prominent because of the way the coin was shot. Lance. >>
Did you happen to look at all the images on Coinfacts in 66 and 66+? Rather odd all these different images since it got the bump don't show the stain, or barely so. Yes if you look close you might see a outline. I'm trying to behave so I've said what I can say.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
I also note the toning spot under AW appears to have gone from a vertical shape to a horizontal trident shape now pointing to the rim? Lighting does this? There are a few red ticks here today and gone tomorrow on both sides.
<< <i>BTW, I once owned this coin in the first example, so I'm very familiar with that stain in right obverse field. >>
I still see the stain albeit much lighter or is it the result of the angle of the shot and it is still as dark as it appears on the first image. Either way it is still there, so we shouldn't act like it is gone, it may however be a lot lighter and therefore still a relevant issue imho. >>
I only pointed out what I see. I know this coin very well, and I'll act how I feel like acting. I'm not stating anything as fact as I can't see this coin now. I do know it is a very nice looking Walker. But, one of the reasons I sold the coin is because that stain bothered me. I've looked at that coin and studied it from every angle known to man. >>
Hi stman,
Did you ever find an angle where the Obv. stain could not be seen during your tenure as steward?
Why are people calling this area a stain. A stain is corrosion. Is reflectivity different from that of surrounding areas? Maybe it's a blotch. What if it was smudgy but non-invasive PVC? or 99% non-invasive? I can't tell from here. In taking whatever was on there off, the lighter glaze of more gently and more naturally-acquired contaminants goes too. Thin-film interference shifts and refractive phenomena are noted.
I just don't get the 66 with a vestigial thumb. Which is, I ruefully admit, OT
Is the SEM available?
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
"Stain" was first introduced in this thread by a previous owner so I simply deferred to his nomenclature so as not to cause confusion.
"In taking that off the lighter glaze of more naturally-acquired contaminants goes too. Thin-film interference shifts and refractive phenomena are noted" - this.
I still believe we have a spot that appears differently under different photography conditions.
But suppose, for argument's sake, the spot was removed. By PCGS or someone else. What's wrong with that? Sure, it's possible it was not done properly and might "turn" down the road. Or maybe it was done expertly, is stable, and the coin now has greater eye appeal. Lance.
<< <i>But suppose, for argument's sake, the spot was removed. By PCGS or someone else. What's wrong with that? >>
I dunno, but if I bought a like coin and then found previous apparently differing auction appearances (perhaps literally) and lower grades, I'd not do a jig. OTOH, we know this happens by rote. There have been many posts about obviously "retouched" slabbed Trade $'s and so on.
<< <i>But suppose, for argument's sake, the spot was removed. By PCGS or someone else. What's wrong with that? >>
I dunno, but if I bought a like coin and then found previous apparently differing auction appearances (perhaps literally) and lower grades, I'd not do a jig. OTOH, we know this happens by rote. There have been many posts about obviously "retouched" slabbed Trade $'s and so on.
Eric >>
BUt we must keep in mind we are looking at minor differences between two different photos only because a beautiful coin upgraded, and you can't grade from a photo neither can you make any other determination on this level due to photographic variances. Don't get me wrong I love playing a detective on CSI (Coin Science Investigations) but not when a coin is listed on a reliable dealer's site. >>
If those are minor differences what else might account the grade bump and plus? Some in the know don't see this as a 65. I agree to a point with you - I said "like" coin - but I see no reason the technical merits or deficiencies of a given coin can't be discussed. "If it is an honest opinion..." - Mr. E
Edit to add: Especially if such discussion produces meaningful discourse and exchange of knowledge. I see people trying to understand the appearance, bump and plus more than bashing any coin.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
There are a lot of woman I practiced yoga with that may have had some work done along the way. I would still sticker some of them. MJ >>
Priceless !!!!!
Thanks for the greatest laugh I've had all week!!!!
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Is it possible that the coin has had some subtle work? I find it odd that it got a point and a half upgrade when some of the negative qualities were no longer that apparent. >>
I agree, I think the coin was helped between trips to PCGS. I don't think lighting angles are hiding the obverse left stain, I think it was removed. Notice the spot above "IN" is also missing, and the "line" over the ray next to Liberty's leg. Notice the new dark line across the eagle on the reverse, which would likely get there from someone subtly adding a little toning to blend their work.
-Paul >>
This is what went through my head as well. MJ >>
Yes and yes, that is what I have been getting at also.
Eric >>
I don't agree. The stain is still there. The spot above IN is still there. They are just not so prominent because of the way the coin was shot.
Lance. >>
Did you happen to look at all the images on Coinfacts in 66 and 66+? Rather odd all these different images since it got the bump don't show the stain, or barely so. Yes if you look close you might see a outline. I'm trying to behave so I've said what I can say.
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>BTW, I once owned this coin in the first example, so I'm very familiar with that stain in right obverse field. >>
I still see the stain albeit much lighter or is it the result of the angle of the shot and it is still as dark as it appears on the first image. Either way it is still there, so we shouldn't act like it is gone, it may however be a lot lighter and therefore still a relevant issue imho. >>
I only pointed out what I see. I know this coin very well, and I'll act how I feel like acting. I'm not stating anything as fact as I can't see this coin now. I do know it is a very nice looking Walker. But, one of the reasons I sold the coin is because that stain bothered me. I've looked at that coin and studied it from every angle known to man.
Hi stman,
Did you ever find an angle where the Obv. stain could not be seen during your tenure as steward?
Best wishes,
Eric
I just don't get the 66 with a vestigial thumb. Which is, I ruefully admit, OT
Is the SEM available?
"Stain" was first introduced in this thread by a previous owner so I simply deferred to his nomenclature so as not to cause confusion.
"In taking that off the lighter glaze of more naturally-acquired contaminants goes too. Thin-film interference shifts and refractive phenomena are noted" - this.
Best wishes,
Eric
<< <i>I get a little pedantic sometimes.
That's so bad?
Eric
Lance.
But suppose, for argument's sake, the spot was removed. By PCGS or someone else. What's wrong with that? Sure, it's possible it was not done properly and might "turn" down the road. Or maybe it was done expertly, is stable, and the coin now has greater eye appeal.
Lance.
<< <i>But suppose, for argument's sake, the spot was removed. By PCGS or someone else. What's wrong with that? >>
I dunno, but if I bought a like coin and then found previous apparently differing auction appearances (perhaps literally) and lower grades, I'd not do a jig. OTOH, we know this happens by rote. There have been many posts about obviously "retouched" slabbed Trade $'s and so on.
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>But suppose, for argument's sake, the spot was removed. By PCGS or someone else. What's wrong with that? >>
I dunno, but if I bought a like coin and then found previous apparently differing auction appearances (perhaps literally) and lower grades, I'd not do a jig. OTOH, we know this happens by rote. There have been many posts about obviously "retouched" slabbed Trade $'s and so on.
Eric >>
BUt we must keep in mind we are looking at minor differences between two different photos only because a beautiful coin upgraded, and you can't grade from a photo neither can you make any other determination on this level due to photographic variances. Don't get me wrong I love playing a detective on CSI (Coin Science Investigations) but not when a coin is listed on a reliable dealer's site. >>
If those are minor differences what else might account the grade bump and plus? Some in the know don't see this as a 65.
I agree to a point with you - I said "like" coin - but I see no reason the technical merits or deficiencies of a given coin can't be discussed. "If it is an honest opinion..." - Mr. E
Edit to add: Especially if such discussion produces meaningful discourse and exchange of knowledge. I see people trying to understand the appearance, bump and plus more than bashing any coin.
Eric
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."