You see a pouncing with a cognitive bias , but you do not comprehend what I wrote
Thank you Please come again
Your post was confusing.
Your reference to “angular second picture or reveal” didn’t make any sense, because the second picture wasn’t a reveal. It was just a picture of a different coin from the GTG coin. A reveal would apply to posting of the grade of the GTG coin.
And your guess of 65 for the GTG coin was equally confusing, being as low as it was, compared to how the coin looks.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You see a pouncing with a cognitive bias , but you do not comprehend what I wrote
Thank you Please come again
Your post was confusing.
Your reference to “angular second picture or reveal” didn’t make any sense, because the second picture wasn’t a reveal. It was just a picture of a different coin from the GTG coin. A reveal would apply to posting of the grade of the GTG coin.
And your guess of 65 for the GTG coin was equally confusing, being as low as it was, compared to how the coin looks.
Thank you for letting me know what I think and it does make sense. Think. Regards, Michael
You see a pouncing with a cognitive bias , but you do not comprehend what I wrote
Thank you Please come again
Your post was confusing.
Your reference to “angular second picture or reveal” didn’t make any sense, because the second picture wasn’t a reveal. It was just a picture of a different coin from the GTG coin. A reveal would apply to posting of the grade of the GTG coin.
And your guess of 65 for the GTG coin was equally confusing, being as low as it was, compared to how the coin looks.
Thank you for letting me know what I think and it does make sense. Think. Regards, Michael
You’re so very welcome.
What was the “reveal” you mentioned in your post, quoted below?
“The angular second picture or "reveal" tells the tale of the grade.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
May have been cleaned and have circulated. Why are some high points the cheek not showing the grey seen in hair and on eagle, top of digits and stars and might have been given an AU details grade.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@leothelyon said:
May have been cleaned and have circulated. Why are some high points the cheek not showing the grey seen in hair and on eagle, top of digits and stars and might have been given an AU details grade.
Leo
If that coin is cleaned OR circulated, I will swallow an entire roll of pennies one by one.
@leothelyon said:
May have been cleaned and have circulated. Why are some high points the cheek not showing the grey seen in hair and on eagle, top of digits and stars and might have been given an AU details grade.
Leo
If that coin is cleaned OR circulated, I will swallow an entire roll of pennies one by one.
I'll double down on that with you, if that coin is cleaned or circulated.... I vow to start collecting Ikes by die variety, for the rest of my years.
Idk, while swallowing a roll of pennies would be quite unpleasant, I could get it over with fairly quickly and they would would pass through my system in a day or two. But can you imagine being doomed to collect Ikes by die variety for all of eternity? ☠️☠️☠️
It's well above 2 67's I've had... Easily 68 or 68+. Not a hint of wear anywhere, no marks I can find in the field or on the cheek (EDIT:after closer look there are a few marks on the devices on the rev (eagles legs, arrows, leaves), but they are very unnoticeable unless you really look), luster looks great (as far as photos can show), strike is very strong... I can't imagine it being even in the 67 camp. If it hits 67/67+ I'd expect a gold cac.
@leothelyon said:
May have been cleaned and have circulated. Why are some high points the cheek not showing the grey seen in hair and on eagle, top of digits and stars and might have been given an AU details grade.
Leo
If that coin is cleaned OR circulated, I will swallow an entire roll of pennies one by one.
Why don't you come up with some quality imput on why the luster is dead in those areas I referred to instead of cutting down/showing disrespect to an other posted opinion! The coin obviously spent some time in an adverse environment likely an envelope or album or possibly circulated that would explain the darker/lusterless areas of the coin. personally, I wouldn't want such flaws on a MS68 grade coin.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
And I should have added "spot cleaned", likely in the cheek area. Is what it appears to me. Why it's not as dark as all those other dark areas on the coin?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@leothelyon said:
May have been cleaned and have circulated. Why are some high points the cheek not showing the grey seen in hair and on eagle, top of digits and stars and might have been given an AU details grade.
Leo
If that coin is cleaned OR circulated, I will swallow an entire roll of pennies one by one.
Why don't you come up with some quality imput on why the luster is dead in those areas I referred to instead of cutting down/showing disrespect to an other posted opinion! The coin obviously spent some time in an adverse environment likely an envelope or album or possibly circulated that would explain the darker/lusterless areas of the coin. personally, I wouldn't want such flaws on a MS68 grade coin.
Never said it was a 68, and I'm open to being wrong, so I'll let you pick—copper or zinc?
Ok, here is the reveal. There is a major trick to this GTG, and I did it this way to make a major point - editing photos can be INCREDIBLY deceiving. I took the original photos, edited them in Photoshop, and got the GTG images.
The coin is not an MS67, MS67+, MS68, or MS68+. In fact, it’s an MS66. Here are the real closeups and slab shots:
I did this GTG to show you just how easy it is to alter photos in a good editing software - not one of you suspected that the photos could be altered. Perhaps this is because you trust me, but there was a mention of altered photos early on and it seems that idea was dismissed.
We sometimes become far too complacent with coin images and don’t take the time to check and see what may or may not be true, no matter who is posting them. There are not many tells in the altered photos, but if you zoom closely in on the cheek of the coin you will see how the editing software likes to turn the pixels to grey when removing large amounts of marks.
Obviously, one could return this coin when they saw it in hand, but if you bought from a dealer with no returns allowed, you could be screwed on a coin. It’s also a HUGE problem with slabs with no TrueViews (NGC does not have this issue with their newer slabs, as all coins are imaged). It’s easy to remove a few small marks and give the coin a “point bump” or, in this case, two and a half. Ultimately, if this thread does nothing but make you take a slightly closer look at that non-TV slab or raw coin, I think I succeeded in my mission.
The average guess was far and above the true grade of MS66. Personally, I think the correct guess for this GTG was MS68+. I removed every mark within reason, and this coin looks just about as good as the MS69 TrueView for a 1880-S dollar in the altered pics.
The reason I did this as a GTG is so that you would come into this with no preconceived notions of the coin, which is quite possibly how you would approach images of a raw coin. If I had prefaced it with “these are altered images”, then the overall deceptiveness of the images would be lost while everyone looked for tells. Feel free to compare the originals to the altered OP images to see for yourself how good it is. I will also attach two different slab shots - all equally as deceptive, so you can see how those can be altered too.
Please do not reuse or repost the original images anywhere. I will leave this post up for educational purposes, but I do not want to see my altered images anywhere but in this thread.
I did this GTG to show you just how easy it is to alter photos in a good editing software - not one of you suspected that the photos could be altered. Perhaps this is because you trust me, but there was a mention of altered photos early on and it seems that idea was dismissed.
Interesting take in the fact I got the grade correct and said the photos looked off because of a smearing of the cheek. Altering photos is similar to cleaning/altering the coin itself. It still shows.
Interesting. Now that I look at the cheek again I can tell it's been altered. I wasn't looking for an altered photo and I think your trust rating among this board helped fool a lot of us.
One thing I realize now is that all the marks I saw on the rev devices I noted in my edited post... I now realize that should have been a warning sign. Why was the obverse so much cleaner than the rev?
This will really help me sharpen my skepticism of coin images. In this case no harm no foul because it was a fun GTG so I didn't take it too seriously... But I now have another red flag to watch out for.
For what it's worth, I sincerely apologize to everyone here. Now I see what can happen when I spoil one of FlygingAl's GTG's - he comes back with the claws out!
@FlyingAl Would you mind upgrading some of my coins by a point or two? My $3 in ms64 has some chatter in the obverse field, and my 03-s $10 has a hairline above the bust, id prefer if they weren't there anymore. Thanks.
@IkesT said:
For what it's worth, I sincerely apologize to everyone here. Now I see what can happen when I spoil one of FlygingAl's GTG's - he comes back with the claws out!
Here's a different kind of image trickery thread I posted last year that, unsurprisingly, was busted by detective @FlyingAl
An interesting post, no doubt. I came late to the discussion so didn't do a guess but would've definitely agreed with all the MS68 posters. Now when the pop reports were mentioned and they didn't show any 68s that's when I remembered that he said it was going to be tricky, but still would've bet on 67+. So, all in all an educational experience.
@Maywood said:
So you've stepped on the slippery slope and now I will hold all of your images suspect. Sad, I don't think you should have done it.
Really Buzz Killington? It's not all that serious, no reason to start clutching your pearls. It was just a fun GTG exercise with a twist to exemplify what deceptive imagery could do. We were already well aware that @flyingal is a sharp kid with expert level photography skills. Obviously he has the knowledge to edit like this, and obviously he's not going to use these skills to deceive anyone, but to call his professional integrity into question is a bit extreme if you ask me.
The reason no one questioned the authenticity of the photographs is because the OP is a trusted and respected individual.
Although the lesson taught with this thread is a solid one my take-away isn't that photos can be manipulated (I think we already knew that?) yet instead it is possible for anyone to do so.
An interesting exercise that I recall being done once or twice before. It is true that a few well placed edits can change the grade guess dramatically. While not quite the same, this is also why I think it is prudent to be careful with TrueView images. It is nice to have a slab shot along with them to get a more complete picture.
Also, it's good to see that no one has to eat a roll of cents or collect Ikes by die variety as a result of the reveal!
@Maywood said:
So you've stepped on the slippery slope and now I will hold all of your images suspect. Sad, I don't think you should have done it.
Feel free to. But why stop there? Hold all images suspect - because that's how it should be done. The only reason people trust my photos is because I have built a reputation for accurate images, and they match what people see with their coins in hand. I can easily ruin that reputation by putting altered images like this out without any warning, but I'll never do that. Hence why this thread now explains what was done.
As my last sentence in my post said, "I do not want to see my altered images anywhere but in this thread." I said this because I know the reputation my images hold - and I will not allow altered versions of those images to be spread without the context this thread provides.
@IkesT - hilarious, but you won that GTG fair and square!
I did not participate because I do not collect uncirculated coins, but can affirm that I no longer trust pictures on any site to be true to the coin. Instead I have built a small group of reference coins from sites I participate on. These are coins I now own. Anytime I am bidding now I basically run a diagnostic review; hoping I can tell just how misleading the pictures of any new coin might be. Not calling anyone crooked, just saying your point is well made, James
So I learned that trusted sellers, perhaps just before retiring, can get one final shot to sell something big (no returns) and then make sure to move to a non-extradition country.
.
.
.
.
For Scam Here Only - Presented is the long sought after, formerly mentioned in the Red Book, non-existent 1870-S quarter - $100 Million OBO. Each photo guaranteed unaltered. And photos never lie.
"...Researchers Nancy Oliver and Richard Kelly maintain that at least one 1870-S quarter dollar was struck, a position that they repeated in response to my recent inquiry..."
.
.
.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I did this GTG to show you just how easy it is to alter photos in a good editing software - not one of you suspected that the photos could be altered. Perhaps this is because you trust me, but there was a mention of altered photos early on and it seems that idea was dismissed.
Interesting take in the fact I got the grade correct and said the photos looked off because of a smearing of the cheek. Altering photos is similar to cleaning/altering the coin itself. It still shows.
If there can even be a “correct” or “incorrect” guess for the grade of a coin whose images have been heavily manipulated, your guess was incorrect, not correct. Because, while the altered images made the coin look approximately 2 points better than its actual grade, your grade guess corresponded to that of a coin which was noticeably inferior to that seen in the edited images.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You see a pouncing with a cognitive bias , but you do not comprehend what I wrote
Thank you Please come again
Well then why didn't you just explain it to him instead of throwing a fit and psychoanalyzing him? I thought the same thing he did when I read your post.
Above is a photo of a slabbed coin that was posted in an auction.
Below is the coin as it really looks.
Take note of the spot to the left of the "L" in "Liberty". Though not photo editing, it was still trick photography. The funny thing is that I still would have bought the coin had I seen the spot, so no harm done other than tarnishing the seller's reputation somewhat.
@FlyingAl said:
I was contacted recently by a well established collector who wishes to remain anonymous...
Then you should remove the cert number. I know who your secret admirer is now.
@scubafuel said:
I’m not sure anyone needed a lesson that images can be/are edited, but who knows.
.
Sort of what I thought but then I have seen multiple post on various subjects and then another similar post comes along and it gets some responses like 'I didn't know that'. So not all read all and some are new. Sort of similar to someone asking a question in a post and doing a search on the forum finds a half dozen post with the same thing (some recent). Just the way it works and I have probably done the same and didn't know it.
Here is a website FotoForensics. I read through it years ago and it was/is a little fuzzy to me. I remember trying a few back then and results were very mixed. I guess it depends on what was done (and as I recall that is in the descriptive stuff on the site).
So I ran the above through the site and below are the results. This result is one that is not so dramatic (understatement). So looking for an even texture (I will call it) in the result / output. The light/luster hot spots come across as different (and so did the darker area at date) but actually okay (part of that interpretation).
Now if one looks at the cheek area that was altered you can see a little difference in this texture on the one that was change. Also in the one luster area and a little in the hair (ticks removed).
Again as I stated above this one is not so dramatic. But I am just showing this to let people know it is out there. Some results were more obvious.
I really should have re-read the web information as it has been to long and I don't really recall. I recommend doing so to maybe understand it a little.
.
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
I did this GTG to show you just how easy it is to alter photos in a good editing software - not one of you suspected that the photos could be altered. Perhaps this is because you trust me, but there was a mention of altered photos early on and it seems that idea was dismissed.
Interesting take in the fact I got the grade correct and said the photos looked off because of a smearing of the cheek. Altering photos is similar to cleaning/altering the coin itself. It still shows.
If there can even be a “correct” or “incorrect” guess for the grade of a coin whose images have been heavily manipulated, your guess was incorrect, not correct. Because, while the altered images made the coin look approximately 2 points better than its actual grade, your grade guess corresponded to that of a coin which was noticeably inferior to that seen in the edited images.
My grade was for a coin that was inferior to the images? I saw the inferiority and graded the coin presented to me. Sometimes thoughts run though my mind on how much value i could bring to an auction house like heritage, and then I begin to think somehow they wouldn’t appreciate my skills. My eyes are worth millions, I promise.
I did this GTG to show you just how easy it is to alter photos in a good editing software - not one of you suspected that the photos could be altered. Perhaps this is because you trust me, but there was a mention of altered photos early on and it seems that idea was dismissed.
Interesting take in the fact I got the grade correct and said the photos looked off because of a smearing of the cheek. Altering photos is similar to cleaning/altering the coin itself. It still shows.
If there can even be a “correct” or “incorrect” guess for the grade of a coin whose images have been heavily manipulated, your guess was incorrect, not correct. Because, while the altered images made the coin look approximately 2 points better than its actual grade, your grade guess corresponded to that of a coin which was noticeably inferior to that seen in the edited images.
My grade was for a coin that was inferior to the images? I saw the inferiority and graded the coin presented to me. Sometimes thoughts run though my mind on how much value i could bring to an auction house like heritage, and then I begin to think somehow they wouldn’t appreciate my skills. My eyes are worth millions, I promise.
You might have heard the expression regarding how coin owners see/grade their own coins: "Ownership adds a point".
It appears that in the case of your eyes, it would be: "Ownership adds millions".
Look at how everyone graded the coin, based on the manipulated images. Do you honestly think that the grade guesses would have been nearly as high, overall, if they'd been based on the unaltered images? Your MS66 guess was too low (incorrect) and your million dollar (plus) eyes should be able to see that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Above is a photo of a slabbed coin that was posted in an auction.
Below is the coin as it really looks.
Take note of the spot to the left of the "L" in "Liberty". Though not photo editing, it was still trick photography. The funny thing is that I still would have bought the coin had I seen the spot, so no harm done other than tarnishing the seller's reputation somewhat.
To me, the coin doesn't look any worse in the second image - actually, it looks better. And I don't think that there was any "trick photography" or that the seller's reputation should be tarnished.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Above is a photo of a slabbed coin that was posted in an auction.
Below is the coin as it really looks.
Take note of the spot to the left of the "L" in "Liberty". Though not photo editing, it was still trick photography. The funny thing is that I still would have bought the coin had I seen the spot, so no harm done other than tarnishing the seller's reputation somewhat.
To me, the coin doesn't look any worse in the second image - actually, it looks better. And I don't think that there was any "trick photography" or that the seller's reputation should be tarnished.
It certainly appears that they rotated the slab so that the light reflection would be right over that stain on the coin. Or do you think it's simply a coincidence? Either way, I wasn't upset, as I'd have bought the coin even if I'd seen it in hand first.
Apparently, the spot is a much bigger issue for you than it is for me. The cleaning, which is obvious in both pictures, bothers me far more than the spot does. Now, if the coin were choice uncirculated, the spot would bother me, but it doesn't on this coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
Apparently, the spot is a much bigger issue for you than it is for me. The cleaning, which is obvious in both pictures, bothers me far more than the spot does. Now, if the coin were choice uncirculated, the spot would bother me, but it doesn't on this coin.
It wasn't the spot that bothered me, but rather the possible attempt to hide it. As for cleaning, it's a straight-graded PCGS coin -- I bought the holder, not the coin. Lol!
"I did this GTG to show you just how easy it is to alter photos in a good editing software - not one of you suspected that the photos could be altered. "
I did not suspect because I trusted you; that was the error.
I think the post would have been better had the OP noted that they manipulated the photo with software and asked if we could tell and how, so we might know better in such cases. I did not vote since it was a crapshoot telling the difference between a 66 - 68 via a photo anyway, never mind 1 manipulated. I think we all know a photo can be adjusted to appear better then what it is. Photos to appear better via just lighting and angles is one thing, and that would be useful learning. Using software to improve the appearance is of no interest to me.
Wow, Alex!!! What a huge difference when you put the photos side by side as I did on my PC. I deleted the photos after I was done looking at the two side by side. You removed quite a few blemishes and did a great job doing it.
Thanks for sharing this. A great learning experience for sure regarding photos. This is exactly why I like to see my coins in person when buying and rarely buy online.
Comments
Your post was confusing.
Your reference to “angular second picture or reveal” didn’t make any sense, because the second picture wasn’t a reveal. It was just a picture of a different coin from the GTG coin. A reveal would apply to posting of the grade of the GTG coin.
And your guess of 65 for the GTG coin was equally confusing, being as low as it was, compared to how the coin looks.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thank you for letting me know what I think and it does make sense. Think. Regards, Michael
You’re so very welcome.
What was the “reveal” you mentioned in your post, quoted below?
“The angular second picture or "reveal" tells the tale of the grade.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
May have been cleaned and have circulated. Why are some high points the cheek not showing the grey seen in hair and on eagle, top of digits and stars and might have been given an AU details grade.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
If that coin is cleaned OR circulated, I will swallow an entire roll of pennies one by one.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I'll double down on that with you, if that coin is cleaned or circulated.... I vow to start collecting Ikes by die variety, for the rest of my years.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
I'm actually not sure which is worse @DeplorableDan
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Idk, while swallowing a roll of pennies would be quite unpleasant, I could get it over with fairly quickly and they would would pass through my system in a day or two. But can you imagine being doomed to collect Ikes by die variety for all of eternity? ☠️☠️☠️
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
It's well above 2 67's I've had... Easily 68 or 68+. Not a hint of wear anywhere, no marks I can find in the field or on the cheek (EDIT:after closer look there are a few marks on the devices on the rev (eagles legs, arrows, leaves), but they are very unnoticeable unless you really look), luster looks great (as far as photos can show), strike is very strong... I can't imagine it being even in the 67 camp. If it hits 67/67+ I'd expect a gold cac.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
Why don't you come up with some quality imput on why the luster is dead in those areas I referred to instead of cutting down/showing disrespect to an other posted opinion! The coin obviously spent some time in an adverse environment likely an envelope or album or possibly circulated that would explain the darker/lusterless areas of the coin. personally, I wouldn't want such flaws on a MS68 grade coin.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
And I should have added "spot cleaned", likely in the cheek area. Is what it appears to me. Why it's not as dark as all those other dark areas on the coin?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Never said it was a 68, and I'm open to being wrong, so I'll let you pick—copper or zinc?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Ok, here is the reveal. There is a major trick to this GTG, and I did it this way to make a major point - editing photos can be INCREDIBLY deceiving. I took the original photos, edited them in Photoshop, and got the GTG images.
The coin is not an MS67, MS67+, MS68, or MS68+. In fact, it’s an MS66. Here are the real closeups and slab shots:
I did this GTG to show you just how easy it is to alter photos in a good editing software - not one of you suspected that the photos could be altered. Perhaps this is because you trust me, but there was a mention of altered photos early on and it seems that idea was dismissed.
We sometimes become far too complacent with coin images and don’t take the time to check and see what may or may not be true, no matter who is posting them. There are not many tells in the altered photos, but if you zoom closely in on the cheek of the coin you will see how the editing software likes to turn the pixels to grey when removing large amounts of marks.
Obviously, one could return this coin when they saw it in hand, but if you bought from a dealer with no returns allowed, you could be screwed on a coin. It’s also a HUGE problem with slabs with no TrueViews (NGC does not have this issue with their newer slabs, as all coins are imaged). It’s easy to remove a few small marks and give the coin a “point bump” or, in this case, two and a half. Ultimately, if this thread does nothing but make you take a slightly closer look at that non-TV slab or raw coin, I think I succeeded in my mission.
The average guess was far and above the true grade of MS66. Personally, I think the correct guess for this GTG was MS68+. I removed every mark within reason, and this coin looks just about as good as the MS69 TrueView for a 1880-S dollar in the altered pics.
The reason I did this as a GTG is so that you would come into this with no preconceived notions of the coin, which is quite possibly how you would approach images of a raw coin. If I had prefaced it with “these are altered images”, then the overall deceptiveness of the images would be lost while everyone looked for tells. Feel free to compare the originals to the altered OP images to see for yourself how good it is. I will also attach two different slab shots - all equally as deceptive, so you can see how those can be altered too.
Please do not reuse or repost the original images anywhere. I will leave this post up for educational purposes, but I do not want to see my altered images anywhere but in this thread.
Coin Photographer.
Interesting take in the fact I got the grade correct and said the photos looked off because of a smearing of the cheek. Altering photos is similar to cleaning/altering the coin itself. It still shows.
Guess you were right all along!
Interesting. Now that I look at the cheek again I can tell it's been altered. I wasn't looking for an altered photo and I think your trust rating among this board helped fool a lot of us.
One thing I realize now is that all the marks I saw on the rev devices I noted in my edited post... I now realize that should have been a warning sign. Why was the obverse so much cleaner than the rev?
This will really help me sharpen my skepticism of coin images. In this case no harm no foul because it was a fun GTG so I didn't take it too seriously... But I now have another red flag to watch out for.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
Sneaky but educational , thanks for something different
It's all about what the people want...
For what it's worth, I sincerely apologize to everyone here. Now I see what can happen when I spoil one of FlygingAl's GTG's - he comes back with the claws out!
@FlyingAl Would you mind upgrading some of my coins by a point or two? My $3 in ms64 has some chatter in the obverse field, and my 03-s $10 has a hairline above the bust, id prefer if they weren't there anymore. Thanks.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
So you've stepped on the slippery slope and now I will hold all of your images suspect. Sad, I don't think you should have done it.
Here's a different kind of image trickery thread I posted last year that, unsurprisingly, was busted by detective @FlyingAl
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
An interesting post, no doubt. I came late to the discussion so didn't do a guess but would've definitely agreed with all the MS68 posters. Now when the pop reports were mentioned and they didn't show any 68s that's when I remembered that he said it was going to be tricky, but still would've bet on 67+. So, all in all an educational experience.
Really Buzz Killington? It's not all that serious, no reason to start clutching your pearls. It was just a fun GTG exercise with a twist to exemplify what deceptive imagery could do. We were already well aware that @flyingal is a sharp kid with expert level photography skills. Obviously he has the knowledge to edit like this, and obviously he's not going to use these skills to deceive anyone, but to call his professional integrity into question is a bit extreme if you ask me.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
The reason no one questioned the authenticity of the photographs is because the OP is a trusted and respected individual.
Although the lesson taught with this thread is a solid one my take-away isn't that photos can be manipulated (I think we already knew that?) yet instead it is possible for anyone to do so.
peacockcoins
I would say this was an old small anacs 66. Reholdered to a 67+ based on an old ANACS 66 I cracked, subbed, and got a 67+ on. Different year though.
An interesting exercise that I recall being done once or twice before. It is true that a few well placed edits can change the grade guess dramatically. While not quite the same, this is also why I think it is prudent to be careful with TrueView images. It is nice to have a slab shot along with them to get a more complete picture.
Also, it's good to see that no one has to eat a roll of cents or collect Ikes by die variety as a result of the reveal!
Feel free to. But why stop there? Hold all images suspect - because that's how it should be done. The only reason people trust my photos is because I have built a reputation for accurate images, and they match what people see with their coins in hand. I can easily ruin that reputation by putting altered images like this out without any warning, but I'll never do that. Hence why this thread now explains what was done.
As my last sentence in my post said, "I do not want to see my altered images anywhere but in this thread." I said this because I know the reputation my images hold - and I will not allow altered versions of those images to be spread without the context this thread provides.
@IkesT - hilarious, but you won that GTG fair and square!
Coin Photographer.
I did not participate because I do not collect uncirculated coins, but can affirm that I no longer trust pictures on any site to be true to the coin. Instead I have built a small group of reference coins from sites I participate on. These are coins I now own. Anytime I am bidding now I basically run a diagnostic review; hoping I can tell just how misleading the pictures of any new coin might be. Not calling anyone crooked, just saying your point is well made, James
A very good exercise for teaching.
So I learned that trusted sellers, perhaps just before retiring, can get one final shot to sell something big (no returns) and then make sure to move to a non-extradition country.
.
.
.
.
For Scam Here Only - Presented is the long sought after, formerly mentioned in the Red Book, non-existent 1870-S quarter - $100 Million OBO. Each photo guaranteed unaltered. And photos never lie.
"...Researchers Nancy Oliver and Richard Kelly maintain that at least one 1870-S quarter dollar was struck, a position that they repeated in response to my recent inquiry..."
.
.
.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I’m not sure anyone needed a lesson that images can be/are edited, but who knows.
It’s possible there might end up being a lesson in this thread for OP as well.
Gee, I thought it was an MS60 all along.
Really Buzz Killington?
Consider your chain yanked!!
Ahh darn, if you were being facetious it went over my head lol. Carry on
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
If there can even be a “correct” or “incorrect” guess for the grade of a coin whose images have been heavily manipulated, your guess was incorrect, not correct. Because, while the altered images made the coin look approximately 2 points better than its actual grade, your grade guess corresponded to that of a coin which was noticeably inferior to that seen in the edited images.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well then why didn't you just explain it to him instead of throwing a fit and psychoanalyzing him? I thought the same thing he did when I read your post.
Thanks for the education, very informative!
I first said 66-67 and changed it but the 66 was for the wrong reason!😂
Above is a photo of a slabbed coin that was posted in an auction.
Below is the coin as it really looks.
Take note of the spot to the left of the "L" in "Liberty". Though not photo editing, it was still trick photography. The funny thing is that I still would have bought the coin had I seen the spot, so no harm done other than tarnishing the seller's reputation somewhat.
Then you should remove the cert number. I know who your secret admirer is now.
.
Sort of what I thought but then I have seen multiple post on various subjects and then another similar post comes along and it gets some responses like 'I didn't know that'. So not all read all and some are new. Sort of similar to someone asking a question in a post and doing a search on the forum finds a half dozen post with the same thing (some recent). Just the way it works and I have probably done the same and didn't know it.
Here is a website FotoForensics. I read through it years ago and it was/is a little fuzzy to me. I remember trying a few back then and results were very mixed. I guess it depends on what was done (and as I recall that is in the descriptive stuff on the site).
https://fotoforensics.com/tutorial.php?tt=about
So I ran the above through the site and below are the results. This result is one that is not so dramatic (understatement). So looking for an even texture (I will call it) in the result / output. The light/luster hot spots come across as different (and so did the darker area at date) but actually okay (part of that interpretation).
Now if one looks at the cheek area that was altered you can see a little difference in this texture on the one that was change. Also in the one luster area and a little in the hair (ticks removed).
Again as I stated above this one is not so dramatic. But I am just showing this to let people know it is out there. Some results were more obvious.
I really should have re-read the web information as it has been to long and I don't really recall. I recommend doing so to maybe understand it a little.
.
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
67+ CAC
Why is it tricky to you though, that’s the real question?
My grade was for a coin that was inferior to the images? I saw the inferiority and graded the coin presented to me. Sometimes thoughts run though my mind on how much value i could bring to an auction house like heritage, and then I begin to think somehow they wouldn’t appreciate my skills. My eyes are worth millions, I promise.
Sad. Never considered this act.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
You might have heard the expression regarding how coin owners see/grade their own coins: "Ownership adds a point".
It appears that in the case of your eyes, it would be: "Ownership adds millions".
Look at how everyone graded the coin, based on the manipulated images. Do you honestly think that the grade guesses would have been nearly as high, overall, if they'd been based on the unaltered images? Your MS66 guess was too low (incorrect) and your million dollar (plus) eyes should be able to see that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
To me, the coin doesn't look any worse in the second image - actually, it looks better. And I don't think that there was any "trick photography" or that the seller's reputation should be tarnished.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It certainly appears that they rotated the slab so that the light reflection would be right over that stain on the coin. Or do you think it's simply a coincidence? Either way, I wasn't upset, as I'd have bought the coin even if I'd seen it in hand first.
Apparently, the spot is a much bigger issue for you than it is for me. The cleaning, which is obvious in both pictures, bothers me far more than the spot does. Now, if the coin were choice uncirculated, the spot would bother me, but it doesn't on this coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Similar editing can be done with just lighting angles. Top sellers do it all the time.
The coin was dipped and is retoning, so pennies should be eaten.
It wasn't the spot that bothered me, but rather the possible attempt to hide it. As for cleaning, it's a straight-graded PCGS coin -- I bought the holder, not the coin. Lol!
"I did this GTG to show you just how easy it is to alter photos in a good editing software - not one of you suspected that the photos could be altered. "
I did not suspect because I trusted you; that was the error.
I think the post would have been better had the OP noted that they manipulated the photo with software and asked if we could tell and how, so we might know better in such cases. I did not vote since it was a crapshoot telling the difference between a 66 - 68 via a photo anyway, never mind 1 manipulated. I think we all know a photo can be adjusted to appear better then what it is. Photos to appear better via just lighting and angles is one thing, and that would be useful learning. Using software to improve the appearance is of no interest to me.
Wow, Alex!!! What a huge difference when you put the photos side by side as I did on my PC. I deleted the photos after I was done looking at the two side by side. You removed quite a few blemishes and did a great job doing it.
Thanks for sharing this. A great learning experience for sure regarding photos. This is exactly why I like to see my coins in person when buying and rarely buy online.
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)