An interesting comparison of images of the same DCAM SMS from three different sources.

Russ · June 24, 2004 9:26AM

This coin is the MS66DCAM that resides in my set.

Image as it appeared raw on eBay:

Image as it appeared on Teletrade:

My image:

This post brought to you by the IPOTAD educational department.

Russ, NCNE

Myqqy · June 24, 2004 9:30AM

I love the ebay picture, although it perhaps isn't the most true to the real eye appeal? The teletrade picture looks like dung to me.......

Russ · June 24, 2004 9:35AM

The eBay picture shows it more contrasted than it actually is. The Teletrade picture shows it less contrasted than it is and, I agree, they did a terrible job.

Russ, NCNE

DHeath · June 24, 2004 9:37AM

I'd have figured it a dcam in all three, but yours is more revealing. I see the mark at the tip of the arrows in all three pics, but I don't see the shooter from the right claw toward the R in any but yours. Cool coin, BTW.

airplanenut · June 24, 2004 9:39AM

The eBay picture looks better, russ

Russ · June 24, 2004 9:43AM

<< The eBay picture looks better, russ >>

Yes, it does. And, if one's goal is to make the picture better than the coin actually is, the eBay picture achieves that goal quite well.

Russ, NCNE

mgoodm3 · June 24, 2004 9:44AM

Ebay one has the best lighting but is low on detail.
Teletrade, not enough light
Russ: Best detail overall, but lose some detail on portins of the relief with harsh lighting.

nwcs · June 24, 2004 9:46AM

Yep, looks like contrast and level adjustment there. Yours, Russ, would be spectacular if you softened the light just a bit.

airplanenut · June 24, 2004 9:47AM

<< Yes, it does. And, if one's goal is to make the picture better than the coin actually is, the eBay picture achieves that goal quite well.
>>

So pictures shouldn't be made to deceive?

mgoodm3 · June 24, 2004 9:55AM

Problem is that harsh lighting shows frost really well. The higher the angle you can get the lighting to the coin the better.

Russ · September 23, 2004 3:21AM

Bump.

Russ, NCNE

solid · September 23, 2004 3:31AM

I'd like to order all three coins, please.

SanctionII · September 23, 2004 4:02AM

Madre de dios, el E-bay pic es mas fina & muy, muy muy caliente.

Perhaps one adept at coin photography can create a photo library of U.S. and World Coins (enhanced of course like the E-Bay pic) and sell a virtual coin collection to collectors that would be cheaper and much better than the real thing (sort of like the photos you see in fashion magazines and the beautiful people and their lives depicted in Soap operas).

This post and it's 3 pics of the same coin illustrate why my preferred method for purchasing coins from sellers you have no established relationship with is it to look at it in hand before you buy. Anything other than looking at the coin in hand merely increases the risk that you will be disappointed.

stephunter · September 23, 2004 5:26AM

Hey Russ,

How about a photo comparison showing Cameo vs. Deep Cameo. I have sent a couple 67's that I thought had a chance at Dcam, but I keep getting Cameo (not that I'm complaining).

Russ · September 23, 2004 5:32AM

Entry level cameo:

Mid-range cameo:

Deep cameo:

Russ, NCNE

stephunter · September 23, 2004 5:39AM

It looks like the mid level cameo and the deep cameo have about the same mirrors, but the deeper frosted devices almost make the mirrors look darker. Mine must be a high mid level cameo and not a low level deep cameo. It looks a little deeper than the mid level cameo, but did not get the Dcam designation.

PhillyJoe · September 23, 2004 5:41AM

With regard to the 1966, you could say it must be one of the first ones off the dies with an ebay picture like that and the bidding should have gone crazy. The Teletrade picture would probably would draw moderate interest as the coin looks barely there. In all three cases, that coin would be a perfect addition to my collection.

Joe

Russ · September 23, 2004 5:47AM

Stephunter,

The mirrors on the deep cameo example are also slightly more reflective and have slightly fewer interruptions. Sometimes there is a very fine line between CAM and DCAM and a coin can fall either way. For example:

That coin is graded cameo. I think PCGS is wrong, and they'll be seeing it again.

Russ, NCNE

dollardude · September 23, 2004 5:53AM

As usual, thanks again Russ for an educational thread. In my few years of experience with digital coin photography, I still have trouble. This is a very difficult thing to do. The problems include lighting, tint, contrast, file size, etc. Russ, you seem to have a handle on how to balance all these things. Could you give us novices some updated pointers? Also, what kind of camera do you use and recommend? I use a Sony Cybershot, but it is not perfect.

Edited to add: One specific question regarding the original pictures in this thread. Why do the top and bottom pictures have a brownish tint, while the middle picture seems more grayish and apparently more realistic?

stephunter · September 23, 2004 5:55AM

"The mirrors on the deep cameo example are also slightly more reflective and have slightly fewer interruptions"

What is an interruption in the mirrors?

Russ · September 23, 2004 6:14AM

<< What is an interruption in the mirrors? >>

Ultra tiny imperfections generally called "mint frost". PCGS places very heavy emphasis on the smoothness or "glassiness" of mirrors for the DCAM designation. Thus, sometimes a coin that is right on the edge from a contrast standpoint will make it in to a DCAM holder if the mirrors are strong and clean enough. Other times a coin that seems for all intents and purposes to possess deep cameo contrast will not be given the designation because the mirrors appear a bit too "frosty". In the case of SMS coins, this frostiness will frequently be most prevalent at the periphery.

If you look at the entry level cameo above it's a good illustration of frost in the mirrors.

Russ, NCNE

DHeath · September 23, 2004 6:32AM

100% cool thread, but what Russ didn't mention is that he was aware the 66 was the same one pictured on Ebay and on Teletrade. Coins always have a "fingerprint". Perhaps that's a bad metaphor.

Maybe signature is a better term. On SMS coins, I think of it as a dust print in the fields. Look at the three specks around the L in Liberty, and the speck below the Y. They're present in both the images. Since there are not very many DCam SMS halves for sale at any point in time, a little homework goes a long way. With BOTH images to work with, deciding the value of the coin is much easier. I'm quite sure Russ, like me and a few other SMS nuts, has several years worth of auction pics to draw upon. Classic coin guys do this with auction catalogs. It's fun to see the same technique applied to moderns. I've got a dollar that says he's still got a pic of the PCI birthmark coin I lost at auction two years ago.

stephunter · September 23, 2004 6:32AM

Thanks for the insight. Now I just have to search about 2,000 sets to come up with a Dcam.

Russ · September 23, 2004 6:38AM

<< I've got a dollar that says he's still got a pic of the PCI birthmark coin I lost at auction two years ago. >>

Russ, NCNE

DHeath · September 23, 2004 6:58AM

Told you.

SanctionII · September 23, 2004 8:25AM

With repsect to the PCI UCAM MS69 1967 JFK, who stole it from Don at the auction? Also, what did it sell for? Also, did the buyer crack it and submit it to PCGS or NCG? If so, what did it cross at?

Further, a question for Russ about the 1965 DCAM SMS half R&I Coins has a picture of in its virtual collection (what a stunning coin, though I suspect the picture may be enhanced as is the E-bay pic of the 1966 pictured in this thread). What is the history of that coin? When was it last sold and how much was the sale price? If anyone knows the answers to these question, I suspect it would be Russ. Thanks, SanctionII.

Russ · September 23, 2004 8:36AM

<< With repsect to the PCI UCAM MS69 1967 JFK, who stole it from Don at the auction? Also, what did it sell for? Also, did the buyer crack it and submit it to PCGS >>

The coin brought $380 in the PCI holder, was cracked out and submitted to PCGS where it graded MS67DCAM, and was subsequently sold for a little over $700. In the current market it would likely bring better than $1000.

<< 1965 DCAM SMS half R&I Coins has a picture of in its virtual collection (what a stunning coin, though I suspect the picture may be enhanced as is the E-bay pic of the 1966 pictured in this thread). What is the history of that coin? When was it last sold and how much was the sale price? >>

It was listed on eBay a couple years ago with a BIN of $10,500 but didn't sell in that venue, so I don't know what the sales price ended up being. I'd guess, though, that would be about what R&I got for it.

Russ, NCNE

An interesting comparison of images of the same DCAM SMS from three different sources.

Comments

Leave a Comment