C'mon, no way that pic above was taken with a scanner. Scanners flatten out the lustre and brillance of a coin. David Lawrence pics are with a scanner.
If there was anyway to capture the real brillance of a coin with a scanner... I would kill for that, instead of screwing around with a camera and all that lighting crap.
"Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself." - William Faulkner NoEbayAuctionsForNow
<< <i>C'mon, no way that pic above was taken with a scanner. Scanners flatten out the lustre and brillance of a coin. David Lawrence pics are with a scanner.
If there was anyway to capture the real brillance of a coin with a scanner... I would kill for that, instead of screwing around with a camera and all that lighting crap. >>
A scanner will give very consistent highlights on the northern edges of the relief, shadows on the southern edges. There is no cartwheel luster in the coin, it being a proof, but the appearance is nevertheless rather flat and dull. Your mind is tricking you into thinking it looks good because it's a Gobrecht dollar, the appearance of which can survive bludgeoning by a flatbed scanner, much as Mozart can even sound good on a saxophone.
I believe Heritage's pics are a bit better than they were about 1-2 years ago, and far better than 4-5 years ago. You would think however with Heritage's finances they would have out of this world pics. I theink some of the best coin pics I've seen have been done by a few of our forum members.
This lastest Sale clearly has more defined images which can be blown up to full screen size and appear more detailed. I called Leo today to find out, as I have some coins there, but he wasn't in the office. If the images are really no longer hiding hairlines, it will be a major improvement. Of course I just consigned an MS 64 that looks 65 but has a tiny staple line--but that's nothing new, with my luck!
Comments
NoEbayAuctionsForNow
Can anybody add some history about these dollars?
******
<< <i>
Yes, it appears they may have sprung for a $200 scanner instead of a run-of-the mill $100 scanner.
<< <i>Something changed. You can turn off the pan-zoom feature and click on the obverse or reverse photo and you get a huge full screen closeup.
That's not new. Been that way for a couple of years now.
<< <i>They frequently (not always) take better shots of the real pricey coins... >>
Perhaps better shots, but often, they're still terrible... Even a $69k chain cent looked like a black circle... and that's a pricey one!
<< <i>Looks to me like their images are improving: >>
Flatbed scanner.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
If there was anyway to capture the real brillance of a coin with a scanner... I would kill for that, instead of screwing around with a camera and all that lighting crap.
NoEbayAuctionsForNow
<< <i>C'mon, no way that pic above was taken with a scanner. Scanners flatten out the lustre and brillance of a coin. David Lawrence pics are with a scanner.
If there was anyway to capture the real brillance of a coin with a scanner... I would kill for that, instead of screwing around with a camera and all that lighting crap. >>
A scanner will give very consistent highlights on the northern edges of the relief, shadows on the southern edges. There is no cartwheel luster in the coin, it being a proof, but the appearance is nevertheless rather flat and dull. Your mind is tricking you into thinking it looks good because it's a Gobrecht dollar, the appearance of which can survive bludgeoning by a flatbed scanner, much as Mozart can even sound good on a saxophone.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Heritage has a long way to go when it comes to imaging.
Nice photo of that slab. Keep in mind it's a low grade proof, one of the toughest coins to capture eye appeal. Try it sometime.