I've got to hand to them... nice image Heritage!!!

dizzyfoxx · September 10, 2005 7:34AM

I think this is a great image of this coin, certainly good enough to bid. Good job Heritage!

RYK · September 10, 2005 7:40AM

Something must have happenned at Heritage. In the old days (ie. last month), the only picture that you would get would be like the one they show in the slab.

Purple73 · September 10, 2005 7:40AM

WOW! thats the best one I have seen on there!

PURPLE!

Russ · September 10, 2005 7:40AM

Masterful AT job.

Russ, NCNE

RYK · September 10, 2005 7:48AM

Masterful AT job.

It must be. Isn't that what the "star" designation is for? I noticed that Heritage did not place the "star" in the title. Must be a form of absent keyword spamming.

dizzyfoxx · September 10, 2005 8:00AM

<< Masterful AT job.

It must be. Isn't that what the "star" designation is for? I noticed that Heritage did not place the "star" in the title. Must be a form of absent keyword spamming. >>

Are these opinions coming from "blast white" fans who are simply opposed to nice toning?, or???...

WTCG · September 10, 2005 8:01AM

<< Masterful AT job.

Russ, NCNE >>

I disagree. The coin looks nice.

dizzyfoxx · September 10, 2005 8:02AM

<< 

<< Masterful AT job.

Russ, NCNE >>

I disagree. The coin looks nice. >>

Russ · September 10, 2005 8:03AM

<< << Masterful AT job.

Russ, NCNE >>

I disagree. The coin looks nice. >>

If it didn't look nice, it wouldn't be masterful.

Russ, NCNE

coinguy1 · September 10, 2005 8:20AM

Please feel free to laugh at me for even wondering, but could these two sets of images represent the same coin?

The first/top one is from a Bowers sale, April of this year, and I do recall that the coin was far more colorful (on both sides) in person than in the images. It was in a PCGS MS64 holder (obviously under-graded) and brought slightly in excess of $6000 (very close to full MS67 $).

What do you image detectives/analysts think? Should I be committed?

Russ · September 10, 2005 8:24AM

Mark,

I believe you are correct, and that they are the same coin. The two dots in the left reverse field and the cluster behind the head on the obverse clinch it for me.

Russ, NCNE

ER · September 10, 2005 8:25AM

So, we don't have to commit Mark.

TomB · September 10, 2005 8:28AM

That's the same coin, Mark.

pharmer · September 10, 2005 8:49AM

If it went for just over $6000 as a 64, I wonder what the owner's reserve will be, and the hammer? Say $8000 reserve, $9000 hammer? No reserve?

coinguy1 · September 10, 2005 8:54AM

<< I think Heritage is using a little photo shop?? >>

Based upon my recollection of the coin, the Heritage images are far closer to accurate than were the Bowers images I posted. The color is probably somewhat more subtle, but equally gorgeous in person.

It's a relief to know I don't need to be committed (yet).

mozin · September 10, 2005 10:17AM

I still have a problem with Heritage pictures currently. The coin pictures without the holder look far different than the coin pictures that include the holder.

Russ · September 10, 2005 10:23AM

<< The coin pictures without the holder look far different than the coin pictures that include the holder. >>

I think they're still using a scanner for the holder images.

Russ, NCNE

tmot99 · September 10, 2005 10:26AM

<< I still have a problem with Heritage pictures currently. The coin pictures without the holder look far different than the coin pictures that include the holder.

>>

This is exactly what I was thinking. Without seeing the coin, which one is accurate?? With that said, the close up images that heritage posts have always been much better than the pictures of the whole slab.

I've got to hand to them... nice image Heritage!!!

Comments

Leave a Comment