<< <i>Shane, the point is that despite what you have deemed to be juiced images, the buyers of said coins are saying that the coins are "as described" when they get them in-hand. That would indicate that regardless of what you think of the images, that the coins in-hand DO in fact look like the images. What in the world does "as described" mean to you?
So I direct you once again to your previous comment that clearly isn't true: My point is......while the coins may be colorful.......they will not look like the images....that's it....I rest my case your honor.
>>
Let me say one last time.....the coins will not look like the images posted in this thread........some of what he sells...certainly will and if I had any one of the coins posted in this thread in hand I could prove it very easily. I don't so it's easy to state I don't know what I am talking about....fair enough if you want to believe that..........but Anyone who states that the coins you posted look just like that when they received them is either a liar or are clueless and that includes you.....this has to be some type of joke....people can't be this naive in real life can they?
P.S.
I am going to leave my original comment since I said it in the heat of the moment...I don't want this to be about name calling when really its clearly a difference of opinion. I don't feel like wasting my money to purchase one of the coins just to make a point about the imaging so....if your happy with what you buy from Pat.....have fun....
Anyone who states that the coins you posted look just like that when they received them is either a liar or are clueless
Obtuse alert! You've never held any of these coin but you insist that they won't look like the auction pics....despite all evidence to the contrary. Shane, thank the Lord you're here to inform the hundreds that have had thousands of positive transactions with Pat that they are liars and/or clueless. Thank goodness you set them straight!
if I had any one of the coins posted in this thread in hand I could prove it very easily. I don't so it's easy to state I don't know what I am talking about....fair enough if you want to believe that..........
Shane, thank you for at least acknowledging that it's easy to state that you don't know what you're talking about. We finally agree!
If your so confident.....please send me one of your neon coins to image along with the original Ebay pic...I pay shipping and insurace both way's and I'll give you $25 bucks for your trouble?
Put up or shut up...I want to see your glow in the dark coins.....unless you think they would melt the shipping material
also remember I am putting my reputation on the line to educate people about what to look for with regards to photo manipulation....did you think for one second that I didn't expect this type of reaction? I am not here to make friends ....I am here to educate and imaging toned coins is something I have a lot of experience with....can you say the same?
If your so confident.....please send me one of your neon coins to image along with the original Ebay pic...I pay shipping and insurace both way's and I'll give you $25 bucks for your trouble?
Put up or shut up...I want to see your glow in the dark coins.....unless you think they would melt the shipping material
Shane, in addition to being obtuse you also appear to now be dabbling in crack. I think you're an imbecile and I would never send one of my coins to an imbecile. I will trust my eyeballs and the eyeballs of the masses that have had positive dealings with Pat. You still haven't explained what "as described" feedback means to you......oh wait, sorry, I forgot that all of the people that left feedback like that are liars and/or clueless. Sorry.
I know you're now desperate to back up all of your drivel in this thread. But unfortunately, what's done is done.
I am not the imbecile overpaying for Neon coins & Neon holders that don't exist....you probably still believe in the toothfairy don't you? I guess you have the only special NGC and PCGS holders with Purple, Green, Orange, red tints to them.....I have to get me some of those
You just can't help some people.......but hopefully I have shed some light on this subject and quite a few other knowledgable folks have chimed in to agree with me so I guess I will be the king of the imbeciles........I love it
<< <i>I am not the imbecile overpaying for Neon coins & Neon holders that don't exist....you probably still believe in the toothfairy don't you? I guess you have the only special NGC and PCGS holders with Purple, Green, Orange, red tints to them.....I have to get me some of those
You just can't help some people.......but hopefully I have shed some light on this subject and quite a few other knowledgable folks have chimed in to agree with me so I guess I will be the king of the imbeciles........I love it >>
Shane, Just a couple of quick questions, none of which is intended to put into question your sincerity.
First, I about invited you yesterday to bid and win the eBay auction featuring the Washington half in question here (even teasing you that you were not blocked from doing so as you indicated you thought you might be). I was surprised to see you didn't do so. No attempt to bid. No attempt to win the coin, even with the full guarantee in play. Why?
Secondly, Why don't you jump into threads, like THIS ONE with your accusations of "tweeked" or "juiced" photos? You honestly don't believe that photo is purely natural without any juicing, do you? How about the avatars of the members there? On top of not condemning the photo as being doctored, you instead praise the thread/photo by introducing a coin of your own. Why the double standard?
Just a couple of questions I had for you I sincerely hope you don't mind answering.
<< <i>Shane, Just a couple of quick questions, none of which is intended to put into question your sincerity.
First, I about invited you yesterday to bid and win the eBay auction featuring the Washington half in question here (even teasing you that you were not blocked from doing so as you indicated you thought you might be). I was surprised to see you didn't do so. No attempt to bid. No attempt to win the coin, even with the full guarantee in play. Why?
Secondly, <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.tonedcoins.org/forums/view_topic.php?id=3304&forum_id=11" target=blank>Why don't you jump into threads, like THIS ONE</A> with your accusations of "tweeked" or "juiced" photos? You honestly don't believe that photo is purely natural without any juicing, do you? How about the avatars of the members there? On top of not condemning the photo as being doctored, you instead praise the thread/photo by introducing a coin of your own. Why the double standard?
Just a couple of questions I had for you I sincerely hope you don't mind answering. >>
Not going to get into this thread as i have had good experiences with both Pat and Shane,but that particular image looks like a cartoon.Now i am not attacking Brandons images,as i believe he is a great photographer,but that image probably could be done better.JMHO
Great coins are not cheap,and cheap coins are not great!
<< <i>Shane, Just a couple of quick questions, none of which is intended to put into question your sincerity.
First, I about invited you yesterday to bid and win the eBay auction featuring the Washington half in question here (even teasing you that you were not blocked from doing so as you indicated you thought you might be). I was surprised to see you didn't do so. No attempt to bid. No attempt to win the coin, even with the full guarantee in play. Why?
Secondly, <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.tonedcoins.org/forums/view_topic.php?id=3304&forum_id=11" target=blank>Why don't you jump into threads, like THIS ONE</A> with your accusations of "tweeked" or "juiced" photos? You honestly don't believe that photo is purely natural without any juicing, do you? How about the avatars of the members there? On top of not condemning the photo as being doctored, you instead praise the thread/photo by introducing a coin of your own. Why the double standard?
Just a couple of questions I had for you I sincerely hope you don't mind answering. >>
Fair questions Pat.....the coin in question sold for so many many multiple of what it is worth that I did not want to own it at that price....if was purely financial as to why I didn't bid or attempt to win as I try to limit the coins I bid on to ones I want to own or coins that I could potentially profit from which was clearly not in the cards for this particular coin. As for those that post other coins that are scanned....I know how scanning makes a coin look...it does give it a neon appearance becuase of the entense light source scanners employ, without any photo manipulation so if a seller can only Scan an image....I underrstand that it's going to look differrently and I have said so in previos posts....I don't consider that photo manupilation as that what a scanned coin looks like period. As far your image....you and I use digital camera so again I know what an image should look like under different lighting conditions....that's why I popped in to this thread to state that the coin that was being questioned as AT was probably just NT with an enhanced images.
I am happy that you have loyal customers who like the product that you are selling but I think the problem is going to come when they try to sell these coins for what they paid. I am not going to make you responsible for folks gains or losses but I am making an observation based on many years of buying and selling toned coins.
I do have to wonder why those folks lynching Coingame2000, Newmismatist, & Island coins for their images don't have a problem with Neon coins and neon holders that you are selling Pat...but I think we all know the answer as those folks are just not part of the in crowd over here. I will let this issue die now as I tried my best to warn folks and I think I have done that efffectively so those that want to continue to say Pat's coins glow in the dark and are as pictured.......I'll just put my waiters on and move along and you guys can get back to talking about coins that glow in the dark.
gecko109
Please feel free to pay what you want for what ever coins you like......purchases of collectible don't have to make financial sense if you like the coins.......I have been burried in coins many times but it was my money to spend and it's your dollars buying Pat's coins so do what makes you happy.
Thanks Shane, but I had to read your post, slowly, twice truly looking for answers to my two questions, but don't see them. You repeat your mantra of not buying my coins... and on and on, but really don't get to answering my questions.
First, to help clarify, the offer wasn't for you to purchase the coin necessarily for you to add to your collection and keep, but instead to buy the half so you may photo it and then proceed to prove your point at my expense, embarrassment, or whatot The $25. bonus offered plus two-way postage seemed like a fair deal to me. You choose not to do so.
Secondly, whether that one Morgan dollar (the one LINKED above from the other website...) was scanned or digitally photographed shouldn't matter too much, should it as to whether the representation of it is true to life? Do you believe that is really how the coin looks, in hand? That image hasn't been manipulated/enhanced at all? Really? I know you're here to education many of us as your knowledge is vast and runs deep, so please, if you are willing, answer those two issues.
It would be interesting to crack it out and to resubmit it to PCGS.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
OK guys,you both love toned coins.For the record,i have bought coins from Shane and Pat.Also from Coingame 2000,Islandcoins,Anaconda,and as far as i know,the only crowd i am in is my own.Some images are better than others,and NOBODY can portray the actual in hand look.JMHTonedCoinO.I am gone from this thread.
Great coins are not cheap,and cheap coins are not great!
I will let this issue die now as I tried my best to warn folks and I think I have done that efffectively so those that want to continue to say Pat's coins glow in the dark and are as pictured.......
Shane, in a strange way your insane level of obtuseness about this is kind of winning me over.
"What?, no proof, no facts, instead just wild conjecture and a big heaping of stubbornness and misplaced righteousness?...no worries!...it doesn't matter!....what's that?...hundreds of satisfied customers?.....lots of "as described" feedback and I couldn't be happier feedback regarding these neon coins.....hey, what the hell do those people know about it?!....I know what's what!"
That space between your ears is certainly a delusional but happy place. Honestly, if it wouldn't require such a big drop in brain power, I'd totally live there, too!
<< <i>It would be interesting to crack it out and to resubmit it to PCGS. >>
You're not thinking it could go MS67 next time, are you? >>
No, I'm thinking Body Bag for questionable toning.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I admit I am still in the learning phase of this hobby, but I have purchased from Braddick in the past and never had a problem with any coin. I do however, prefer when the seller displays photos of the coin both slabbed and unslabbed. I can then assume PCGS deemed the coin market acceptable. There is a board member here, Pharmer I beleive, that displays his coins both unslabbed and slabbed.
<< <i>It would be interesting to crack it out and to resubmit it to PCGS. >>
You're not thinking it could go MS67 next time, are you? >>
No, I'm thinking Body Bag for questionable toning. >>
(((Yeah... I really got that the first time...))) >>
I know you did but I just felt like messing with you.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Thanks Shane, but I had to read your post, slowly, twice truly looking for answers to my two questions, but don't see them. You repeat your mantra of not buying my coins... and on and on, but really don't get to answering my questions.
First, to help clarify, the offer wasn't for you to purchase the coin necessarily for you to add to your collection and keep, but instead to buy the half so you may photo it and then proceed to prove your point at my expense, embarrassment, or whatot The $25. bonus offered plus two-way postage seemed like a fair deal to me. You choose not to do so.
Secondly, whether that one Morgan dollar (the one LINKED above from the other website...) was scanned or digitally photographed shouldn't matter too much, should it as to whether the representation of it is true to life? Do you believe that is really how the coin looks, in hand? That image hasn't been manipulated/enhanced at all? Really? I know you're here to education many of us as your knowledge is vast and runs deep, so please, if you are willing, answer those two issues. >>
I chose not too purchase the coin as I stated....for financial reasons becasue the coin is not worth half of what it sold for....I don't want to make a market for coins with enhanced images if I can avoid it so passing on the coin was logical. I don't believe for a second if I stood there with a camera taking photo's over your shoulder that contradicted the images you were producing that it would make a bit of difference to certain board members...do you? I also think I could hunt down images of some of the coins you sold and then find alternate images of these coins that look quite different but again...that would be time and energy spent on my part that could be and would be easily dismissed. I have accomplished what I can in this thread which is attempt to educate....if folks don't want to listen....end of story.
As for the image manipulation question...I clearly indicated that I believe that Morgan image color/look is due to the scanning process.....not photo manipulation like is clearly evident in all of your sold coins shown or linked to in this thread.
Can you now please explain to everyone how the wood background turned red in certain pictures but were brown with others? Also a few others questioned the color of slabs in your images and I see no answers to those questions either?
Since your so fond of posting links to some how avert the attetion from you enhanced photos......Here is a link to another of your auctions with the same color changing wood and if this doesn't prove phot manipulation then what more can I do...the wood grain matches so it's the same section of wood but one is bring red and one image shows it brown ....interesting....
As for you Seatleslammer I said I would refrain from name calling and I will...........your purchases you spoke of would indicate to me that you are in this hobby for collecting enjoyment as opposed to value motives and I will leave it at that...good luck!
<< <i>Thanks Shane, but I had to read your post, slowly, twice truly looking for answers to my two questions, but don't see them. You repeat your mantra of not buying my coins... and on and on, but really don't get to answering my questions.
First, to help clarify, the offer wasn't for you to purchase the coin necessarily for you to add to your collection and keep, but instead to buy the half so you may photo it and then proceed to prove your point at my expense, embarrassment, or whatot The $25. bonus offered plus two-way postage seemed like a fair deal to me. You choose not to do so.
Secondly, whether that one Morgan dollar (the one LINKED above from the other website...) was scanned or digitally photographed shouldn't matter too much, should it as to whether the representation of it is true to life? Do you believe that is really how the coin looks, in hand? That image hasn't been manipulated/enhanced at all? Really? I know you're here to education many of us as your knowledge is vast and runs deep, so please, if you are willing, answer those two issues. >>
I chose not too purchase the coin as I stated....for financial reasons becasue the coin is not worth half of what it sold for....I don't want to make a market for coins with enhanced images if I can avoid it so passing on the coin was logical. I don't believe for a second if I stood there with a camera taking photo's over your shoulder that contradicted the images you were producing that it would make a bit of difference to certain board members...do you? I also think I could hunt down images of some of the coins you sold and then find alternate images of these coins that look quite different but again...that would be time and energy spent on my part that could be and would be easily dismissed. I have accomplished what I can in this thread which is attempt to educate....if folks don't want to listen....end of story.
As for the image manipulation question...I clearly indicated that I believe that Morgan image color/look is due to the scanning process.....not photo manipulation like is clearly evident in all of your sold coins shown or linked to in this thread.
Can you now please explain to everyone how the wood background turned red in certain pictures but were brown with others? Also a few others questioned the color of slabs in your images and I see no answers to those questions either?
Since your so fond of posting links to some how avert the attetion from you enhanced photos......Here is a link to another of your auctions with the same color changing wood and if this doesn't prove phot manipulation then what more can I do...the wood grain matches so it's the same section of wood but one is bring red and one image shows it brown ....interesting....
As for you Seatleslammer I said I would refrain from name calling and I will...........your purchases you spoke of would indicate to me that you are in this hobby for collecting enjoyment as opposed to value motives and I will leave it at that...good luck! >>
You dont believe that the coin in question is worth $70? Maybe you should PM me with a list of some of your nice toners and your private sale asking prices. I have a soft spot, and deep pockets for pieces like this washie commem. And yes, Shane, im very serious. Shoot me a PM with pics/prices, and i'll reply by Sunday afternoon.
I didn't mean for this thread to become contentious over the sellers. I was just wondering if the toning was real or not, as I have never seen a Washington Half tone like that before.
<< <i>I didn't mean for this thread to become contentious over the sellers. I was just wondering if the toning was real or not, as I have never seen a Washington Half tone like that before. >>
Yes and I apologize to you for taking it down this path...I should have started my own thread if I wanted to educate folks. I believe the coin is NT
Shane, As I stated above, there is photo manipulation involved. I never stated there wasn't. In fact, yesterday, April 9th at 1:26 I wrote this post right here on this thread:
"First, Of course images are manipulated to a degree. It's to get the coin to look closer to what it is in hand. For example, lighting is adjusted and moved (or, even changed) depending on the color of the coin being photographed. Images are processed and, to a degree, altered' Again, you can check this thread for that statement coming directly from me. Did you miss it the first time?
I, along with other sellers, many of whom I've referenced in this thread- and those you continue to choose to ignore- do so. It is to bring the look of the coin closer to what it is, in hand. To present it in it's best light, so to speak. Some of it is simply repositioning of the lighting as there is a coin placement difference between the obverse and the reverse of the slab. In other words the lighting is placed then directly over the coin vs a bit to the side) but certainly, as stated, it is photo enhancement (for a lack of a better term) that is also involved.
Shane, please be a bit more specific with me... Are you truly stating this coin is not photo enhanced (whether it is a scanner, as you stated, or a digital photo?
What is your agenda again?
How about this one:
I referenced the Indian cent yesterday, but you choose to ignore my question as to the validity of the photo? Why?
By the way, to avoid any confusion for everyone else reading this, I have no problem personally with the above two coins. I think they probably look pretty decent and the photos, as enhanced as I believe them to be, represents them well. But, as Shane has stated, he's here to educate us. why then Shane are you passing over the opportunity of giving us your real opinion of whether the above Morgan dollar and the Indian cent are also enhanced (without rhetoric of how it is the "scanner..." ). Are these coin photos tweeked, juiced, amped up, or not? If if you don't believe they are, our discussion must then end as we will never agree on any point and further debate is futile.
Under your new definition of enhancement....making the coin look like it does in hand....they are most likely enhanced. I do disagree with you about your post yesterday.....saying an image is enhanced to make the coin look like it does in hand is not we are talking about....I even mentioned that I have to do some modification to work around slab glare myself but my images don't make the coins glow in the dark....and I have sold plenty of neon monsters over the past few months on Ebay.
What I don't understand is your trying to redirct the issue to these other coins?.....it has always about you personally manipulating coin images to as you put it make the coins look like they do in hand and with that we will disagree becuase the coin images posted in this thread look nuclear....included the morgan and IHC. I stated once and I will state it again....you get two completely different looks from photos taken from a camera as you due from a scanned image period. I could scan a rainbow toned coin and not make any adjustments to the final product and it would have that neon glow...that does not happen when I image coins from my camera....I would have to make adjustments to the contrast to make them truly glow. I keep answering all of your questions and now you stated you answered mine but you didn't....you tried to answer PC by saying you altered or tweaked the image to make them look like they due in hand. Do you still stand by that statement? If you do then yes we have nothing more to say as that is a crock and you know it....now please refer back to the other coins once more to redirect the light as it were from your tweaking techniques.
Again...great job of redirecting.......why don't you just come out and say what you mean....everyone's doing it so it's ok that I do it too? You are sending that message loud and clear here...
" I could scan a rainbow toned coin and not make any adjustments to the final product and it would have that neon glow."
All done, on a scanner, without any manipulation?
Yet so many, if not hundreds of others who have used scanners in the past cannot get those wild colors. I still see scanned coin photos used on eBay and have never seen coins look like that.
I just refreshed this thread for the last time tonight. To be honest, it's bumming me out and getting tiresome. Shane, you have a love and a knowledge for toned coins and methods used to market them. Probably better than most, and I mean that as a compliment.
I'll defer to you now and give you the last word, should you choose to take it.
Ok, the coin arrived today, and I have it in hand. Firstly, and most importantly, I am very happy with the coin. However, in fairness, and to be truthful to this thread, the coin does not look like the picture from a straight on angle. It DOES have the green tint, and red color band, and DOES look like photo when tilted at about a 30 degree angle though. I would guess that Shane's major contention, that the color will not appear "neon", is both correct and incorrect. The fantastic luster underneath the relatively light, but colorful toning, does in fact produce somewhat of a glowing effect of the red color. In this regards, I could agree that its accurately described as neon. But as Shane suggests, and as I had already suspected, the coin does not glow in the dark. So now the argument really becomes one of semantics. Interestingly, the reverse photo that Pat provides in his listing is just about 100% true to form with the coin in hand. I would therefore have to believe that the obverse photo has somehow been manipulated to accentuate the coin's beautiful colors. However, IMO, this manipulation was not done with the purpose of deceiving, but rather to give fair representation of the coin's look. Would I prefer a series of photos that showed 100% true likeness of a toned coin from a straight on view, as well as from tilted views? Most certainley. Am I in any way upset, or do I feel "taken" with Pat's very moderate photo manipulation? Well, I had the chance at a free $25, and lets just say that positive feedback has already been left for Pat.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
Nothing wrong with that.....hey camaroSS, I have 3 bank accounts....does that make me "suspect" in some way also? >>
You are one of the most negative posters on this forum. Just wanted you to know that in case you are a bit obtuse.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Nothing wrong with that.....hey camaroSS, I have 3 bank accounts....does that make me "suspect" in some way also? >>
You are one of the most negative posters on this forum. Just wanted you to know that in case you are a bit obtuse. >>
Thank You Dr. Phil
.
<< <i>Shane, the point is that despite what you have deemed to be juiced images, the buyers of said coins are saying that the coins are "as described" when they get them in-hand. That would indicate that regardless of what you think of the images, that the coins in-hand DO in fact look like the images. What in the world does "as described" mean to you?
So I direct you once again to your previous comment that clearly isn't true:
My point is......while the coins may be colorful.......they will not look like the images....that's it....I rest my case your honor.
Let me say one last time.....the coins will not look like the images posted in this thread........some of what he sells...certainly will and if I had any one of the coins posted in this thread in hand I could prove it very easily. I don't so it's easy to state I don't know what I am talking about....fair enough if you want to believe that..........but Anyone who states that the coins you posted look just like that when they received them is either a liar or are clueless and that includes you.....this has to be some type of joke....people can't be this naive in real life can they?
P.S.
I am going to leave my original comment since I said it in the heat of the moment...I don't want this to be about name calling when really its clearly a difference of opinion. I don't feel like wasting my money to purchase one of the coins just to make a point about the imaging so....if your happy with what you buy from Pat.....have fun....
Obtuse alert! You've never held any of these coin but you insist that they won't look like the auction pics....despite all evidence to the contrary. Shane, thank the Lord you're here to inform the hundreds that have had thousands of positive transactions with Pat that they are liars and/or clueless. Thank goodness you set them straight!
if I had any one of the coins posted in this thread in hand I could prove it very easily. I don't so it's easy to state I don't know what I am talking about....fair enough if you want to believe that..........
Shane, thank you for at least acknowledging that it's easy to state that you don't know what you're talking about. We finally agree!
Put up or shut up...I want to see your glow in the dark coins.....unless you think they would melt the shipping material
also remember I am putting my reputation on the line to educate people about what to look for with regards to photo manipulation....did you think for one second that I didn't expect this type of reaction? I am not here to make friends ....I am here to educate and imaging toned coins is something I have a lot of experience with....can you say the same?
Put up or shut up...I want to see your glow in the dark coins.....unless you think they would melt the shipping material
Shane, in addition to being obtuse you also appear to now be dabbling in crack. I think you're an imbecile and I would never send one of my coins to an imbecile. I will trust my eyeballs and the eyeballs of the masses that have had positive dealings with Pat. You still haven't explained what "as described" feedback means to you......oh wait, sorry, I forgot that all of the people that left feedback like that are liars and/or clueless. Sorry.
I know you're now desperate to back up all of your drivel in this thread. But unfortunately, what's done is done.
You just can't help some people.......but hopefully I have shed some light on this subject and quite a few other knowledgable folks have chimed in to agree with me so I guess I will be the king of the imbeciles........I love it
<< <i>I am not the imbecile overpaying for Neon coins & Neon holders that don't exist....you probably still believe in the toothfairy don't you? I guess you have the only special NGC and PCGS holders with Purple, Green, Orange, red tints to them.....I have to get me some of those
You just can't help some people.......but hopefully I have shed some light on this subject and quite a few other knowledgable folks have chimed in to agree with me so I guess I will be the king of the imbeciles........I love it
Did he just call me an imbecile that overpaid?
First, I about invited you yesterday to bid and win the eBay auction featuring the Washington half in question here (even teasing you that you were not blocked from doing so as you indicated you thought you might be). I was surprised to see you didn't do so. No attempt to bid. No attempt to win the coin, even with the full guarantee in play. Why?
Secondly, Why don't you jump into threads, like THIS ONE with your accusations of "tweeked" or "juiced" photos? You honestly don't believe that photo is purely natural without any juicing, do you? How about the avatars of the members there? On top of not condemning the photo as being doctored, you instead praise the thread/photo by introducing a coin of your own. Why the double standard?
Just a couple of questions I had for you I sincerely hope you don't mind answering.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>Shane, Just a couple of quick questions, none of which is intended to put into question your sincerity.
First, I about invited you yesterday to bid and win the eBay auction featuring the Washington half in question here (even teasing you that you were not blocked from doing so as you indicated you thought you might be). I was surprised to see you didn't do so. No attempt to bid. No attempt to win the coin, even with the full guarantee in play. Why?
Secondly, <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.tonedcoins.org/forums/view_topic.php?id=3304&forum_id=11" target=blank>Why don't you jump into threads, like THIS ONE</A> with your accusations of "tweeked" or "juiced" photos? You honestly don't believe that photo is purely natural without any juicing, do you? How about the avatars of the members there? On top of not condemning the photo as being doctored, you instead praise the thread/photo by introducing a coin of your own. Why the double standard?
Just a couple of questions I had for you I sincerely hope you don't mind answering. >>
Not going to get into this thread as i have had good experiences with both Pat and Shane,but that particular image looks like a cartoon.Now i am not attacking Brandons images,as i believe he is a great photographer,but that image probably could be done better.JMHO
<< <i>Shane, Just a couple of quick questions, none of which is intended to put into question your sincerity.
First, I about invited you yesterday to bid and win the eBay auction featuring the Washington half in question here (even teasing you that you were not blocked from doing so as you indicated you thought you might be). I was surprised to see you didn't do so. No attempt to bid. No attempt to win the coin, even with the full guarantee in play. Why?
Secondly, <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.tonedcoins.org/forums/view_topic.php?id=3304&forum_id=11" target=blank>Why don't you jump into threads, like THIS ONE</A> with your accusations of "tweeked" or "juiced" photos? You honestly don't believe that photo is purely natural without any juicing, do you? How about the avatars of the members there? On top of not condemning the photo as being doctored, you instead praise the thread/photo by introducing a coin of your own. Why the double standard?
Just a couple of questions I had for you I sincerely hope you don't mind answering. >>
Fair questions Pat.....the coin in question sold for so many many multiple of what it is worth that I did not want to own it at that price....if was purely financial as to why I didn't bid or attempt to win as I try to limit the coins I bid on to ones I want to own or coins that I could potentially profit from which was clearly not in the cards for this particular coin. As for those that post other coins that are scanned....I know how scanning makes a coin look...it does give it a neon appearance becuase of the entense light source scanners employ, without any photo manipulation so if a seller can only Scan an image....I underrstand that it's going to look differrently and I have said so in previos posts....I don't consider that photo manupilation as that what a scanned coin looks like period. As far your image....you and I use digital camera so again I know what an image should look like under different lighting conditions....that's why I popped in to this thread to state that the coin that was being questioned as AT was probably just NT with an enhanced images.
I am happy that you have loyal customers who like the product that you are selling but I think the problem is going to come when they try to sell these coins for what they paid. I am not going to make you responsible for folks gains or losses but I am making an observation based on many years of buying and selling toned coins.
I do have to wonder why those folks lynching Coingame2000, Newmismatist, & Island coins for their images don't have a problem with Neon coins and neon holders that you are selling Pat...but I think we all know the answer as those folks are just not part of the in crowd over here. I will let this issue die now as I tried my best to warn folks and I think I have done that efffectively so those that want to continue to say Pat's coins glow in the dark and are as pictured.......I'll just put my waiters on and move along and you guys can get back to talking about coins that glow in the dark.
gecko109
Please feel free to pay what you want for what ever coins you like......purchases of collectible don't have to make financial sense if you like the coins.......I have been burried in coins many times but it was my money to spend and it's your dollars buying Pat's coins so do what makes you happy.
First, to help clarify, the offer wasn't for you to purchase the coin necessarily for you to add to your collection and keep, but instead to buy the half so you may photo it and then proceed to prove your point at my expense, embarrassment, or whatot The $25. bonus offered plus two-way postage seemed like a fair deal to me. You choose not to do so.
Secondly, whether that one Morgan dollar (the one LINKED above from the other website...) was scanned or digitally photographed shouldn't matter too much, should it as to whether the representation of it is true to life? Do you believe that is really how the coin looks, in hand? That image hasn't been manipulated/enhanced at all? Really? I know you're here to education many of us as your knowledge is vast and runs deep, so please, if you are willing, answer those two issues.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>It would be interesting to crack it out and to resubmit it to PCGS.
You're not thinking it could go MS67 next time, are you?
Shane, in a strange way your insane level of obtuseness about this is kind of winning me over.
"What?, no proof, no facts, instead just wild conjecture and a big heaping of stubbornness and misplaced righteousness?...no worries!...it doesn't matter!....what's that?...hundreds of satisfied customers?.....lots of "as described" feedback and I couldn't be happier feedback regarding these neon coins.....hey, what the hell do those people know about it?!....I know what's what!"
That space between your ears is certainly a delusional but happy place. Honestly, if it wouldn't require such a big drop in brain power, I'd totally live there, too!
<< <i>
<< <i>It would be interesting to crack it out and to resubmit it to PCGS.
You're not thinking it could go MS67 next time, are you?
No, I'm thinking Body Bag for questionable toning.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It would be interesting to crack it out and to resubmit it to PCGS.
You're not thinking it could go MS67 next time, are you?
No, I'm thinking Body Bag for questionable toning. >>
(((Yeah... I really got that the first time...)))
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It would be interesting to crack it out and to resubmit it to PCGS.
You're not thinking it could go MS67 next time, are you?
No, I'm thinking Body Bag for questionable toning. >>
(((Yeah... I really got that the first time...)))
I know you did but I just felt like messing with you.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Thanks Shane, but I had to read your post, slowly, twice truly looking for answers to my two questions, but don't see them. You repeat your mantra of not buying my coins... and on and on, but really don't get to answering my questions.
First, to help clarify, the offer wasn't for you to purchase the coin necessarily for you to add to your collection and keep, but instead to buy the half so you may photo it and then proceed to prove your point at my expense, embarrassment, or whatot The $25. bonus offered plus two-way postage seemed like a fair deal to me. You choose not to do so.
Secondly, whether that one Morgan dollar (the one LINKED above from the other website...) was scanned or digitally photographed shouldn't matter too much, should it as to whether the representation of it is true to life? Do you believe that is really how the coin looks, in hand? That image hasn't been manipulated/enhanced at all? Really? I know you're here to education many of us as your knowledge is vast and runs deep, so please, if you are willing, answer those two issues. >>
I chose not too purchase the coin as I stated....for financial reasons becasue the coin is not worth half of what it sold for....I don't want to make a market for coins with enhanced images if I can avoid it so passing on the coin was logical. I don't believe for a second if I stood there with a camera taking photo's over your shoulder that contradicted the images you were producing that it would make a bit of difference to certain board members...do you? I also think I could hunt down images of some of the coins you sold and then find alternate images of these coins that look quite different but again...that would be time and energy spent on my part that could be and would be easily dismissed. I have accomplished what I can in this thread which is attempt to educate....if folks don't want to listen....end of story.
As for the image manipulation question...I clearly indicated that I believe that Morgan image color/look is due to the scanning process.....not photo manipulation like is clearly evident in all of your sold coins shown or linked to in this thread.
Can you now please explain to everyone how the wood background turned red in certain pictures but were brown with others? Also a few others questioned the color of slabs in your images and I see no answers to those questions either?
Since your so fond of posting links to some how avert the attetion from you enhanced photos......Here is a link to another of your auctions with the same color changing wood and if this doesn't prove phot manipulation then what more can I do...the wood grain matches so it's the same section of wood but one is bring red and one image shows it brown ....interesting....
Speckled Green and Maroon Toned PCGS MS64 1922-D Peace
As for you Seatleslammer I said I would refrain from name calling and I will...........your purchases you spoke of would indicate to me that you are in this hobby for collecting enjoyment as opposed to value motives and I will leave it at that...good luck!
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks Shane, but I had to read your post, slowly, twice truly looking for answers to my two questions, but don't see them. You repeat your mantra of not buying my coins... and on and on, but really don't get to answering my questions.
First, to help clarify, the offer wasn't for you to purchase the coin necessarily for you to add to your collection and keep, but instead to buy the half so you may photo it and then proceed to prove your point at my expense, embarrassment, or whatot The $25. bonus offered plus two-way postage seemed like a fair deal to me. You choose not to do so.
Secondly, whether that one Morgan dollar (the one LINKED above from the other website...) was scanned or digitally photographed shouldn't matter too much, should it as to whether the representation of it is true to life? Do you believe that is really how the coin looks, in hand? That image hasn't been manipulated/enhanced at all? Really? I know you're here to education many of us as your knowledge is vast and runs deep, so please, if you are willing, answer those two issues. >>
I chose not too purchase the coin as I stated....for financial reasons becasue the coin is not worth half of what it sold for....I don't want to make a market for coins with enhanced images if I can avoid it so passing on the coin was logical. I don't believe for a second if I stood there with a camera taking photo's over your shoulder that contradicted the images you were producing that it would make a bit of difference to certain board members...do you? I also think I could hunt down images of some of the coins you sold and then find alternate images of these coins that look quite different but again...that would be time and energy spent on my part that could be and would be easily dismissed. I have accomplished what I can in this thread which is attempt to educate....if folks don't want to listen....end of story.
As for the image manipulation question...I clearly indicated that I believe that Morgan image color/look is due to the scanning process.....not photo manipulation like is clearly evident in all of your sold coins shown or linked to in this thread.
Can you now please explain to everyone how the wood background turned red in certain pictures but were brown with others? Also a few others questioned the color of slabs in your images and I see no answers to those questions either?
Since your so fond of posting links to some how avert the attetion from you enhanced photos......Here is a link to another of your auctions with the same color changing wood and if this doesn't prove phot manipulation then what more can I do...the wood grain matches so it's the same section of wood but one is bring red and one image shows it brown ....interesting....
Speckled Green and Maroon Toned PCGS MS64 1922-D Peace
As for you Seatleslammer I said I would refrain from name calling and I will...........your purchases you spoke of would indicate to me that you are in this hobby for collecting enjoyment as opposed to value motives and I will leave it at that...good luck! >>
You dont believe that the coin in question is worth $70? Maybe you should PM me with a list of some of your nice toners and your private sale asking prices. I have a soft spot, and deep pockets for pieces like this washie commem. And yes, Shane, im very serious. Shoot me a PM with pics/prices, and i'll reply by Sunday afternoon.
Like I said...to me it's not to you it is....and neither of us is wrong....we just like different things.
By the way the coin sold for $144 so where did the $70 come into it?
Modern Silver Commemorative, MS PCGS No Description Desig 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
9600 1982-D 50C Washington...............................................................9 11 13 15 25 70 600
PCGS price guide says it's worth $15 but what do they know right
Senior Numismatist
Legend Rare Coin Auctions
<< <i>I didn't mean for this thread to become contentious over the sellers. I was just wondering if the toning was real or not, as I have never seen a Washington Half tone like that before. >>
Yes and I apologize to you for taking it down this path...I should have started my own thread if I wanted to educate folks. I believe the coin is NT
As I stated above, there is photo manipulation involved. I never stated there wasn't. In fact, yesterday, April 9th at 1:26 I wrote this post right here on this thread:
"First, Of course images are manipulated to a degree. It's to get the coin to look closer to what it is in hand. For example, lighting is adjusted and moved (or, even changed) depending on the color of the coin being photographed. Images are processed and, to a degree, altered'
Again, you can check this thread for that statement coming directly from me. Did you miss it the first time?
I, along with other sellers, many of whom I've referenced in this thread- and those you continue to choose to ignore- do so. It is to bring the look of the coin closer to what it is, in hand. To present it in it's best light, so to speak.
Some of it is simply repositioning of the lighting as there is a coin placement difference between the obverse and the reverse of the slab. In other words the lighting is placed then directly over the coin vs a bit to the side) but certainly, as stated, it is photo enhancement (for a lack of a better term) that is also involved.
Shane, please be a bit more specific with me...
Are you truly stating this coin is not photo enhanced (whether it is a scanner, as you stated, or a digital photo?
What is your agenda again?
How about this one:
I referenced the Indian cent yesterday, but you choose to ignore my question as to the validity of the photo? Why?
By the way, to avoid any confusion for everyone else reading this, I have no problem personally with the above two coins. I think they probably look pretty decent and the photos, as enhanced as I believe them to be, represents them well.
But, as Shane has stated, he's here to educate us. why then Shane are you passing over the opportunity of giving us your real opinion of whether the above Morgan dollar and the Indian cent are also enhanced (without rhetoric of how it is the "scanner..." ). Are these coin photos tweeked, juiced, amped up, or not? If if you don't believe they are, our discussion must then end as we will never agree on any point and further debate is futile.
Any of them also PHOTO ENHANCED?
What I don't understand is your trying to redirct the issue to these other coins?.....it has always about you personally manipulating coin images to as you put it make the coins look like they do in hand and with that we will disagree becuase the coin images posted in this thread look nuclear....included the morgan and IHC. I stated once and I will state it again....you get two completely different looks from photos taken from a camera as you due from a scanned image period. I could scan a rainbow toned coin and not make any adjustments to the final product and it would have that neon glow...that does not happen when I image coins from my camera....I would have to make adjustments to the contrast to make them truly glow. I keep answering all of your questions and now you stated you answered mine but you didn't....you tried to answer PC by saying you altered or tweaked the image to make them look like they due in hand. Do you still stand by that statement? If you do then yes we have nothing more to say as that is a crock and you know it....now please refer back to the other coins once more to redirect the light as it were from your tweaking techniques.
<< <i>Shane, if I could trouble you to also look at these coins.
Any of them also <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=580564&highlight_key=y&keyword1=icon" target=blank>PHOTO ENHANCED?</A> >>
Does he use a scanner or a camera?
Again...great job of redirecting.......why don't you just come out and say what you mean....everyone's doing it so it's ok that I do it too? You are sending that message loud and clear here...
All done, on a scanner, without any manipulation?
Yet so many, if not hundreds of others who have used scanners in the past cannot get those wild colors. I still see scanned coin photos used on eBay and have never seen coins look like that.
Your intellectual honesty is lacking.
Shane, you have a love and a knowledge for toned coins and methods used to market them. Probably better than most, and I mean that as a compliment.
I'll defer to you now and give you the last word, should you choose to take it.
Goodnight.
Oh well.
Thanks for the update.