Photoshopped eBay lot?
messydesk
Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭✭
First of all, the grade doesn't match the first-glance appearance. Second, look at the cheek and the area in front of the neck.
Linky
Linky
John
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
0
Comments
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
the coin looks as if it was edited and placed on top of the actual holder.
WLH
This one just does not look right to me...
Not sure
Good strike??? WOW look at the lack of detail on the head of liberty. Now if it has lusterI can see PCGS holdering it, but at 64?............Rick
EBAY Items
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZrlamir
<< <i>That's the nicest 63 I've ever seen...
my thoughts, too!
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>That's the nicest 63 I've ever seen...
Yeah
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>We shall see. I decided to buy it and see if it measures up. I think it looks 65/66 but is it? I'll post some "real" pics and then we'll see .
That would be educational and appreciated. Thanks in advance.
The givaway here, besides an overall odd look to part of the images, is an area of Liberty's cap where the seller was using the blend tool to get rid of a contact mark. The seller accidentally blended a portion of the line between the field and the design, which resulted in a fuzzy spot in the design that would not normally appear on an image.
TD
There is another clue I see...
From the photo posted here, it is imposible to tell.
Upon careful examination of the original hosted photos, I am seeing an awful lot of two specific mathematical patterns in the pixels in question:
R = G = B and R = G = (B - 2) This is a very neutral gray color.
However, I only see that color pattern in the fields and cheek.
In the similarly featureless areas of the slab and backgrounds, I am seeing more typical variations in the least significant bits. The more detailed patches of the coin have typical LSB deviations as well.
The mathematical consistency in the field and cheek would tend to suggest that a software tool was used to alter pixel color values.
But I just don't know for 100% certain. This image also obviously went through some JPEG compression. It seems unlikely to me that the JPEG compression would cause a very consistent color in only the field and cheek.
Assuming the image is altered...at MS63, isn't this a decent deal at that price? (I don't know as I don't collect these) Perhaps the seller was hoping for alot more?
[edit] It's not difficult to do at all, actually it's quite easy and fast. (shameless plug) However, burying your tracks completely after such an edit is quite difficult. But if I really knew what I was doing in Photoshop, I would be able to use what I have found so far to create a fairly interesting derivative image. I'll work on that...
<< <i>I think one of his other auctions looks a little.. strange- The WLH's are weak strikes but...
WLH
This one just does not look right to me...
Not sure >>
If thats a 64, I gotta a bunch of 69's if anyone wants one.
Not to mention it is a 180 degree rotation on that WLH, I'm willing to bet that the coin was photoshopped, then super imposed over the holder. The guy got it wrong when redoing it.
<< <i>I think GoldenEyeNumismatics may be correct here. Besides the edge blur which is visible on both the obverse and reverse in a spot or two...
There is another clue I see...
From the photo posted here, it is imposible to tell.
Upon careful examination of the original hosted photos, I am seeing an awful lot of two specific mathematical patterns in the pixels in question:
R = G = B and R = G = (B - 2) This is a very neutral gray color.
However, I only see that color pattern in the fields and cheek.
In the similarly featureless areas of the slab and backgrounds, I am seeing more typical variations in the least significant bits. The more detailed patches of the coin have typical LSB deviations as well.
The mathematical consistency in the field and cheek would tend to suggest that a software tool was used to alter pixel color values.
But I just don't know for 100% certain. This image also obviously went through some JPEG compression. It seems unlikely to me that the JPEG compression would cause a very consistent color in only the field and cheek.
Assuming the image is altered...at MS63, isn't this a decent deal at that price? (I don't know as I don't collect these) Perhaps the seller was hoping for alot more?
[edit] It's not difficult to do at all, actually it's quite easy and fast. (shameless plug) However, burying your tracks completely after such an edit is quite difficult. But if I really knew what I was doing in Photoshop, I would be able to use what I have found so far to create a fairly interesting derivative image. I'll work on that... >>
What are you babbling about? Too often I think you guys have watched one too many CSI episodes.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think GoldenEyeNumismatics may be correct here. Besides the edge blur which is visible on both the obverse and reverse in a spot or two...
There is another clue I see...
From the photo posted here, it is imposible to tell.
Upon careful examination of the original hosted photos, I am seeing an awful lot of two specific mathematical patterns in the pixels in question:
R = G = B and R = G = (B - 2) This is a very neutral gray color.
However, I only see that color pattern in the fields and cheek.
In the similarly featureless areas of the slab and backgrounds, I am seeing more typical variations in the least significant bits. The more detailed patches of the coin have typical LSB deviations as well.
The mathematical consistency in the field and cheek would tend to suggest that a software tool was used to alter pixel color values.
But I just don't know for 100% certain. This image also obviously went through some JPEG compression. It seems unlikely to me that the JPEG compression would cause a very consistent color in only the field and cheek.
Assuming the image is altered...at MS63, isn't this a decent deal at that price? (I don't know as I don't collect these) Perhaps the seller was hoping for alot more?
[edit] It's not difficult to do at all, actually it's quite easy and fast. (shameless plug) However, burying your tracks completely after such an edit is quite difficult. But if I really knew what I was doing in Photoshop, I would be able to use what I have found so far to create a fairly interesting derivative image. I'll work on that... >>
What are you babbling about? Too often I think you guys have watched one too many CSI episodes. >>
Dude, shut up
I do look forward to seeing your photos, Griv. Wholesale 64 money for a 63 slab with a 6? potential. Good, clean, cheap fun
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
But I shall return.
<< <i>What are you babbling about? Too often I think you guys have watched one too many CSI episodes. >>
CSI, huh? I don't have cable and don't watch that stuff. You are implying that I am full of it like that show. Hmph.
I work very closely with this software. I was using some moderately technical terms; sorry.
Upon more careful analysis, the numeric pattern I was referring to comes from the image compression; I now see it everywhere.
This is the region pointed out earlier. A simple translation of what I said earlier..."it's too darn grey".
Close analysis over the whole image reveal this same pattern throughout the coin, not just in the fields or cheek. So, what I was saying earlier is no proof of modification. It is just proof of image compression.
What originally caught my eye was the pixels in the upper left corner of this box. They look very smoothed. However, JPEG compression does this, but only if you are "unlucky". Yes, there is luck involved with image compression...or rather...unfortunate choices made by the compression algorithm that toss contrasty details and replace it with smooth ramps. To explain why would be far too many fancy words. I do not think you are ready for the Discrete Cosine Transform.
There is a spot or two on the reverse that also looks blurred. But after mutilation by "JPEG compression"? Who knows. Flip a coin. (actually you will know...and regardless of the images, it's a nice coin, i'm sure)
After staring at this image for an hour, it just makes me irritated that folks don't take better pictures. And that folks compress them like this.
It remains odd that the original images "nailed that neutral grey" on the coin. Makes me think some adjustments were involved. Ahhh, paranoia. Most folks can't get the white balance that dead on without help from image editing software.
<< <i>
<< <i>What are you babbling about? Too often I think you guys have watched one too many CSI episodes. >>
CSI, huh? I don't have cable and don't watch that stuff. You are implying that I am full of it like that show. Hmph.
I work very closely with this software. I was using some moderately technical terms; sorry.
Upon more careful analysis, the numeric pattern I was referring to comes from the image compression; I now see it everywhere.
This is the region pointed out earlier. A simple translation of what I said earlier..."it's too darn grey".
Close analysis over the whole image reveal this same pattern throughout the coin, not just in the fields or cheek. So, what I was saying earlier is no proof of modification. It is just proof of image compression.
What originally caught my eye was the pixels in the upper left corner of this box. They look very smoothed. However, JPEG compression does this, but only if you are "unlucky". Yes, there is luck involved with image compression...or rather...unfortunate choices made by the compression algorithm that toss contrasty details and replace it with smooth ramps. To explain why would be far too many fancy words. I do not think you are ready for the Discrete Cosine Transform.
There is a spot or two on the reverse that also looks blurred. But after mutilation by "JPEG compression"? Who knows. Flip a coin. (actually you will know...and regardless of the images, it's a nice coin, i'm sure)
After staring at this image for an hour, it just makes me irritated that folks don't take better pictures. And that folks compress them like this.
It remains odd that the original images "nailed that neutral grey" on the coin. Makes me think some adjustments were involved. Ahhh, paranoia. Most folks can't get the white balance that dead on without help from image editing software. >>
Man I love this kinda talk...............................haven't a clue as to what you may be talking about.........................but I love this kinda talk
Herb
The JPEG compression is low-enough quality that the 8x8 quantization blocks are clearly visible in the fields when the image is enlarged to 4x life size. Within each of these blocks, the R:G:B ratios will be about the same where there is no high-frequency component (sharp edge) to the block. You can see this easily behind the head. Were the compression higher quality, there would be a lower threshold as to what constituted a high frequency that must be kept, and the subtle variations in color within a block would be kept. With low quality, the subtle variations are thrown out as part of the compression, thus the areas that have uniform RGB components.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>
Not to mention it is a 180 degree rotation on that WLH, I'm willing to bet that the coin was photoshopped, then super imposed over the holder. The guy got it wrong when redoing it. >>
There is NO incorrect rotation. Normal coin-turn.
Everyone, just let the-master-Griv have his fun on a juiced coin.
Interesting stuff from some of you. All that technical talk makes me hungry.....why? who knows.
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
<< <i>
<< <i>What are you babbling about? Too often I think you guys have watched one too many CSI episodes. >>
CSI, huh? I don't have cable and don't watch that stuff. You are implying that I am full of it like that show. Hmph.
I work very closely with this software. I was using some moderately technical terms; sorry.
Upon more careful analysis, the numeric pattern I was referring to comes from the image compression; I now see it everywhere.
This is the region pointed out earlier. A simple translation of what I said earlier..."it's too darn grey".
Close analysis over the whole image reveal this same pattern throughout the coin, not just in the fields or cheek. So, what I was saying earlier is no proof of modification. It is just proof of image compression.
What originally caught my eye was the pixels in the upper left corner of this box. They look very smoothed. However, JPEG compression does this, but only if you are "unlucky". Yes, there is luck involved with image compression...or rather...unfortunate choices made by the compression algorithm that toss contrasty details and replace it with smooth ramps. To explain why would be far too many fancy words. I do not think you are ready for the Discrete Cosine Transform.
There is a spot or two on the reverse that also looks blurred. But after mutilation by "JPEG compression"? Who knows. Flip a coin. (actually you will know...and regardless of the images, it's a nice coin, i'm sure)
After staring at this image for an hour, it just makes me irritated that folks don't take better pictures. And that folks compress them like this.
It remains odd that the original images "nailed that neutral grey" on the coin. Makes me think some adjustments were involved. Ahhh, paranoia. Most folks can't get the white balance that dead on without help from image editing software. >>
I see Elvis..........
<< <i>Everyone, just let the-master-Griv have his fun on a juiced coin.
Interesting stuff from some of you. All that technical talk makes me hungry.....why? who knows. >>
Here she is. You tell me.
JPEG compression is an abomination.
But that would be severely undergraded even for the times of the Rattler. There might be something that's not seen in the image that's holding that coin back.
The seller PS'd out the information that was on the label on the back of the slab.
If I only had a dollar for every VAM I have...err...nevermind...I do!!
My "Fun With 21D" Die State Collection - QX5 Pics Attached
-----
Proud Owner of
2 –DAMMIT BOY!!! ® Awards
<< <i>Could the grade be attributed to the numerous tiny die cracks on the obverse and reverse. Look at the top of the outer lettering. >>
Also it might be that the early PCGS graders would consider original planchet tics (which can be seen on Liberty's cheek) into the grade... a practice that is not really done nowadays.
<< <i>Also it might be that the early PCGS graders would consider original planchet tics (which can be seen on Liberty's cheek) into the grade... a practice that is not really done nowadays. >>
Although some would argue they consider the bird crap that may have landed on their cars last weekend into the grade these days.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution