coinsandmedals

Yes, it is a fixed focus system, which made me very skeptical. However, after shooting nearly 3,000 images in all sizes at NARA, I find very little difference between this device and my normal DSLR quality. The greatest difference is in shooting small items such as note paper and post cards. A DLSR can get closer and focus so that the original nearly fills the frame. This equipment cannot do that, so small documents are not as sharp as with a camera. (I presume the mfgr is using a modified sub-hyperfocal point so that the sharpest range is about 30 to 50cm, rather than the usual 50cm to infinity.) It does not have  a red centering line or scan bar -- that's on the laptop screen.
Here's a somewhat dated-looking illustration. It looks a lot like a bunch of other similar products. (It does not emit blue light.) Frankly, it's the best of about a dozen I've personally tested, and one of only three that made it to real-world tests on my own time. My only connection is that it seems to work OK.

 
 

For those interested, the test equipment will scan pages, either flat or bound in volumes up to 3-inches (75 mm) thick. It will adjust page geometry and correct for book-page curvature, adjust exposure and color balance, automatically crop and rotate images, and split 2-up images into two facing pages (like the above sample). It will also remove fingers holding down page margins, but this is not entirely consistent - and likely due to user unfamiliarity. Output data is ready for export, minor editing and distribution as JPEG or PDF. High-quality PDF files are about 2 gig in size for 24-bit color; grayscale would be proportionally smaller files, as would reduced-size PDF.
The "2 kg" weight mentioned above is correct. This includes base, mast and camera/scanner arm and even the weight of the black flexible base mat. It fits into a box about 4x4x20-inches when folded for travel. It has 4 built-in LED lights with adjustable intensity. (These are directly over the documents and will cause reflections off originals with glossy pages or packaged in plastic sleeves.) The ability to cover a full A2-size area simply by raising the mast is a great advantage. This allowed me to scan facing pages of large manuscript journals, which immediately cut imaging time by half.

The following documents from NARA, College Park, Md. have been uploaded to NNP and are available for free access. These are the product of an experimental A2-size scanner that weighs less than 2kg. There are a few obvious glitches, but everything is readable. Actual images are much sharper than posted samples. Shadow was caused by overhead lights ---
RG104 Entry 235 Letters Sent by HQ. Volume 41, 42, 43, and 44. These cover December 31, 1885 through December 22, 1886, and include recipient index for each volume. Sample facing pages from bound volume ---

RG104 Entry 229 Letters Received by HQ. Boxes 125, 126 and 127 (partial). These are all October/November 1900. Sample single page report ---

Users can also check for related documents in Entry 1 General Correspondence.

As if there were not enough anecdotal evidence from your original thread to make it clear that you have zero idea of what you are doing, this comment makes that fact undeniably clear. So you submitted an NGC graded coin to PCGS as a crossover, and now you are upset because they crossed the coin at the same grade (i.e., PCGS cracked it out of the NGC holder and placed it in a PCGS holder with the same numeric grade)? If so, this is your fault for failing to understand the seemingly fool-proof procedure for PCGS crossover submissions. All submitters have the option of requesting a minimum grade for crossover. In other words, you have the option to request that the coin remain in its holder unless it can be crossed at your specified grade, which can be higher or lower than the assigned grade on the original holder. So for your example, you could have specified that your NGC MS-63 not cross at any grade less than what you thought the appropriate grade was (i.e., MS-65). In this case, PCGS did not think your coin was worthy of anything other than MS-63. Had you correctly filled out the form, then the coin would have been returned in its original NGC MS-63 holder. Your comment makes it clear that you never understood the crossover process. It is abundantly clear to those of us well versed in submitting coins to TPGs that the problem started and ended with you. 

This post deserves an honorable mention and is worth repeating!  

"Not as long as I have anything to say about it... DOCTOR!"    

Controversial is a polite way of putting it. Although I no longer pursue EAC, I still store most of my copper pieces in these little cotton pouches. I took a picture with my phone to illustrate this point for anyone who is curious.

@Quintus Arrius That is very kind of you to say. I recently discovered one of your beloved roosters (1911) in a PCGS MS-67 holder, but it appears you already have an example in the same plastic. 

@coinsandmedals:
I was new at the time I became a member but I always enjoyed reading your accounts and the obvious affection you had for your coins and the hobby.
Great hearing from you!

Controversial is a polite way of putting it. Although I no longer pursue EAC, I still store most of my copper pieces in these little cotton pouches. I took a picture with my phone to illustrate this point for anyone who is curious.

Controversial is a polite way of putting it. Although I no longer pursue EAC, I still store most of my copper pieces in these little cotton pouches. I took a picture with my phone to illustrate this point for anyone who is curious.

Controversial is a polite way of putting it. Although I no longer pursue EAC, I still store most of my copper pieces in these little cotton pouches. I took a picture with my phone to illustrate this point for anyone who is curious.

@Zebo:
Hmm, and I always thought @coinsandmedals was male.  Interesting!

So many books, so little time.
 I’m in the middle of reading Roger’s book, From Mine to Mint, and came across an interesting book that follows somewhat the same topic. Just in case someone is interested. Not as an alternative to Roger’s book, it is excellent, but as an addition to it, from across the pond.
Matthew Boulton (1728-1809) was a globally important industrialist who introduced innovative minting practices at his Soho Mint. This book describes the processes involved, from mining the copper to the delivery of products to the customer.
There was a shortage of small change towards the end of the 18th century, and Boulton strove to solve this problem, eventually obtaining customers all over Britain, including the British Government. He also made coins for the East India Company, and for Europe, Africa, the West Indies and America.
Included is Boulton’s role in the copper industry, and how he obtained his raw materials; his expertise in steel making for dies, and the technology of his new steam-powered mint. The design, production, marketing and distribution of the finished product is also covered. The book is illustrated with over 200 colour images, including an extensive section on the coins, tokens and medals produced at the Soho Mint.

I shared this over at CoinTalk, but I figured I would post it here just in case anyone is interested. 
The phrase “buy the book before the coin” is often encountered in this hobby and is a point that I wholeheartedly support. Buying coins while unarmed with the proper knowledge can be a very risky adventure; however, here is a story in which purchasing the coin first actually paid off.
Let me start by saying that this was, for the most part, sheer luck. I do not want there to be anything confusing about this point for newcomers; you should always buy the book before the coin. With that said, let me tell you my story. I have been somewhat successful at cherry-picking from larger auction houses over the years, and now most recently from my collection. The coin in question is a 1797 Penny struck at the Soho Mint. I had initially purchased this as a business strike. For those of you unfamiliar, the business strikes have two main varieties, which are noted by either ten leaves or 11 leaves in the wreath on George III’s head. The 10 leaves variety is extremely common in comparison to the 11 leaves variety (i.e., KP-22).

I originally cherry-picked this coin, thinking it was the 11 leaves variety but paid well under the typical cost for the more common ten leaves variety. Like most of my other purchases, this coin was raw, so I sent it to NGC to be graded. I listed it as an MS strike 11 leaves variety (i.e. P-1133) and was pleased when it came back MS-62. A few months later I was working on my custom registry set when I stumbled upon a note made by peck on page 307, which stated “The dot flaw in the field below the bust, noted under KP-17 also occurs, apparently invariably, on this current Obv”. This note piqued my interest, and I went to investigate KP-17 (i.e., P-1120 to P-1123). To my surprise, I found that the two are incredibly similar. Could it be the case that I cherry-picked a proof coin and not a currency strike variety?

Usually, it would be easy to distinguish between a proof and a business strike. Still, this matter can be more complicated for specific pieces such as this, which may have been struck using a slightly retouched current die as noted by Peck. Although both the currency strike (KP-22) and the proof strike (KP-17) share Obverse type 4 and reverse type C, there are several main differences between the two.

According to peck, KP-17 has a wreath of 11 leaves with two berries. The stem of the upper berry has a distinct stem. He does not provide a plate picture of this; however, searching through auction archives, I was able to find a few examples certified by NGC as either P-1122 or 1123, and the stem is, in fact, very distinct when compared to the business strike. Peck notes that the currency strike only has a trace of the stem previously pointed out on the proof example. I was able to locate several examples of the 11 leaves obverse currency strike in auction archives. All of these examples have a nearly non-existent stem, and more often than not, no trace of the stem can be identified at all.

Peck also notes the presence of numerous faint rust spots above the legend on the obverse. This diagnostic is likely what made him conclude that this was a late Soho striking that used a repolished currency die. The coin in question has several areas that can attest to this. Most notably, above the “R” in “GEORGIUS” as well as above “RE” in “REX”. Furthermore, the devices of this coin have the grainy like surface one would expect to find on a bronzed piece. Comparing this piece to the numerous Soho bronzed and Soho copper coins in my collection, it seemed to me that it appeared to be a bronzed piece, which would coincide with P-1122 under the larger umbrella of KP-17 (i.e., the proof coin).

I was very excited by this possibility and tried to remain objective. I sent a very detailed email to NGC explaining the situation, and they agreed to review it for FREE! The cost I incurred was the return shipping and a $10 handling fee. This coin made it through the process in 2 days, but I had submitted it with a few other submissions, so I had to wait in agony until the others finished up. I checked the status of my submissions late last week, and they were all marked “finalized, imaged, shipped”. My heart raced a bit as I checked the submission, but there it was labeled as P-1122 Bronzed and graded PF-62 BN. As it turns out, I cherry-picked the coin from an auction house and then cherry-picked it again out of my collection. This marks the second time I have cherry-picked myself this year, so perhaps I need to be more careful on the front end. In this case, buying the coin before the book wasn’t a bad thing, but had I continued to do so, I may have never discovered what this coin actually was. This story goes to show how important it is to fully immerse yourself in the area(s) that you collect to avoid making potentially costly mistakes. To put this in perspective, an example of this same proof variety graded by PCGS as PF-63 BN sold this month at Stacks Bowers for $1320 (with BP) whereas a business strike 11 leaves variety graded PCGS MS-63 BN sold for $432 (with BP) last year.

It's one of several enjoyable and informative Summer Seminar classes available at nominal cost. Take some grading classes, too!

As some of you know I teach a class at the ANA's Summer Seminar titled "Collecting United States Type Coins." It seems that this year enrollment at the seminar is lagging, perhaps due to lingering concerns over travel following the pandemic. I'm informed that my class presently is shy a few students of the number needed to go forward with it. I believe that may be true of other classes, as well.
If you've ever thought of attending the Summer Seminar now would be an ideal time to give it a try. I'm pasting an ad for my class below, should you consider it worthwhile.

Life has been hitting me pretty hard lately, so I have been MIA, but I wanted to stop in and congratulate all of the winners! There are some truly remarkable collections that won this year. 

Life has been hitting me pretty hard lately, so I have been MIA, but I wanted to stop in and congratulate all of the winners! There are some truly remarkable collections that won this year. 

Life has been hitting me pretty hard lately, so I have been MIA, but I wanted to stop in and congratulate all of the winners! There are some truly remarkable collections that won this year. 

Life has been hitting me pretty hard lately, so I have been MIA, but I wanted to stop in and congratulate all of the winners! There are some truly remarkable collections that won this year. 

I am glad you got it, Mike. I have made an effort to avoid checking my email over the break, so if you replied, please know that I have not read it yet. On any note, I hope the article proves to be helpful. Please let us know what you discover. 
Your note about the lack of examples with an inverted A on the obverse is interesting. I imagine they reused the dies from the English coinage when possible. I am not familiar enough with the Victorian coinage to know if there is a variety of the 1839 farthing with an inverted A or V in the obverse legend. I will check my copy of Peck once we get back home tomorrow. 

Got it! Thank You Don!
I've done some targeted searches for this and haven't really found anything specific, other than images of multiple coins of each variety. I have a pretty good library of IoM farthing images now.  I'll try broadening my search and see what pops up. Interestingly enough I have yet to find an inverted A used for the obv, searching for die varieties doesn't seem to be very common outside of the U.S., but I was hoping there'd be something already documented for this one. It's probably so common that no one cared or thought it out of the ordinary. 
Thanks Again!

Hey Mike! I just sent you an email with a PDF of an article attached that might be useful. It has been a while since I read it, so I am not sure if provides any information on the 1839 coinage. 
EDIT: There are numerous varieties of English copper that display inverted V's as A's. Have you tried running a broad google search to see if this is documented specifically for IoM coinage? 

I know this is a long shot, but does anyone have any info on die varieties for this or know of a place to look? I'm striking out with my references. Or maybe it's not a different die/variety.   85787277 (65) & 2867115-003 (64) are the numbers if you want to look at them closer.