RWB

He supplied the necessary information and that allowed me to test some things. I have not completed all tests. Results will be posted once everything is ready. I want to keep it short, non-technical and of practical value to members.

Back to the OP's topic... Lighting for digital photography is nearly identical as that for film photography. The greatest differences are in light sensor technology. Film resolution is a combination of silver halide grain structure and migration; digital sensor resolution depends more on pixel packing, binning, time-response curves and multiple other variables. The result is film has a fixed resolution and a CCD or similar chip does not. One uncompressed 35mm digital image has a minimum data file of about 32 meg. The lighting differences are more direct - digital technology inherently discards image data which results in reduced dynamic range. Film is entirely analog and maintains all data unless the user decides to alter the chemistry. Any curious about this latter need only refer to NASA where comparison of modern lunar orbiter images were compared with much older film images - the film showed far more subtle detail than digital. I.e., film does not throw away data, digital does. Many digital cameras can operate at 12- or 16-bit gray, and this helps. (Most actually use 12-bit gray per channel then down sample.) But, try working with 64-bit RGB if you want to have fun with desktop computing power. The practical solution is that digital lighting has to be lower contrast ("flatter") than film lighting.

RE: ""How we used to do it" in coin grading frankly makes me get the bored "yawnies". And that applies to both Roger and Skip, if I'm being honest." Hey ! I never claimed my posts would keep anyone awake, Yeah -- well--- they are pretty boring now that you mention it.

Well, I've subscribed to the new 50 State Termite Species series. Each coin features a termite prevalent in one of the 50 states. But the big feature is that the coins are active -- they slowly gnaw at the wood framing of your home until it all crashes down. Also anticipating the 50 State Snake quarters, especially the Florida Python - and wondering if it will be the Monty Python or the Full Monty....

Yep...and for the reason stated.

I'll only add that tilting a coin for photography also distorts geometry of the surface and is NEVER done except in very specific circumstances. (Such as photographing the side of inscriptions.) Now returning control to brg5658, who understands what he is doing.

Cannot understand the lack of simple white balancing. Skewed or biased color balance prevents a meaningful assessment.

"Does that also mean the many "Thaler restrikes" should carry a different terminology? " They are official government copies or reproductions for commercial use. Same for certain British sovereigns. Then there are "novodels" or official imitations made for sale to collectors.

Awful puns.

RE: "The next time I get one of these I'll photo the entire rim. As I recall, very often, the entire rim is not affected." OK. Can't go further w/o a full image. There are several possible mechanical causes, but they cannot be separated by looking only at the defect. Better resolution and much less compression would also help - note the "granularity" and compression artifacts at lower right.

Diamonds.

Maybe it's "PTSD" from having been through too many TPG submissions.

At its beginning I assembled date sets of ASEs and AGEs. But then the Mint started playing games with nonsense special surfaces, and "proof" versions and other garbage. My buying stopped long ago and the sets are in the bank box. Seems the original purpose of these series has been forgotten. The only coins from the US Mint I've acquired lately are pieces given to me by appreciative collectors. (Yes, Virginia, there remain a few who appreciate research and information more than gold.)

If you are trying to define a target audience in the US, then it is most likely novice to low intermediate; think type collector or production mints. World Colonial mentioned a key impediment.

Brandon - Thanks very much for reposting this. It should be very helpful to members. I'll add that a single large diffuse source, placed upward and facing the portrait front, will produce excellent results, also.

RE: "It was tried and rejected by the market." Really. When did this happen and why? Free markets crave stability. Objective grading - facts - are stable. A cynical approach would be "If collectors loved it and dealers hated it, then it must have been right." Dealers love to distort, quibble, and bend conditions to their advantage: conservative when buying liberal when selling. Stability makes it difficult to "scam the boobs" as J.J. Ford, Jr. loved to say. My original question remains.....

RE: "You also have the immigrant communities at that time who you would think would be partial to gold." In 1900 Director Roberts asked steamship lines how much gold passengers carried in and out of the US. Here are a couple of replies. There are many more, but all are similar: Immigrants carried little gold in or out, First Class passengers used letters of credit, gold exchange was often done on board ship.

Agreed. But we must concede that most active collectors have become dependent on TPGs for grading, e.g., few can reliably grade a coin anymore. Auction companies once graded the coins they offered, now it's just a copy of the slab label - and that offered as some sort of surrogate for Divine Wisdom.

There is a completely different focus for TPGs versus CAC. CAC is a way to cherry pick the nicest, or most readily saleable coins. People pay to have their coin looked at and CAC keeps a record of the "best profit goodies." It is a low risk broker approach and very profitable. The broker - CAC - knows the likes of potential coin buyers and charges accordingly. The overall effect is to distort both value and "grade" by introducing an entirely commercial entity into what was supposed to be a largely objective assessment of authenticity and condition. CAC has become a contaminant - kind of a numismatic virus of epidemic proportion. It can be controlled by analogous methods as CoVID-19.

Sounds like someone has read my little booklet....

The market should AlwayS decide monetary value - never an authenticator or grader. That would be blatant manipulation.

FYI - There are a lot of beans in the coin counter soup.

A good photo of the obverse would be helpful. That places the anomaly in context of the entire die. Is the reverse normal? Is it correct that identical defects have been seen on multiple coins of the same (or different) date/mint?

RE: "In today's polar opposite world everyone knows the meaning of conservative and liberal." I haven't seen that to be true....But I'm asking about coin grading not politics. Insider says: "Conservative: Tight; strict; critical; by the "old" book; no wiggle room. Liberal: Loose and variable. Wink, Wink." When I think conservative coin grading I envision clear, data-driven information; defined standards, uniform application of standards....in a way, "the truth" -- that kind of thing.

...only for windmills.