Tridmn

8 hours ago, Woods020 said:

It sure looks like a proof from the poor pictures, but I may be mistaken. You are mistaken if you are under the impression DCAM is a requirement for a proof. CAM much less DCAM is additive on better and earlier strikes while the dies are fresh, but by no means a requirement for a coin to be a proof. Until fairly recently cam was much less common on proofs. 

I will take pics with scope with all lights off, plus have a friend of mine who has a much better scope take pics and I will submit them. However with pics available, there should be no doubt. I will try and satisfy that doubt though.

Where do you even see dcam at? Mint set, not proof set

40 minutes ago, Woods020 said:

Again it’s a proof. And the reflective surfaces do just that and reflect the light. It’s hard to tell much from those pics. 

It's not a proof, mint set only

Could there be a 1972s with a CAM? I do believe so. Pics were taken with phone only. Sorry for the distortion.

What if I told you, you may have been misinformed? How about a 1972 mint set? 

10 hours ago, Greenstang said:

Same answer as your other post on the same coin.

So NO coins before 92 had a close Am correct?

On the 1963 D penny it should always have a close AM correct

2 hours ago, Woods020 said:

It does look just like Richard Alan Masters as evidenced by the official mint image. You can also admire his other work at his personal studio if you like. 
 

https://richardalanmasters.com/about/

I wasnt referring to this image. 

7 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Until you develop the skill of being able to LISTEN, I’m done.

YEAH 

7 hours ago, VKurtB said:

As Aretha Franklin once said, “THINK!” How on earth would the wrong initials get on there? I don’t even have to see it to know you’re wrong. 

Does that look like an "E" to you

Yes sir. Just have to transfer then from PC to phone. Also have to get get pics of full coins

By the way, all lights were turned off except camera, so no outside light source. Switched angles to see if maybe it was just my camera or my eyes. All showed up the same.

I should have pics on by later today. Have to transfer them to my phone for upload. Quarter seems or looks like both designers initials are incorrect. I will have pics later today again. Has anyone else seen this issue before?

On 6/4/2021 at 9:41 AM, VKurtB said:

Great googly moogly! 1k?!?? Listen, I bought a stereo microscope with a third tube for a camera (from Amscope) and its MAXIMUM magnification is 30x. That is a numismatic scope. 

Then send me one. Look, I'm disabled and cant afford a lot. This new microscope wasnt what I needed or wanted. Spent what I had saved on it. So if what you have is that great, and u dont want me showing pics on what looks like doubling on my scope, then send me one.

On 6/13/2021 at 3:31 AM, KarenHolcomb said:

@TridmnDude, I thought I had a bad attitude, but you whoop my spoons with yours. That said, all you need to take a great shot is whatever phone you have and a $5 clip on Macro lens. A single regular bulb 2' or so over your workspace. That's it. You could also make a picture box. If you google wikihow.com/picture box it might come right up. It might not. But They Are easily made. I have a great article on the US Mint History and How Coins are made. Only way I can share it is via email. If you want it let me know. Point is, these guys really tried to be helpful with you but you won't even let them. You are one of those Newbies that everyone dreads to deal with yet you see they still try to educate you knowing full well that you are an aspoon. You should listen. Not only hear. Let me know if you want the article. 

Point is, yes I understand the picture quality. However when being publicly humiliated is part of their arsenal; that's gone too far. Wouldnt you agree; even if they are so called "professionals"? Yes they may have many years on me when it comes to coins, sure. Humiliation is not the way to go. Yes, I did argue back, fact. Going to the extreme that happened isnt right. No matter how you look at it. I believed I had a great case, and then came the lighting issues and the camera issues and then to humiliation. Should a professional act in such a way?

Ah, incluse really? At least not obtuse like your mouth. So just shut it if you are able,or is it too big?

On 6/8/2021 at 8:39 PM, VKurtB said:

At least with his high power scope, we may get to see the structure of milk spots and flow lines. 

If you are trying to help, you're sure doing a bang up job. 

On 6/4/2021 at 9:41 AM, VKurtB said:

Great googly moogly! 1k?!?? Listen, I bought a stereo microscope with a third tube for a camera (from Amscope) and its MAXIMUM magnification is 30x. That is a numismatic scope. 

It goes all the way down to 0.5k if that is any better

4 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Remember Tridm, on the die these letters are incuse, not raised. After millions of cycles of metal being jammed into these tiny crevices, what do you think will happen? They wear. And it creates “strike doubling”. Completely worthless strike doubling. 
 

Stop trying to do this “your way” and listen to advice. 

what is it that I am not listening to? U said it was lighting at odd angles. Fixing that issue. That's 1. 2 is it should give me a better picture, along with more clarity. 3. I am most certainly not doing it my way anymore. You explained and I listened. So I'm trying to improve. Is there something wrong with getting clearer and better pics.? That way I am able to look and say this coin has a very small amount of MD. Instead of posting it and then being ridiculed because of it.

On 6/1/2021 at 7:38 PM, VKurtB said:

No, it would not.

On 6/1/2021 at 6:22 PM, Tridmn said:

 

Have a newer microscope otw. Light and lins go straight up and down. Along with magnification up to 1k. Will probably get that hingh, because you basically said I was no good.

On 6/1/2021 at 7:38 PM, VKurtB said:

No, it would not.

On 6/1/2021 at 6:22 PM, Tridmn said:

 

Have a newer microscope otw. Light and lins go straight up and down. Along with magnification up to 1k. Will probably get that hingh, because you basically said I was no good.

So, what would you suggest? If I back my microscope up then I dont and cant get a good pic. Not one easy to see. So, I am open for your suggestions.

The color (wavelength) is largely irrelevant. The problem at work here is the number of light sources and their positions. It is the “other” problem (other than too much magnification) with USB microscopes. I have a stereo optical microscope that also has an LED ring light (a mistake) for illumination. But the 360 degree ring can be switched on and off for each 90 degrees. In other words, there are four quadrants of LED arrays that can be switched off individually. When I do that, I can “see” and “un-see” all kinds of “doubling”, caused by too many “hot” reflections unnaturally lighting the coin’s surface. That is exactly what your scope in doing. Using directional lighting, preferably diffused incandescent, will help you see reality without so much excess reflectivity. 
 

The irony is that I know this but I don’t even care about “doubling”, even the “real” kind.

Edited yesterday at 07:52 PM by VKurtB

Just now, Tridmn said:

If it were under a black light would that serve as a better way to see it then

What I am saying in retrospect, in a black or even a different color light other than white light a better way to actually check and look at coins?