Grading Toners

[cpm9ball]

Before I begin, I would like to thank Bruce Lee for providing the images of these Morgan dollars. I wish that I had just half of his ability.

 

A while back, I asked in another thread, "What would you do?" regarding which Morgans I should submit for my free grading certificate. I gave everyone's suggestions a lot of thought, and I want to thank those of you who responded for your input.

 

I decided to submit some of my toners. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a harder time judging the grade for these because the toning can mask other attributes. Of course, there is always the possibility that some of them could be AT because I really haven't seen that many examples with extensive toning on both sides. I thought I could make good use of the certificate by getting a professional opinion without spending the money for the submission.

 

Also, I thought it might be a good idea to have them encapsulated to preserve their current state of toning. I'm still learning about toners, and I really don't have the time to wait around 5, 10 or 20 years to determine if being kept in a raw state would cause their appearance to change over time.

 

I don't think that I have to point out that all of these dates are common, and I probably would have never submitted them if they had been blast white. It would not have been a smart thing to do, economically, but since the grading was free, I really had nothing to lose other than the shipping and insurance.

 

Because of the size of the photos, I will add another post for two of them. Anyway, I welcome your comments. Do any of you have the same reservations when it comes to assessing toners? Please give me your thoughts about grade and whether they are NT or AT. I will post the actual results on Monday evening.

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

Here are the next two! For some reason, it won't allow me to open the obverse enlargement. I don't know why because it is the same size as the others.

 

Chris

[MunkyMan95]

Chris,

 

Try www.photobucket.com, it's your friend.

[bsshog40]

Well Chris' I'm gonna give them my best shot. I like the way they all look but gonna give my grade and opinions why.

 

79s- With the spotting goin on, I would guess this is AT. Looks to be MS63 to me if it doesn't BB for the toning.

82s- This looks NT to me. With the gouge and fingerprint on the OBV takes me to MS63 also.

83- This also looks NT to me. I see some wear on the breast feathers, MS62-63. If weak strike, then I'll jump to a 64 on this one.

84o- This also looks NT to me. This has some wierd spotting on the Rev that I think will take it down to an MS62-63.

 

All in all, I like them all. Just questionable a little here and there on little things!

[cpm9ball]

Chris,

 

Try www.photobucket.com, it's your friend.

 

Sorry Chad, but that isn't the answer to the problem. It won't make any difference if I'm using Photobucket or a sledghammer.

 

All of the combined images are 900x450 and the individual enlargements are 900x900. I went back and replaced the 1883 enlargement with the original (1000x1000) that Bruce sent me. Then I went into my ACDSee program and resized it to 900x900 and it still won't accept it.

 

Can someone please explain to me why it has accepted all of the other photos and not this one? I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round, and the operator has left for vacation.

 

Chris

[kryptonitecomics]

79s- MS64 Looks either AT or Environmental damage from improper storage

82s- MS64 shot 65, NT

83- MS64 NT tough one becuase these same colors can be duplicated with chemicals.....I'd bag this one personally.

84o- MS62 looks like it could go either way, I'm calling it AT

 

Frankly....and to be completely honest....I don't think any of these coins should be housed in plastic as the colors just don't do it for me.

[RGT]

Chris, I don't collect Morgans and only own a handfull, but since about every other coin pictured on the various message boards is a Morgan I can't help but have developed a sense of how they are graded. That is, how the pictures are graded. I may not have a clue seeing one actually in-hand. In general, darkly toned coins are difficult to grade in hand at times and more so from pictures. But I'll play along and see how I do.

 

The 1879-S looks high end 63 to low nd 64. I'll guess that it got in the 64 holder and the toning is natural.

 

At first I thought the 1882-S could go MS65. It has a fairly clean cheek and fields. Then I noticed a coule of bigger hits in the fields that I think could bring it down to an MS64. Again, I'll say NT.

 

The 1883 is a bit more difficult without the large obverse picture. I'm going with MS63 on it since I think I see some cheek chatter. This one looks like it could also have gone AU58. The tone on this one looks the most suspicious to me but I think it is probably NT.

 

The 1884-O has a typically weak strike and a lot of chatter. I'll give it an NT MS62.

 

Someone suggested using Photobucket for your images. I use it occasionally myself but I appreciate when people attach their images. Photobucket is blocked to me from work so I can't see or comment on many of the pictures posted unless I see them from home. Also, the attached pictures stay with the post so people reading it years later can still see what was being discussed while most people remove their Photobucket photos after a while.

[Bruceswar]

Here is the obverse image....

 

[cpm9ball]

Thanks, Bruce! I still don't understand how you could post your full-sized image, and I couldn't post one 10% smaller. When I first received the images from you, I tried posting them at full size and it wouldn't work. Can one of the moderators give me an explanation, please?

 

Chris

[RGT]

Chris, NGC has set a max size of 200 Kb for pictures attached to posts. The image Bruce posted was over 300Kb but was hosted on another site. I'm guessing your reduced size picture was still over 200Kb. That's about the only reason to use an offsite hosting for images that I can think of. (Unless you plan to switch or pull your images later for whatever reason.)

[cpm9ball]

Chris, NGC has set a max size of 200 Kb for pictures attached to posts. The image Bruce posted was over 300Kb but was hosted on another site. I'm guessing your reduced size picture was still over 200Kb. That's about the only reason to use an offsite hosting for images that I can think of. (Unless you plan to switch or pull your images later for whatever reason.)

 

I'm aware of that, but it doesn't explain why the images of the 79S, 82S & 84O, which were the same size, were accepted and the 83 wasn't.

 

By the way, your comment about images hosted on Photobucket being removed from posts is another reason why I'd rather continue with my ACDSee program. Some of the other members have touted Photobucket because it is free, but that is only for a limited amount of space. For unlimited use, you must pay for it. As you said, photos are removed and it is because the users don't want to exceed the limit imposed by Photobucket.

 

I agree that it is exasperating to refer back to a thread that I have saved for reference only to find that the images are no longer there.

 

Chris

[awb]

Chris, check the file sizes of the images. Based on image quality, a picture with the same screen size (say 900x900) may have drastically different file sizes.

[bsshog40]

 

By the way, your comment about images hosted on Photobucket being removed from posts is another reason why I'd rather continue with my ACDSee program. Some of the other members have touted Photobucket because it is free, but that is only for a limited amount of space. For unlimited use, you must pay for it. As you said, photos are removed and it is because the users don't want to exceed the limit imposed by Photobucket.

 

I agree that it is exasperating to refer back to a thread that I have saved for reference only to find that the images are no longer there.

 

Chris

 

It's funny you should mention this Chris. I paid for photobucket last year. My subscription ran out and when I went to renew it, it sent me to buy something else for renewal. Anyway, I never have renewed with them and I am still able to download over 1000pix pictures and I have about 5 pages of pictures along with slideshows on my account. It's like my account limit is still no different than what my subscribed acct. was.

[cpm9ball]

Chris, check the file sizes of the images. Based on image quality, a picture with the same screen size (say 900x900) may have drastically different file sizes.

 

900x900 is the file size, but everyone seems to be missing my point. Why would I be able to post three other enlargements (79S, 82S & 84O) at 900x900 and not the fourth (83) which is the same (file) size?

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

 

By the way, your comment about images hosted on Photobucket being removed from posts is another reason why I'd rather continue with my ACDSee program. Some of the other members have touted Photobucket because it is free, but that is only for a limited amount of space. For unlimited use, you must pay for it. As you said, photos are removed and it is because the users don't want to exceed the limit imposed by Photobucket.

 

I agree that it is exasperating to refer back to a thread that I have saved for reference only to find that the images are no longer there.

 

Chris

 

It's funny you should mention this Chris. I paid for photobucket last year. My subscription ran out and when I went to renew it, it sent me to buy something else for renewal. Anyway, I never have renewed with them and I am still able to download over 1000pix pictures and I have about 5 pages of pictures along with slideshows on my account. It's like my account limit is still no different than what my subscribed acct. was.

 

Did you check your credit card statement to make sure that they didn't debit your account anyway? I had a similar problem with McAfee Antivirus. I notified them that I would not be renewing, and they charged my credit card anyway. It took me six months to get a refund.

 

Chris

[bsshog40]

Yea Chris. I've never had nothing taken out. Acct seems to have never changed. I have 165 photos on there. I've never seen anything that tells me I have a limit. Who knows!!

[awb]

Chris, 900x900 is not the file size. That is the pixel size of the picture. Depending on what the quality of the picture is, the file size may be large or small.

 

The file size is the amount of kilobytes (kb) the picture occupies on your computer. To figure that out, look at the picture in Windows Explorer. You may need to right click on it and pull up its properties. Anyway, it would appear that the file size of the oddball picture exceeds 200 kb, which is why you can't upload it to this site.

 

-Adam

 

(Please don't take offense. Like TomB said a few days ago, much is lost in the text translation. This is respectfully submitted.)

[Bruceswar]

As a side note all the coins are currently in NGC slabs....

[cpm9ball]

Chris, 900x900 is not the file size. That is the pixel size of the picture. Depending on what the quality of the picture is, the file size may be large or small.

 

The file size is the amount of kilobytes (kb) the picture occupies on your computer. To figure that out, look at the picture in Windows Explorer. You may need to right click on it and pull up its properties. Anyway, it would appear that the file size of the oddball picture exceeds 200 kb, which is why you can't upload it to this site.

 

-Adam

 

(Please don't take offense. Like TomB said a few days ago, much is lost in the text translation. This is respectfully submitted.)

 

Adam, I'm not offended, and you'll have to forgive me for being the dimmest star in the Milky Way when it comes to computer savvy. I'm just an old dog who has a hard time remembering new tricks. You've probably seen those black and yellow how-to books, "XXXXXXXXXX for Dummies". Well, I bought one once, and it took me a month just to learn how to find Page 1.

 

Is there a way to reduce the file size without diminishing the visual impact of the photo?

 

Thanks,

Chris

[Stanley]

Check the resolution size

Try a lower resolution

 

Image options define the default resolution and compression level for your pictures when you save them. The resolution sets the number of pixels per inch (ppi)A measurement of the clarity or fineness of detail on the screen. A higher pixel number results in better image quality, but also increases the file size of a digital image in your picture. The higher the resolution (number of pixels per inch), the higher the picture quality. Choose from the following resolutions:

600 pixels per inch Use for printing professional-quality prints or poster prints.

300 pixels per inch Use for printing high-quality prints on photo paper.

150 pixels per inch Use for printing when print quality is less important.

72 pixels per inch Use for sharing pictures online or in e-mail.

The compression level determines how much the picture file size will be compressed when you save your picture or convert your picture to PNGPortable Network Graphics file format. Supported by newer imaging applications, and used for lossless compression and display on Web pages. Supports 24-bit images and transparent backgrounds. format. The compression level affects both the file size and picture quality. The higher the compression level, the smaller the file size, and the lower the picture quality.

 

 

 

[cpm9ball]

How can I determine the resolution or PPI setting for these photos? Will I find it in "Properties"? Let's say that 600 is too high, but 300 is not good enough. Are there any "in-between" settings?

 

Thanks, Stanley!

 

Chris

[Stanley]

You have Width and Height (900x900)

Then you have DPI ( Dots Per Inch is your resolution ) This is the part that can effect the 200KB versus 300 KB not allowing you to download.

 

I usually will resize a large image to 300 DPI and when I can not transfer it because it is too large I will usually try 150.

IMO there is very little clarity if any lost to the down size especially when it is just for posting on a message board.

Printing may be a different story.

Hope this helps. (thumbs u

 

 

 

Edited to add: Additionally, the DPI in my programs is available in the resize option window.

Some programs may have a preset DPI which means you may have to access the program properties or preferences itself.

 

[Stanley]

825 x 825 x 300 DPI = 161 KB

 

825 x 825 x 96 DPI = 94.3 KB

[RGT]

Chris, I'm sorry about my less than adequate post about image size but I see that someone else has already explained that file size is only loosly related to image size. It's hard to gage where someones starting point is at times. If you don't start at a low enough level you just get the person irritated because your explanation didn't help. If you start at too elementary a level you end up making them think that you are insulting thier intellegence. Sometimes it just takes a little back and forth mixed with patience.

 

I use Photoshpe Elements to resize my images at home. I typically save in jpeg format but maybe I should see if it has png capability and if that is more efficient. When I am saving the images the software asks me to input a compression level that I want. This is a number between 1 and 10 with 10 being the highest resolution and no compression loss. I typically use around a 7 but occasionally go lower if I need to meet a file size requirement but don't want to reduce the image size any more.

 

I'm not very familiar with ACDSee so I can't tell you how to adjust your image quality with it. You can reduce the quality level pretty far most of the time without much impact on what you can see on a web page. I'm not sure how the jpeg compression level is related to DPI but as others have stated 72 DPI should be all that a typical monitor can display anyway.

 

I took the 1000x1000 image that Bruce posted and shrunk it to 90% using Windows Paint (the only tool I have available right now). Paint doesn't let you customize the compression level but does do compression. Paint said the original file was at 72 DPI and my reduced file is at 96 DPI. I didn't have the option to change that. The file size however is 182 KB and small enough to attach to a post.

[Stanley]

My second image above was also done by simply opening the larger image (top image) with my Paint program and saving it, thus reducing the DPI which allows the file to use less space.

I used the Paint program before I figured out my Picture It Image handler would also do it at the same time I was resizing it.

[cpm9ball]

Chris, I'm sorry about my less than adequate post about image size but I see that someone else has already explained that file size is only loosly related to image size. It's hard to gage where someones starting point is at times. If you don't start at a low enough level you just get the person irritated because your explanation didn't help. If you start at too elementary a level you end up making them think that you are insulting thier intellegence. Sometimes it just takes a little back and forth mixed with patience.

 

There is no reason for you to consider your explanatioin "less than adequate". Your help and patience are very much appreciated. Believe me, I need all the help I can get.You might be able to insult my ex-wife, but you can't insult me. If I think that someone is intentionally trying to insult me, I always consider the source. A good person always treats others as they would want to be treated themselves.

 

When I have the time, I am going to tinker around more with my ACDSee program to see what I can discover.

 

Thanks for your help! Stanley, that goes for you, too!

 

Chris

[MikeInFL]

FYI, there are lots of things that affect a JPEG image size (and let me apologize in advance for getting a bit technical):

 

Total number of pixels

Lines per inch (related to # of pixels)

Color depth (number of bits used for color)

Embedded color profiles (pay attention to this if you use a custom in-camera white balance, as even a tiny image will be quite large if it has an embedded color profile)

Compression (the JPEG/JFIF standard allows for different levels)

Image complexity (JPEG compresses images with low detail/color better because of the compression algorithm used -- a combination of color/luminance transformation/splitting, color clipping, discrete cosine transforms, quantization, and then Huffman coding, IIRC)

 

Most of the better image editing programs will give you control over (all but the last of) these variables. MS Paint isn't among those, but will work in a pinch.

 

Hope this helps....Mike

 

p.s. (and to RGT) even if set on 10, I believe that PSE's implementation of JPG is not lossless.

 

[cpm9ball]

FYI, there are lots of things that affect a JPEG image size (and let me apologize in advance for getting a bit technical):

 

Total number of pixels

Lines per inch (related to # of pixels)

Color depth (number of bits used for color)

Embedded color profiles (pay attention to this if you use a custom in-camera white balance, as even a tiny image will be quite large if it has an embedded color profile)

Compression (the JPEG/JFIF standard allows for different levels)

Image complexity (JPEG compresses images with low detail/color better because of the compression algorithm used -- a combination of color/luminance transformation/splitting, color clipping, discrete cosine transforms, quantization, and then Huffman coding, IIRC)

 

Most of the better image editing programs will give you control over (all but the last of) these variables. MS Paint isn't among those, but will work in a pinch.

 

Hope this helps....Mike

 

p.s. (and to RGT) even if set on 10, I believe that PSE's implementation of JPG is not lossless.

 

Huh?

 

Mike, don't take this the wrong way. I'm laughing at myself, not you. I just found Page 1 of Photography for Dummies.

 

Chris

[RGT]

Mike, that is a good breakdown of the factors to consider and most of them affect other forms of image compression. I'm certainly not a student of image compression. The closest I have come to getting involved in this area was several years ago when I wrote an algorithm to build BMP images from raw data (in FORTRAN, no less). Of course BMP images were 8-bit with only one compression level and are about the most basic image format available (which was why I chose it).

 

I'm sure you are correct about level 10 even causing some compression loss. It was one of those rare moments that I spoke in absolutes when I typically know better. That is to say, I typically know how little I know. You know?

 

Is the "embedded color profile" you mention the same as a color palette that I am somewhat familiar with?

 

Edited to add: Chris, it's time to turn the page now.

[MikeInFL]

RGT,

 

You asked:

 

Is the "embedded color profile" you mention the same as a color palette that I am somewhat familiar with?

Yes. FWIW, some may know "color palette" as "color space" but they are used pretty interchangeably -- think SRGB vs RGB....

 

Also FWIW, Wikipedia has a great description of JPEG along with far more detail if you are interested:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg

 

Hope this helps...Mike

 

p.s. FORTRAN, what's FORTRAN?

 

p.p.s. No offense taken Chris. I'm even more of a photography/computer geek than a coin geek.