Which image do you prefer, and why? 1880 Stella (CAUTION: spam)

[James_OldeTowne]

I apologize for the spam potential. Just trying to get some insight from my impartial friends. Basically, which image do you prefer, the top or bottom one?

 

Now, remember that you are going into this having never seen the coin in hand. Think of it in terms of you being a very rich collector, and really wanting to own a Stella, but for reasons beyond your control, you have to buy it based strictly on the appearance in a digital image. The only thing you know is that NGC has certified it as genuine and with a straight, high grade (no net grades). I know the circumstances are somewhat artificial, but this is a hypothetical, after all!

 

From that standpoint, which is the more useful image below? Which gives you the most confidence?

 

 

 

 

[cpm9ball]

The second set of photos show the details more clearly, but of course, I'm blind.

 

Chris

[kryptonitecomics]

I prefer the second as the first image is too dark to see all of the surface imperfections etc.

[Coindude]

I like the first ones the best. Although it's dark, it shows many of the field imperfections that are being described above. My guess is that the coin is graded as PR62 with possible star for the obverse Cameo appearance. If it's an older slab it might even be in a PR63Cam holder.

 

For me, the second pic looks too washed out. Of course, neither is very desirable honestly, and I would send it to someone who could do the coin justice, say Mark Goodman who would image this coin for a reasonable amount and you would get your returns on your investment easily.

[physics-fan3.14]

I'm guessing the first picture makes it look better than it is, and the second picture makes it look worse than it is. I don't like the second picture at all - washed out, overlit, makes the coin look like a piece of . Attempting to interpret the images, I wouldn't be surprised by a 64 - 65 Cam

[BillJones]

I think that image #2 provides a better view of the condition of the coin. Image #2 is dark, which is a device for hiding hairlines and the like.

 

I'm really amazed at how many of these coins that I have seen in imparied Proof. From the outset I would have thought that most of them would be been at least in PR-63 or better.

 

I guess the problem was a lot of then ended up on Congressmen and Senator's pockets where they jingled around with other coins.

[MikeInFL]

The first is underexposed/weakly lit. Of the two, #2 is better.

[numismatica]

 

The logical answer is that I prefer both. If someone were to sell a six-figure coin like a Stella, then why not dedicate one extra page in a catalog to include both sets of images? I would also provide some narrative regarding the images (settings, lighting used, etc.). The physical description in the main body of text would tie everything together.

 

Btw, your comment regarding "spam" could potentially offend some of the forum members who are vegans.

[Oldtrader3]

I like the second picture because it shows the surfaces better, but if the first picture shows how the coin looks in hand, then I agree to include it.

[TJ'S Coins]

Which shows the coin more accurately? I would prefer picture 2, as others have noted, because it shows more details

[Dcoin]

Which pic is better? Depends whether I'm buying or selling.

 

Image 1: The dark fields in the first pic can easily be mistaken for a proof-like surface.

 

Image 2: The second pic better shows the coin for what it is.

 

[rbrown4]

I prefer the second set of images for the same reasons noted by others above.

 

Rey

[MarkFeld]

Which pic is better? Depends whether I'm buying or selling.

 

Image 1: The dark fields in the first pic can easily be mistaken for a proof-like surface.

 

Image 2: The second pic better shows the coin for what it is.

The coin is a Proof, so in theory, at least, I don't see a problem with an image which conveys "proof-like" surfaces. That said, the color and appearance portrayed in the first image look way off/unnatural for a gold coin, while the second appears closer to what I'd expect.

[DirtyGoldMan]

The logical answer is that I prefer both. If someone were to sell a six-figure coin like a Stella, then why not dedicate one extra page in a catalog to include both sets of images? I would also provide some narrative regarding the images (settings, lighting used, etc.). The physical description in the main body of text would tie everything together.

 

Btw, your comment regarding "spam" could potentially offend some of the forum members who are vegans.

 

That was my first impression. Why use the same format for a $250,000 coin as you use for a $500 coin?

 

 

[nwcs]

Technically, neither. Both are not exposed the way I would. I would probably lean towards the second because it exposes the fields better, although it is an overexposed picture as a whole.

[James_OldeTowne]

Thank you very much to all that answered. I sincerely appreciate the comments and insight!

 

At first, I actually liked the first image myself, and greatly disliked the second, but the majority appear to prefer the second. After reading and thinking about your reasons, I've come to understand and agree that my first impression was a little off.

 

This has been a very helpful thread for me, and I appreciate it. It will help guide me in the future in deciding how to image certain coins.

[michael]

the bottom set of photos show the coin more in its true harsher "light" of what it most probably looks like in hand

 

and is a more honest photo of what the coin most likely looks l;ike in hand sight seen

 

and yes the top photo is more prettier but me thinks overall not what the coin looks like in hand sight seen