• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What a killer coin!

Started by Bruceswar,

56 posts in this topic

Bruceswar

Bruceswar

Posted
Posted

So I was browsing some websites when I stumbled into this coin. Just a mind boggling coin. From the looks of it, looks all original to me!

 

Bustie

 

Yes I know this coin is for sale, so if someone wants to call this spam whatever. This coin is just so sweet. I could look at this one all day! Surely I am not the only one who finds this coin very attractive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coindude

Coindude

Posted
Posted

It is gorgeous and original. I love the luster. Out of my price range for sure! They must have taken the picture with a dino lite or something similar though. I don't much care for the five LED's that show on the coin, but again, it is very adequate in showing the luster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted

I think Larry takes fantastic images. However, my one gripe, as alluded to by the previous board member, is that those multiple light sources usually imply a level of luster that is not really there. In cataloging coins, I've learned to "read" something into the number of spokes of luster produced on a coin by a single-point light source. The more spokes, the better (due to more luster). But if someone takes a coin with flat luster and points five point-source lamps at it, this artificially makes the coin appear more lustrous than it might be. That is why I've always preferred the SOLB (single overhead lightbulb) method.

 

All that aside, I love the coin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
I think Larry takes fantastic images. However, my one gripe, as alluded to by the previous board member, is that those multiple light sources usually imply a level of luster that is not really there. In cataloging coins, I've learned to "read" something into the number of spokes of luster produced on a coin by a single-point light source. The more spokes, the better (due to more luster). But if someone takes a coin with flat luster and points five point-source lamps at it, this artificially makes the coin appear more lustrous than it might be. That is why I've always preferred the SOLB (single overhead lightbulb) method.

 

All that aside, I love the coin!

And I think Larry doesn't even take the images. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leeg

leeg

Posted
Posted
I think Larry takes fantastic images. However, my one gripe, as alluded to by the previous board member, is that those multiple light sources usually imply a level of luster that is not really there. In cataloging coins, I've learned to "read" something into the number of spokes of luster produced on a coin by a single-point light source. The more spokes, the better (due to more luster). But if someone takes a coin with flat luster and points five point-source lamps at it, this artificially makes the coin appear more lustrous than it might be. That is why I've always preferred the SOLB (single overhead lightbulb) method.

 

All that aside, I love the coin!

And I think Larry doesn't even take the images. ;)

 

Mike deserves a raise!!! :hi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EZ_E

EZ_E

Posted
Posted

WoW! No kidding, Bruce. That is one of the most gorgeous Bust Half Dollars that I've ever seen!

 

But, as James pointed out, it may look completely different in hand because a viewer usually doesn't use 5 lights to do so.

 

71492o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruceswar

Bruceswar

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I would like to point out this photo was taken using only 3 lights not 5 or any other number. 1 light creates 1 streak or luster across the coin and then the other 2 give you the last 2 lines of luster.

 

Edited to add using the same style as something like this...

 

L34d.jpg

 

Edited...

 

Here is what a tweaked image would look like...

 

L34d1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coindude

Coindude

Posted
Posted
I would like to point out this photo was taken using only 3 lights not 5 or any other number. 1 light creates 1 streak or luster across the coin and then the other 2 give you the last 2 lines of luster.
Bruce, I understand your point of view here, and although I most likely haven't taken as many coin pictures as you, I have to disagree with you. There are 5 definite and distinct points of light on the coin, all coming from different angles. Had it been two or three lights there would only be four lines and up to six lines or streaks of luster. And they would be on the exact opposite points of where the light was being focused on the coin, inline if you will. Anyhow, I'm not sure of their technique, maybe someone knows the photographer personally and might ask, but I'm going to have to stick with the five points of light, and I'm still thinking LED.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted
I think Larry takes fantastic images. However, my one gripe, as alluded to by the previous board member, is that those multiple light sources usually imply a level of luster that is not really there. In cataloging coins, I've learned to "read" something into the number of spokes of luster produced on a coin by a single-point light source. The more spokes, the better (due to more luster). But if someone takes a coin with flat luster and points five point-source lamps at it, this artificially makes the coin appear more lustrous than it might be. That is why I've always preferred the SOLB (single overhead lightbulb) method.

 

All that aside, I love the coin!

And I think Larry doesn't even take the images. ;)

 

Mike deserves a raise!!! :hi:

Well, really I guess it's the camera that takes the images lol !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael

michael

Posted
Posted

whitlow coin is definately not original and was dipped sometime in the past

 

currently the even same colored toning is a secondary toning

 

not good or bad just the way it is

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MPrintz-migration

MPrintz-migration

Posted
Posted

Hello to all -

 

Just thought I'd put to rest some of the speculation re: lighting - since I do the imaging.

 

First - there are 4 small light sources - not 5 as some have suggested.

 

Second - the coin really does exhibit the luster the images indicate - I don't enhance my images and there are many on these boards that have either had me do imaging work for them or purchased from me and I believe they would state the coins in hand are accurately represented by the images I take.

 

Third - Michael is correct when he states the coin has had a bath at some point in it's life so it is not "original". It is a nice coin and accurately graded but it is not original.

 

Hope that clears a few things up ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Hello to all -

 

Just thought I'd put to rest some of the speculation re: lighting - since I do the imaging.

 

First - there are 4 small light sources - not 5 as some have suggested.

 

Second - the coin really does exhibit the luster the images indicate - I don't enhance my images and there are many on these boards that have either had me do imaging work for them or purchased from me and I believe they would state the coins in hand are accurately represented by the images I take.

 

Third - Michael is correct when he states the coin has had a bath at some point in it's life so it is not "original". It is a nice coin and accurately graded but it is not original.

 

Hope that clears a few things up ;)

Mike, since you've checked in here, I have a comment, which I didn't want to make behind your back. And please know that I'm being serious, since you and I often joke around. Many of your images look "too good" to me. By that, I mean, even on lower grade uncirculated coins, the surfaces often look "gemmy", with few noteworthy flaws visible. And the luster usually looks too nice and smooth, even when I would think it shouldn't. Without revealing any proprietary information, can you account for that? Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MPrintz-migration

MPrintz-migration

Posted
Posted

Good question Mark - and I don't take offense to it.

 

I use, in most cases, halogen lighting so that may account for some of what you're referring to - not sure. I don't do much in the way of post processing and I don't "remove" spots or marks. I'm simply trying to accurately respresent the coin as it would appear in hand if you were looking at it straight on - i don't tilt coins when i image them.

 

Mark Goodman - another excellent photographer by anyone's standards - I know attempts to do the same thing - just accurately represent the coins he images. I'm sure he would echo some of my points here.

 

Not sure I've answered your question but it's my best attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coindude

Coindude

Posted
Posted

I appreciate you clearing that up! I also do some coin imaging and I can vouch for the fact that unless the coin is at the right angle to the light, imperfections will not show and that is with no attempt to hide them. Conversely, the light at a wrong angle can give the appearance of a serious defect when only a small one is evident in hand.

 

I was one of those that thought you were using five lights.... I may have been the only one, and I was assuming you were using LED not halogen, but I know how pinpoint halogen can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MPrintz-migration

MPrintz-migration

Posted
Posted

I don't huse halogen for all images - for early copper I tend not to - such as the case with this 1840. When i do use halogen, I mute the light in various ways to try and reduce the hot spots while still attempting to show the luster as accurately as possible.

 

1840obv.jpg

1840rev.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted

Mike, that 1840 Large Cent looks like a nice 66 in the images. If it is graded lower than that, what is the reason in your eyes, and what flaws are minimized in the images? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing