What a killer coin!

[TomB]

I hadn't replied to this thread because I honestly do not like the eye appeal of this CBH, though I understand that many folks will think it gorgeous and/or quite original, which the latter is incorrect. However, I feel the need to reply to the thread at this time because Mike has mentioned that some folks on the boards use him for their imaging. In this case I would be one of those folks. I have my reasons for selecting Mike and I believe my logic is correct and unimpeachable. Additionally, the results are generally fantastic which is meant to read that the images produced look pretty darn exactly like the coin in-hand for MS and PF/PR coinage. Below please find a few coins, each with a different "feel" that Mike has imaged for me and that look on my monitor essentially as you would see if you had them in front of you for inspection-

[kryptonitecomics]

I think I am going to need to see those in hand before I can comment on the accuracy of the images Tom...

[IGWT]

I was lucky enough to visit with Mike at his office this summer and saw his camera set up. I'll take the risk of revealing the trade secret by describing what I saw: camera w/ macro lens, camera stand, and lights. The technique does *not* overemphasize luster; in fact, Mike mutes the lights in a way that mellows the luster for accurate representations.

 

[leeg]

I'll echo TomB's comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Lee, what is the grade of that Maine? It looks like a 67, but I bet it's not close to that, and hence my earlier point about the images. Thanks.

[MPrintz-migration]

Mark - no offense to Lee's Maine because i remember the coin well and loved it but it doesn't look like a 67 and i don't think you think it does either...

[MarkFeld]

Mark - no offense to Lee's Maine because i remember the coin well and loved it but it doesn't look like a 67 and i don't think you think it does either...

No offense taken. But I see a lustrous, mark-free, gorgeous coin, that to me, looks like a 67 in the images provided. And my guess is that if you had never seen it before, knew nothing about it and know how to grade them, you might agree.

 

Edited to add:

 

Sure, it might be AU, but from the images, it looks like it could be a 67.

[MPrintz-migration]

If my memory is as good as I hope it is it seems to me the coin was a 64 with fabulous luster and wonderful color but it had hairlines that prevented it from grading higher (there may be some light rub as well) - and Mark, if you ask the best imagers out there if you can always capture hairlines they'll tell ya you can't - not on Mint State coins anyway. Perhaps Lee will chime in on this since it's his coin and I may not be remembering things accurately - I've hit 40 ya know Whatever the case, it is indeed a coin - even in hand and at arms length - that appears to be a higher grade than a close technical inspection ultimately indicates.

[MarkFeld]

If my memory is as good as I hope it is it seems to me the coin was a 64 with fabulous luster and wonderful color but it had hairlines that prevented it from grading higher (there may be some light rub as well) - and Mark, if you ask the best imagers out there if you can always capture hairlines they'll tell ya you can't - not on Mint State coins anyway. Perhaps Lee will chime in on this since it's his coin and I may not be remembering things accurately - I've hit 40 ya know Whatever the case, it is indeed a coin - even in hand and at arms length - that appears to be a higher grade than a close technical inspection ultimately indicates.

So you didn't think I was serious in thinking it looked like it could be a 67 from the images, when a large part of the reason for its grade is flaws (hairlines) that don't show in the images.

 

OK, I've thought about it and your two posts combined don't make much sense to me.

 

By the way, I often have hairlines/minor flaws show up in my images, even without trying to capture them.

[MPrintz-migration]

I think my responses make perfect sense Mark. Keep in mind that some coins graded MS67 (and rightfully so) will not image well and absolutely won't look close to the grade while other coins, such as the Maine in question, is exceptionally photogenic and may appear to be a higher grade - even in hand. However, while I do agree the Maine "looks" to be a higher grade - a 67 it does not.

[MarkFeld]

I think my responses make perfect sense Mark. Keep in mind that some coins graded MS67 (and rightfully so) will not image well and absolutely won't look close to the grade while other coins, such as the Maine in question, is exceptionally photogenic and may appear to be a higher grade - even in hand. However, while I do agree the Maine "looks" to be a higher grade - a 67 it does not.

It does to me. What flaws do you SEE that would preclude it from being a 67?

[MarkFeld]

Here's a PCGS 67

 

 

[mommam17]

What am I missing? Coin looks like a 67 to me. My Maine did not look like a 65 from the picture, but it had a CAC sticker so I bought it. Nice 65 in hand. I guress Maines can fool you.

[MarkFeld]

What am I missing? Coin looks like a 67 to me. My Maine did not look like a 65 from the picture, but it had a CAC sticker so I bought it. Nice 65 in hand. I guress Maines can fool you.

Any coin can fool you, in either direction, grade and appearance-wise, from its images.

 

Edited to add:

 

If you're talking about the Maine Lee posted, you're missing flaws that don't show in the images.

[mommam17]

Yes, I was talking about Lee`s coin. I had a toned Maine that some people liked alot and others did not like it at all.

[MPrintz-migration]

I see hairlines in the central shield, especially under the right side of the tree and across the Caribou or Moose (not sure what it is - sorry to the Maine folks here) and a hit on the reverse between the N and T in CENTENNIAL. Those issues alone, which are visible in the image, would not allow for a 67 grade. As for the 67 you posted the link to - those are scans and not digital images so i would expect the quality of those images to lack sufficient quality to allow for accurate grading - if grading by an image.

[kryptonitecomics]

With the example presented I see what mark is talking about....for the record....I see virtually no flaws on the Monroe....even after you pointed out the hairlines? If you would have told me it was less than a 67 I would have been shocked but the fact that you diffuse some of the light explains it. I can make an MS64 Ike look Like an MS68 if I shoot it straight on with diffused lighting,.....and that's not to say there is any funny business on your part what so ever. I am sure you are trying to capture the images that closley matches the coin in hand and I think the images are really great. I am just stating that based on a small number of images representing your work already posted in this thread that I understant mark's comments as the coins all look much better than the assigned grades. (thumbs u

 

to further illustrate here is a quick example:

 

Normal image shot with multiple light sources...

 

 

Diffused image which masks out a lot of the Marks on mis liberty's face and cap...based on this photo the coin looks MS65 to me?

 

[MPrintz-migration]

I think what IGWT meant when he said "diffused" when he saw my set-up was not the proper term - i don't "diffuse" the light but i do mute the light - meaning i simply make it a little less harsh - soften the harshness that halogen can produce - but for the record I do NOT use any diffusers or diffusing technique.

[MarkFeld]

I see hairlines in the central shield, especially under the right side of the tree and across the Caribou or Moose (not sure what it is - sorry to the Maine folks here) and a hit on the reverse between the N and T in CENTENNIAL. Those issues alone, which are visible in the image, would not allow for a 67 grade. As for the 67 you posted the link to - those are scans and not digital images so i would expect the quality of those images to lack sufficient quality to allow for accurate grading - if grading by an image.

The flaws you mentioned, if they are all even man-made flaws, would not necessarily disqualify the coin from a 67 grade. And if the Heritage example was scanned, that didn't magically make spots/stians appear where there weren't any.

 

I do not believe that you can be objective about the coin, since you already had an idea in your head about the assigned grade.

 

Edited to add: Shane, it is a Maine, not a Monroe being discussed/debated.

[IGWT]

I think what IGWT meant when he said "diffused" when he saw my set-up was not the proper term - i don't "diffuse" the light but i do mute the light - meaning i simply make it a little less harsh - soften the harshness that halogen can produce - but for the record I do NOT use any diffusers or diffusing technique.

 

I didn't use the word "diffused." I wrote: " The technique does *not* overemphasize luster; in fact, Mike mutes the lights in a way that mellows the luster for accurate representations."

 

Edited to add: I guess I'll leave it for everyone to guess the difference between "diffused" and "muted."

[MarkFeld]

I think what IGWT meant when he said "diffused" when he saw my set-up was not the proper term - i don't "diffuse" the light but i do mute the light - meaning i simply make it a little less harsh - soften the harshness that halogen can produce - but for the record I do NOT use any diffusers or diffusing technique.

 

I didn't use the word "diffused." I wrote: " The technique does *not* overemphasize luster; in fact, Mike mutes the lights in a way that mellows the luster for accurate representations."

 

Edited to add: I guess I'll leave it for everyone to guess the difference between "diffused" and "muted."

I guess I'll leave it for everyone to guess the difference between "diffused" and "muted" (and, in the case of Mike, "confused").

 

Fixed

[IGWT]

I'm not sure what you're driving at here, Mark, but the the bottom line is this: No picture can possibly represent all facets of a coin, and the best we can hope to do is to capture the coin as it appears to our eyes when given the chance of a fair look. Mike would say the same, I think. Whether you've intended to or not, you've implied in this thread that Mike intentionally makes a coin appear better in a picture than it does in hand. I know for a fact that's not the case.

[MarkFeld]

I'm not sure what you're driving at here, Mark, but the the bottom line is this: No picture can possibly represent all facets of a coin, and the best we can hope to do is to capture the coin as it appears to our eyes when given the chance of a fair look. Mike would say the same, I think. Whether you've intended to or not, you've implied in this thread that Mike intentionally makes a coin appear better in a picture than it does in hand. I know for a fact that's not the case.

Lou, I haven't implied anything about Mike's intent. I have however, observed, that in my opinion, by whatever means he shoots his images, they often make even lower grade unc. coins look better than the assigned grade. I hold Mike in the highest regard and consider him to be honest, highly ethical and trustworthy. I hope he doesn't read this, though.

[IGWT]

Looks no less a 67 than Lee's Maine commemorative, wouldn't you agree? Edited to add: My point is that pretty coins make for pretty pictures, and ugly coins make for ugly picture, no matter the seller.

 

[MarkFeld]

Lou, the Nickel you posted is, in my opinion, an unfair comparison. It's a Proof coin, not a business strike. And generally, images of the latter are more likely to show grade-limiting flaws than the former, since hairlines on Proofs rarely show up well in images.

 

By the way, the images of the 1883 Nickel (which coincidentally, I sold here in Vegas today) are not mine. Had they been, I can almost guarantee you that it wouldn't have looked nearly that good.

 

 

[IGWT]

I hold Mike in the highest regard and consider him to be honest, highly ethical and trustworthy.

 

Common ground.