* Worthy

[lehigh96]

In order not to derail Mark Feld's thread about Coin Doctoring, let's start the same thread posted ATS about the Walker with a star designation (Heritage Photo below).

 

 

1945-D WLH NGC MS66* Heritage Link

 

1945-D WLH NGC MS66* E-Bay Link

 

Is there a chance that this coin deserves a star? Sure, in much the same way that Lloyd had a chance with Mary in Dumb & Dumber.

[physics-fan3.14]

The reverse is nice.... if you like white coins.

 

The obverse is nice... if you're blind.

[FILTHYHOARD]

Well, the reverse is definitely star worthy. I don't particularly care for the obverse. As a whole, definitely NOT a coin with "outstanding eye appeal" and deserving of NGC's star designation.

You know those "magic-art" paintings, the ones that if you stare at it long enough you can see an image within the artwork??? Perhaps if we stare at the obverse long enough we can see a star

 

Edited to add, I have nothing against a nice crusty coin. I just don't see this as a star*

[MJ]

I think I may own a dozen or more star designated Walkers. This example puzzles me. MJ

[MarkFeld]

I have seen many coins, whose images made them look far worse than that Walker, yet were absolutely gorgeous, in hand. I don't think it is fair to assume, based on images, that the coin couldn't be worthy of the star designation.

[PerryHall]

Agree with Mark---I'll bet that coin is much nicer in hand but in the final analysis, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[James_OldeTowne]

I stand by my previous statement elsewhere. Judging the eye-appeal of that coin based on those awful images is just plain nutty. The Heritage "image" is a SCAN. Even given that, the luster on the coin is so strong it still comes through.... IN A SCAN. Therefore, I would interpret a considerable level of luster. The eBay images are clearly an attempt to capture that luster, since the coin was tilted, but once again, the photographer didn't do a very good job overall.

 

As to the toning, of course it's a matter of personal preference. But the key point for me is that the coin appears to be 1,000,000% original, never dipped and never messed with. Three people at NGC thought it exceptional, so if we accept the arguments ATS, then ALL THREE of these professional graders are idiots.

 

Am I saying it IS star-worthy, then?? Of course not. What I'm saying is that we cannot tell from the images provided whether it is or not. Laying out an entire thread ATS just to slam a coin based on bad images.... well, maybe that's just typical of the mindset over there for some posters.

 

Incidentally, I am not "anti-ATS", either. Since I was linked over there, I poked around, and it looks like there are several enjoyable, educational and useful threads.

[ultra-crepidarian]

Of course, as always, Mark and James serve as voices of reason. But I ‘m sorry, just based on that picture I wouldn’t star the coin … in fact, I might actually moon it.

[BillJones]

It is an end of the roll coin. I don't think that it has been dipped. It's the kind of piece that collectors either love or hate depending upon their tastes for original coins.

[cpm9ball]

I have always had the impression that the star award may be given to a coin where there exists a situation just like this, meaning, the reverse is knock-down beautiful! (my opinion) Don't we also see situations like this when one side of a coin just misses CAM or DPL? I don't see a problem with it.

 

Chris

[bsshog40]

As others have stated, the Reverse looks awesome. The Obv looks to have a very nice strike to it also. I have to also agree that I don't see this as being star worthy tho' because the Obv is downright ugly. In the OP, we have at least 3 different sets of pictures of this coin, they all look the same to me, I think I could judge this coin with 3 different sets of pics for sure that it is UGLY!

[brg5658]

I have seen many coins, whose images made them look far worse than that Walker, yet were absolutely gorgeous, in hand. I don't think it is fair to assume, based on images, that the coin couldn't be worthy of the star designation.

+1

 

While it may or may not "deserve" the star designation, I believe the technical grade to be spot on. As James pointed out, the star is assigned when three judges at NGC all agree that the coin has "superior eye appeal". That's a far more subjective designation than technical grading (which I also realize is subjective). I think asking if a toned coin "deserves" a star is something akin to asking if a woman is beautiful. Some will think so, some will not, but ultimately "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". You like blondes, I like brunettes. You like "rainbow rim toning", others may like "russet end-roll toning".

 

Would I buy the coin in question for the posted price: No.

Do I think it deserves the star: My opinion doesn't matter because I don't work for NGC.

Do I think it could be a beautiful coin in hand: Yes.

[Walkerfan]

Judging from the obv. images alone---I say No. Unless, it looks MUCH better in hand.

[lehigh96]

I have seen many coins, whose images made them look far worse than that Walker, yet were absolutely gorgeous, in hand. I don't think it is fair to assume, based on images, that the coin couldn't be worthy of the star designation.

 

Care to provide an example?

[MarkFeld]

I have seen many coins, whose images made them look far worse than that Walker, yet were absolutely gorgeous, in hand. I don't think it is fair to assume, based on images, that the coin couldn't be worthy of the star designation.

 

Care to provide an example?

 

Paul, I am surprised you would ask. Surely you have seen some examples, yourself?

 

I know you posted elsewhere, that Heritage's images are better today than they were years ago and that is probably correct. Still, I think this example is a good one:

 

[lehigh96]

I stand by my previous statement elsewhere. Judging the eye-appeal of that coin based on those awful images is just plain nutty. The Heritage "image" is a SCAN. Even given that, the luster on the coin is so strong it still comes through.... IN A SCAN. Therefore, I would interpret a considerable level of luster. The eBay images are clearly an attempt to capture that luster, since the coin was tilted, but once again, the photographer didn't do a very good job overall.

 

As to the toning, of course it's a matter of personal preference. But the key point for me is that the coin appears to be 1,000,000% original, never dipped and never messed with. Three people at NGC thought it exceptional, so if we accept the arguments ATS, then ALL THREE of these professional graders are idiots.

 

Am I saying it IS star-worthy, then?? Of course not. What I'm saying is that we cannot tell from the images provided whether it is or not. Laying out an entire thread ATS just to slam a coin based on bad images.... well, maybe that's just typical of the mindset over there for some posters.

 

Incidentally, I am not "anti-ATS", either. Since I was linked over there, I poked around, and it looks like there are several enjoyable, educational and useful threads.

 

 

James,

 

Are you claiming that all Heritage photos are scans? This coin was in the October 2011 Pittsburgh Signature Sale.

 

I don't care if the luster goes on for miles, all three graders did in fact "blow it." And it has nothing to do with the mindset of the members ATS. My entire collection is predicated on exceptional eye appeal. I have seen and owned star coins of just about every series and I am a huge supporter of the star designation. But the fact that this coin has a star is an insult to the designation and jeopardizes the significance of the designation in the eyes of collectors.

 

Nobody is disputing that the coin will look better in hand than it does in an image. I admitted that ATS. But that coin is down right ugly in the E-Bay photo, and only marginally better in the Heritage photo. There are many sellers who specialize in buying coins with bad photographs and reselling them with good photos that capture the coin's best features. That didn't happen here, some guy who doesn't know how to take photos at all bought the coin.

 

ATS, Pat provided an example of a coin that looked horrible in one photo and great in another. We can all do that.

 

Heritage above/Brandon Kelley below

 

Heritage left/Brandon Kelley right

 

But these examples are using Heritage photos from years ago. I have not seen a Heritage coin in the last year that I thought I could flip easily for a profit based on a bad image. When you guys defend the star designation on this coin, all I hear is Lloyd telling Mary, "so you're telling me there is a chance"."

[lehigh96]

I have seen many coins, whose images made them look far worse than that Walker, yet were absolutely gorgeous, in hand. I don't think it is fair to assume, based on images, that the coin couldn't be worthy of the star designation.

 

Care to provide an example?

 

Paul, I am surprised you would ask. Surely you have seen some examples, yourself?

 

I know you posted elsewhere, that Heritage's images are better today than they were years ago and that is probably correct. Still, I think this example is a good one:

 

 

Mark,

 

That was Pat's example ATS and it just doesn't hold water. What year was that before photo taken? And was it even a Heritage photo?

[jom]

Why is it that when a TPG blows a grade people act like it is some crime against humanity?

 

Who fricken cares if the coin has some designation? If...and that is a HUGE IF in this case...you like the coin pay an appropriate price.

 

If you don't like it...PASS. And if you don't like the coin why would anyone care what is stamped on the holder. I'd have better things to do...like going to find another coin for example.

 

jom

 

 

 

 

[lehigh96]

Why is it that when a TPG blows a grade people act like it is some crime against humanity?

 

Who fricken cares if the coin has some designation? If...and that is a HUGE IF in this case...you like the coin pay an appropriate price.

 

If you don't like it...PASS. And if you don't like the coin why would anyone care what is stamped on the holder. I'd have better things to do...like going to find another coin for example.

 

jom

 

 

 

 

What is worse than a rant. Someone ranting about a rant. You have better things to do, then go do them.

[MarkFeld]

I have seen many coins, whose images made them look far worse than that Walker, yet were absolutely gorgeous, in hand. I don't think it is fair to assume, based on images, that the coin couldn't be worthy of the star designation.

 

Care to provide an example?

 

Paul, I am surprised you would ask. Surely you have seen some examples, yourself?

 

I know you posted elsewhere, that Heritage's images are better today than they were years ago and that is probably correct. Still, I think this example is a good one:

 

 

Mark,

 

That was Pat's example ATS and it just doesn't hold water. What year was that before photo taken? And was it even a Heritage photo?

 

It was Pat's example, which I had forwarded to him for posting to the thread, if he wished. I am the one who bought the coin out of the Heritage sale and shot the second image. Even my shot, which shows some of the gorgeous color, didn't do the coin justice.

 

Yes, it was a Heritage photo, from March 2009: See the listing here

 

I have seen and bought many beautiful coins which looked terrible in their on line (Heritage and/or other) images, even more recent ones.Likewise, many coins which look great in images, don't look nearly so good in hand.

 

When you guys defend the star designation on this coin, all I hear is Lloyd telling Mary, "so you're telling me there is a chance"

 

Yes, there is a chance, perhaps even a good one, as the images might not be at all indicative of what the coin really looks like. Time and time again, a comparison of coins in person vs. their images, has proved that.

[DieClash]

Dip it.

[lehigh96]

 

It was Pat's example, which I had forwarded to him for posting to the thread, if he wished. I am the one who bought the coin out of the Heritage sale and shot the second image. Even my shot, which shows some of the gorgeous color, didn't do the coin justice.

 

Yes, it was a Heritage photo, from March 2009: See the listing here

 

I have seen and bought many beautiful coins which looked terrible in their on line (Heritage and/or other) images, even more recent ones.Likewise, many coins which look great in images, don't look nearly so good in hand.

 

When you guys defend the star designation on this coin, all I hear is Lloyd telling Mary, "so you're telling me there is a chance"

 

Yes, there is a chance, perhaps even a good one, as the images might not be at all indicative of what the coin really looks like. Time and time again, a comparison of coins in person vs. their images, has proved that.

 

Mark,

 

You know that I agree with you about coins in person vs images. My unrelenting persistence for beauty shots in my recent consignment is proof enough of that fact. Having said that, the coin in question is not horribly photographed like your Mercury Dime. Personally, I consider proof coins an entirely different animal and would never purchase a proof coin sight unseen with some outside verification. The coin in question has run of the mill original russet toning and probably has booming luster which is hidden by the photos. Since when does a mottled toned obverse make an extremely lustrous blast white reverse deserving of a star. If that were the case, you would see a whole bunch of blast white lustrous coins with stars

 

BTW, I just noticed that the seller has the Heritage photos listed in his auction.

[noow]

Why is it that when a TPG blows a grade people act like it is some crime against humanity?

 

Who fricken cares if the coin has some designation? If...and that is a HUGE IF in this case...you like the coin pay an appropriate price.

 

If you don't like it...PASS. And if you don't like the coin why would anyone care what is stamped on the holder. I'd have better things to do...like going to find another coin for example.

 

jom

 

 

 

 

What is worse than a rant. Someone ranting about a rant. You have better things to do, then go do them.

Please keep your rude opinions to yourself Lehigh.

[lehigh96]

Why is it that when a TPG blows a grade people act like it is some crime against humanity?

 

Who fricken cares if the coin has some designation? If...and that is a HUGE IF in this case...you like the coin pay an appropriate price.

 

If you don't like it...PASS. And if you don't like the coin why would anyone care what is stamped on the holder. I'd have better things to do...like going to find another coin for example.

 

jom

 

 

 

 

What is worse than a rant. Someone ranting about a rant. You have better things to do, then go do them.

Please keep your rude opinions to yourself Lehigh.

 

Go troll somewhere else!

[physics-fan3.14]

The only thing I have to judge that coin with is NGC's opinion, and the photographs. However, one of the skills that a collector in the modern digital era has to develop is to interpret coins from photographs. I believe I am skilled enough to know that the Walker posted is a dog, and no amount of seeing it in hand is going to change that. Even the Heritage photos of that Merc show hints of gorgeous toning - enough that I would take a chance on it. Paul's examples of (really bad) photos still show enough color teasing around the edges that I would take a chance on them. Heritage has greatly improved their imaging - and that Walker is still an ugly piece of silver.

 

I like originality as much as the next guy - and I'm not going to argue the fact that this Walker is original. However, this is one example of an original coin that is also butt ugly. Its not a matter of preference - you might like brunettes, I like blondes. But I can still appreciate a pretty (original) brunette. The fact of the matter is, the Walker needs a facelift. Sorry, I said it.

[James_OldeTowne]

Are you claiming that all Heritage photos are scans? This coin was in the October 2011 Pittsburgh Signature Sale.

Heritage uses digital photos and scans. The subject coin happens to be the latter.

 

I don't care if the luster goes on for miles, all three graders did in fact "blow it."

So what you are saying then is that you don't care whether someone's opinion is different from yours, and if they do differ in opinion, it must be because "they blew it"?? Since when did application of the "star" become an objective matter? It's given for exceptional eye-appeal by the three people who actually examined the coin in-hand, and not from lousy digital images.

 

But these examples are using Heritage photos from years ago. I have not seen a Heritage coin in the last year that I thought I could flip easily for a profit based on a bad image. When you guys defend the star designation on this coin, all I hear is Lloyd telling Mary, "so you're telling me there is a chance"."

Unfortunately - and this is not an opinion, it is a fact - you are absolutely wrong about Heritage images. They DO still use scans on SOME coins. And on many coins, they use digital photos with a single "one size fits all" setup. How do I know this as a fact? Simple... one of my best friends works for Heritage.

 

You also missed my previous point. I am not saying the coin IS star-worthy. I am saying that none of us can determine whether it is or isn't given the poor images.

[MarkFeld]

Are you claiming that all Heritage photos are scans? This coin was in the October 2011 Pittsburgh Signature Sale.

Heritage uses digital photos and scans. The subject coin happens to be the latter.

 

I don't care if the luster goes on for miles, all three graders did in fact "blow it."

So what you are saying then is that you don't care whether someone's opinion is different from yours, and if they do differ in opinion, it must be because "they blew it"?? Since when did application of the "star" become an objective matter? It's given for exceptional eye-appeal by the three people who actually examined the coin in-hand, and not from lousy digital images.

 

But these examples are using Heritage photos from years ago. I have not seen a Heritage coin in the last year that I thought I could flip easily for a profit based on a bad image. When you guys defend the star designation on this coin, all I hear is Lloyd telling Mary, "so you're telling me there is a chance"."

Unfortunately - and this is not an opinion, it is a fact - you are absolutely wrong about Heritage images. They DO still use scans on SOME coins. And on many coins, they use digital photos with a single "one size fits all" setup. How do I know this as a fact? Simple... one of my best friends works for Heritage.

 

You also missed my previous point. I am not saying the coin IS star-worthy. I am saying that none of us can determine whether it is or isn't given the poor images.

 

James, I agree with all of the above, but for one thing. It's possible that the images are good and not poor. But the point is, since we haven't also seen the coin in hand, we don't know if the images are good, poor, whatever. And hence, we also don't know what the coin really looks like, in order to judge its star worthiness.

 

 

[Walkerfan]

I happen to feel that Heritages photos/scans tend to be pretty accurate (compared to many others) but I must also say that the coins that I've bought from them DO happen to look a little better once IN HAND. I'm not extremely optimistic about this coin but I bet that it looks just a little bit better than these images do but it still might not be a REAL dazzler, though.

[jom]

The only thing I have to judge that coin with is NGC's opinion, and the photographs. However, one of the skills that a collector in the modern digital era has to develop is to interpret coins from photographs.

 

That is VERY true. And it is quite difficult at time. I often hesitate and I can't decide whether I like the coin from the photo so if I do go for it I take the chance I have to send it back. Which actually embarrasses me a bit as it wastes the dealers time (and money) and my money (to the PO obviously). Of course, with auctions there aren't any "do overs".

 

So what you are saying then is that you don't care whether someone's opinion is different from yours, and if they do differ in opinion, it must be because "they blew it"?? Since when did application of the "star" become an objective matter? It's given for exceptional eye-appeal by the three people who actually examined the coin in-hand, and not from lousy digital images.

 

It's the same with overall grading...it isn't all that objective. People do have differing opinion but I still maintain that too many collectors get all in a huff over TPG messing up grades. Especially when said collectors don't even own the coin nor will they ever. So why the "you ran over my dog" attitude? Well, I guess it makes for good fodder on the message boards.

 

I happen to feel that Heritages photos/scans tend to be pretty accurate (compared to many others) but I must also say that the coins that I've bought from them DO happen to look a little better once IN HAND. I'm not extremely optimistic about this coin but I bet that it looks just a little bit better than these images do but it still might not be a REAL dazzler, though.

 

Heritage has gotten a LOT better...I'm speaking of the scans here. In the past often they tuned up the CONTRAST in many of those photos almost to the point toned coins look like someone put make-up on them. Now they seem to have gone in the other direction. I don't know if that is entirely true but something I've "noticed" a bit lately.

 

jom

[lehigh96]

Are you claiming that all Heritage photos are scans? This coin was in the October 2011 Pittsburgh Signature Sale.

Heritage uses digital photos and scans. The subject coin happens to be the latter.

 

I don't care if the luster goes on for miles, all three graders did in fact "blow it."

So what you are saying then is that you don't care whether someone's opinion is different from yours, and if they do differ in opinion, it must be because "they blew it"?? Since when did application of the "star" become an objective matter? It's given for exceptional eye-appeal by the three people who actually examined the coin in-hand, and not from lousy digital images.

 

But these examples are using Heritage photos from years ago. I have not seen a Heritage coin in the last year that I thought I could flip easily for a profit based on a bad image. When you guys defend the star designation on this coin, all I hear is Lloyd telling Mary, "so you're telling me there is a chance"."

Unfortunately - and this is not an opinion, it is a fact - you are absolutely wrong about Heritage images. They DO still use scans on SOME coins. And on many coins, they use digital photos with a single "one size fits all" setup. How do I know this as a fact? Simple... one of my best friends works for Heritage.

 

You also missed my previous point. I am not saying the coin IS star-worthy. I am saying that none of us can determine whether it is or isn't given the poor images.

 

I agree that they use a one size fits all set up when photographing their coins. But so do I, and my photos are pretty damn good and I use a simple point and shoot. I never said that they don't use scans, I asked you if all of their photos were scans because this image looks like all the rest. You have just admitted that they use a cookie cutter photography setup and I think the coin in question was photographed, not scanned. And you accuse me of having an unyielding opinion.

 

So lets get down to brass tax here. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I propose a little wager. I will purchase the coin from the current E-Bay seller. We will have 3 people grade the coin and decide the validity of the star. I actually trust that you would give and honest assessment of the coin even if it cost you the bet. I propose that the other two graders be Mark Feld (obvious reasons) and Shane who specializes in toned coins. If all three of graders deem the coin star worthy, I will be forced to keep the coin and sell it at whatever loss it brings when I attempt to sell it. If anyone of the three graders disagrees with the star, you compensate me with my purchase price and the loss becomes yours.

 

Now I know that you have said that you don't necessarily think the coin is star worthy, but that is really not the subject of the wager. The crux of the bet is that you think that you can't judge a coin from a photograph/scan, and I think that you can. And more to the point, I don't think the photo/scan in this case is poor, I think it is dead on accurate.

 

I am willing to negotiate the terms of the wager if you feel anything is unfair. I await your response.