* Worthy

[dimefreak]

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.

 

Since your so good at judging pics can you please answer my fingerprint question thread down below?

[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.

 

Go troll somewhere else!

I am not trolling. It seems that you are acting a little more hostile as the attitude of the thread is against you.

 

 

[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!

I am not trolling. It seems that you are acting a little more hostile as the attitude of the thread is against you.

 

 

I am not acting hostile, this is how I always act. Those that know me are aware of that. Furthermore, there are people who both support and dissent from my opinion in this thread, so I would hardly call the thread against me.

 

Your contribution in this thread was to call my opinion rude. You have not posted any opinion of your own on the subject. Your sole intention is to start a flame war by calling me rude. Therefore, you are trolling!

 

 

 

[lehigh96]

 

Since your so good at judging pics can you please answer my fingerprint question thread down below?

 

I have responded to that thread.

[James_OldeTowne]

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.

NO! That is NOT what I stated ! I stated that SOME of the coins they image use scans, SOME use a cookie-cutter imaging method, and SOME of the time, they tailor shots individually to the coin in question.

 

In my experience, the specially tailored imaging is for the really really expensive stuff. I don't know what Heritage's criteria is for settling between a scan or a digital photo for everything else, but it simply is true that all three possibilities apply toward how they image their coins.

 

I have bought quite a lot of stuff from Heritage over the last year (not in terms of dollars, but in terms of number of coins). The quality if the coin versus the image tends to be all over the place. In some cases, I've been stunned at how much nicer the coin was than depicted (and this is almost always from scanned coins), and in some cases, terribly disappointed (usually when they use some wacky over-tilted imaging angle). The problem is (and again, I know this for a FACT) they have multiple photographers who emphasize different things in their individual images, based presumably on personal preference.

 

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.

This wouldn't validate anything, as far as I'm concerned. I don't even like Walkers! It would make more sense to purchase the coin and send it back to NGC for re-evaluation (although I don't know if the grade guarantee covers a "star").

[braddick]

 

 

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.

 

Too late. I already did a couple of days ago.

[lehigh96]

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.

NO! That is NOT what I stated ! I stated that SOME of the coins they image use scans, SOME use a cookie-cutter imaging method, and SOME of the time, they tailor shots individually to the coin in question.

 

In my experience, the specially tailored imaging is for the really really expensive stuff. I don't know what Heritage's criteria is for settling between a scan or a digital photo for everything else, but it simply is true that all three possibilities apply toward how they image their coins.

 

I have bought quite a lot of stuff from Heritage over the last year (not in terms of dollars, but in terms of number of coins). The quality if the coin versus the image tends to be all over the place. In some cases, I've been stunned at how much nicer the coin was than depicted (and this is almost always from scanned coins), and in some cases, terribly disappointed (usually when they use some wacky over-tilted imaging angle). The problem is (and again, I know this for a FACT) they have multiple photographers who emphasize different things in their individual images, based presumably on personal preference.

 

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.

This wouldn't validate anything, as far as I'm concerned. I don't even like Walkers! It would make more sense to purchase the coin and send it back to NGC for re-evaluation (although I don't know if the grade guarantee covers a "star").

 

James,

 

I really think you are missing my point. You claimed that this coin which was in a signature sale was a scan. I think it is a photo because has the same overall look as all of the other images I have seen from Heritage over the last two years. How can you differentiate between a scan and a photo with their new lighting method?

 

While I am sure that NGC would probably remove the star if I sent it back in for a grade review, the coin would probably keep the same numerical grade and there would not be any compensation under the grade guarantee.

 

Again, the grade and star have become a secondary factor in our conversation. We are currently arguing about the ability to judge a coin's merits from photographs. While you and Mark take the purist approach that it can't be done, other collectors like Jason and myself believe that it can be done and have been doing it for years. In fact, there used to be a number of E-bay dealers who made a living doing exactly what this E-Bay dealer is attempting to do with this coin, buy a toned coin from Heritage cheaply and sell it for a premium on E-Bay. Granted, most of the sellers I am talking about were very good photographers and were able to present the coin in a way that the photographed emphasized the coin's best attributes. I don't see that same business model being applied by those sellers anymore. I attribute that to the fact that Heritage's images have become good enough to make it very difficult for those sellers to pull it off.

 

You claim that you have bought many coins from Heritage and that the imaging quality is all over the place. My experience is completely different and I have purchased hundreds of coins worth over $50,000 over the last 5 years and am considered a Legacy Client, whatever that means. I have written posts on other forums about the photography issue and am not some newbie stumbling into this thread.

 

The Importance of Quality Photographs

 

The important passage from the post linked above is:

Heritage is the undisputed leader in the numismatic auction business and their photos are also the best in the business. However, sometimes I see Heritage photos that are so bad, I can hardly believe that they took them. Here is an example from the most recent 2010 Central States Sale.

 

When Heritage completely botches an image, you can almost always identify it as a poor image. Let's look at the example I posted in that thread.

 

 

There is no way anyone could view this image and expect that it is an accurate depiction of the coin's appearance in hand. What you can determine is that the coin has no major distractions and the luster and strike are very good, as you would expect from an MS67. The lighting is inadequate to judge the surfaces and minor flaws could easily be hidden in the darkness. The major question marks are the surfaces, the color, and the resultant eye appeal. Bidding on this coin with a terrible image was a risk, but there was enough in the image to indicate that the coin would look much better in hand. Here is my photo which is an accurate representation of the coin's appearance.

 

 

The key difference between that coin and the one listed in the OP of this thread is simple. The coin in this thread does not have a terrible image. The lighting is good and you can judge the surfaces & strike of both the obverse and reverse. It is obvious to everyone on both forums that the luster is good but is not conveyed in the images. This is the one area that would make you think the coin will look better in hand than in the image, and I readily admitted that in the thread ATS.

 

 

The problem is that the toning is not misrepresented in the image. It is indeed mottled russet toning. It is not iridescent! It is not beautiful! It is not a pattern that toning enthusiasts appreciate! Several members have commented on the fact that the toning pattern is a strong indicator of originality. And while that is admirable, it is not synonymous with exceptional eye appeal. In fact, I would describe this coin as "wholly original." You are a cataloger. You know that phrase is reserved for coins that if they were women, you would describe as having a "great personality."

 

There is absolutely nothing in that image to indicate that the luster will make the obverse toning look anything but ugly. Often times, collectors will assign nicknames to describe their toned coins. If I owned this coin, I would dub it "the TP Walker." I stand behind my opinion that this coin does not deserve the star designation and that there is nothing in that image to indicate that it's appearance in hand will vary greatly from what we see in the photo.

 

I would also like you to know that I think these disagreements are healthy and draw out great information that helps collectors learn. I would much rather read a thread where two members vehemently disagree with each other than a thread filled with kudos after the OP posts a coin.

 

[braddick]

To make a blanket statement toning on a coin- based strictly on a photograph- is not worthy of a STAR rating, even with the full understanding professional graders, each without an agenda other than to get it right awarded the coin as such, is either ego driven or ignorant.

 

It's not to say the OP could possibly be correct, but to be so certain?

That's a leap in judgement and logic few would dare.

[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.

 

Go troll somewhere else!

I am not trolling. It seems that you are acting a little more hostile as the attitude of the thread is against you.

 

 

I am not acting hostile, this is how I always act. Those that know me are aware of that. Furthermore, there are people who both support and dissent from my opinion in this thread, so I would hardly call the thread against me.

 

Your contribution in this thread was to call my opinion rude. You have not posted any opinion of your own on the subject. Your sole intention is to start a flame war by calling me rude. Therefore, you are trolling!

 

 

I was telling you to not speak your rude comments. No, I am not trying to start a fight. Hate to break it to you ( ), but you are now trolling your own thread

[DieClash]

To make a blanket statement toning on a coin- based strictly on a photograph- is not worthy of a STAR rating, even with the full understanding professional graders, each without an agenda other than to get it right awarded the coin as such, is either ego driven or ignorant.

 

It's not to say the OP could possibly be correct, but to be so certain?

That's a leap in judgement and logic few would dare.

 

ROFL. Sleepy Hollow has its drama too! Just not as dramatic ATS. Just sayin'!

 

Cheers!

 

Kirk

[lehigh96]

To make a blanket statement toning on a coin- based strictly on a photograph- is not worthy of a STAR rating, even with the full understanding professional graders, each without an agenda other than to get it right awarded the coin as such, is either ego driven or ignorant.

 

It's not to say the OP could possibly be correct, but to be so certain?

That's a leap in judgement and logic few would dare.

 

Well Pat, it is obviously ego driven. And several others in this thread and the one ATS have made the same leap in judgement. My words are not hollow, and I have already put my money where my mouth is. Did you really buy the coin? Perhaps you would like to accept the wager?

[lehigh96]

I was telling you to not speak your rude comments. No, I am not trying to start a fight. Hate to break it to you ( ), but you are now trolling your own thread

 

How old are you?

[braddick]

[MJ]

More importantly it's "brass tacks" and not "brass tax", right?

 

MJ

[Catbert]

I'm with Lehigh on this debate, even after the better pics posted by braddick.

[coinman_23885]

I still don't consider the coin star worthy even with the new photographs.

[lehigh96]

More importantly it's "brass tacks" and not "brass tax", right?

 

MJ

 

After 5 pages of debate, hours spent composing my replies, and my best effort to convince others that I am right, I am forced to admit:

 

I WAS WRONG!

 

[lehigh96]

Damn Pat,

 

How did you get that thing so fast? Nice luster on the reverse btw. So what is the deal in hand, star worthy or not?

[braddick]

Damn Pat,

 

How did you get that thing so fast? Nice luster on the reverse btw. So what is the deal in hand, star worthy or not?

 

No, with the coin in hand I can honestly admit it is not STAR worthy. Those that read the toning from the photos were correct. The reverse luster and strike do not elevate this one to that lofty status, IMHO.

 

(On a side note, it does have an interesting extremely weak designer initials. I'd be curious if that is common or not or warrants investigation. It's not my series, so my speculation would only be a guess.)

 

Again, not STAR worthy- those who stated as such are right.

I, sadly in this case, was wrong.

[James_OldeTowne]

No, with the coin in hand I can honestly admit it is not STAR worthy. Those that read the toning from the photos were correct. The reverse luster and strike do not elevate this one to that lofty status, IMHO.

 

(On a side note, it does have an interesting extremely weak designer initials. I'd be curious if that is common or not or warrants investigation. It's not my series, so my speculation would only be a guess.)

 

Again, not STAR worthy- those who stated as such are right.

I, sadly in this case, was wrong.

Now that's more like it... in-hand evaluation !

 

Braddick, I will pay shipping to-and-from if you would be willing to ship me the coin for photography and evaluation.

 

Edited to add:

You claim that you have bought many coins from Heritage and that the imaging quality is all over the place. My experience is completely different and I have purchased hundreds of coins worth over $50,000 over the last 5 years and am considered a Legacy Client, whatever that means. I have written posts on other forums about the photography issue and am not some newbie stumbling into this thread.

Lehigh, unfortunately... for better or for worse... I am way way way over $50,000 over the last five years . In my experience, I'd guess 80% of what I've bought from Heritage was reasonably depicted in their images, and 20% were significantly worse, or significantly better, than as-depicted in their images. (And incidentally, I'd say an 80% success rate is reasonable for something as subjective and artistic as imaging coins.)

[physics-fan3.14]

Braddick - from your photos, that coin looks exactly like I expected it to look. Good to know I'm not off my rocker and can evaluate photos as well as I thought. Your pics show considerably more luster, but the same ugly toning.

 

There are several varieties of Walker with completely missing initials, which command a premium, but weak initials are common.

[MarkFeld]

Braddick - from your photos, that coin looks exactly like I expected it to look. Good to know I'm not off my rocker and can evaluate photos as well as I thought. Your pics show considerably more luster, but the same ugly toning.

 

There are several varieties of Walker with completely missing initials, which command a premium, but weak initials are common.

 

Assuming Pat's images are accurate, I don't think the coin is star worthy, but, unlike you, I don't think the toning is ugly. In fact, I find it to be attractive. And that illustrates, yet again, how subjective eye-appeal can be.

 

Regardless of the opinions and outcome in this case, I still think it is generally foolish to make pronouncements such as a coin is certainly this or that, based solely on images. There are simply too many times when images are misleading.

 

Lastly, it's great to know that any time in the future when there is a debate about a coin's in-hand attributes, Pat will buy it and clear up the matter for all of us. (thumbs u

 

[brg5658]

Braddick - from your photos, that coin looks exactly like I expected it to look. Good to know I'm not off my rocker and can evaluate photos as well as I thought. Your pics show considerably more luster, but the same ugly toning.

 

Jason, you are so draconian and dogmatic sometimes. Yes, the coin is "uniquely" toned. And, yes the toning is not rainbow or subtle. But, I agree with Mark -- even so, "ugly" is a blanket statement of somewhat juvenile utility. It may be ugly in your eyes, but no more ugly than, say, your 1949S MS65+FBL PL Franklin Half is ugly in my eyes.

 

All said and done though, I am surprised with the ★ designation, as it seems the majority of persons find the toning unappealing to the eye. But, that said, the coin also did not initially sell in the Heritage auction at a premium solely because of the star. Technically speaking, the coin is a strong 66 IMO.

[MarkFeld]

Speaking of images which don't tell the whole story - my guess is that this is yet another example and that the coin looks quite different and better in person. At least I hope so.

 

[q]

[physics-fan3.14]

Braddick - from your photos, that coin looks exactly like I expected it to look. Good to know I'm not off my rocker and can evaluate photos as well as I thought. Your pics show considerably more luster, but the same ugly toning.

 

Jason, you are so draconian and dogmatic sometimes. Yes, the coin is "uniquely" toned. And, yes the toning is not rainbow or subtle. But, I agree with Mark -- even so, "ugly" is a blanket statement of somewhat juvenile utility. It may be ugly in your eyes, but no more ugly than, say, your 1949S MS65+FBL PL Franklin Half is ugly in my eyes.

 

Fair enough - it should be understood that when I state my opinion, it is taken as an opinion. If you prefer, I'll describe the coin as "offensive to my eyes." If I think something is ugly, I'm going to call it ugly - I'm not going to sugarcoat it and pretend to like something I don't (or try and be polite and call it "uniquely toned"). And yes, eye appeal is incredibly subjective. I've always said that.

 

I always try to be honest, and that's what you should expect.

[lehigh96]

Braddick - from your photos, that coin looks exactly like I expected it to look. Good to know I'm not off my rocker and can evaluate photos as well as I thought. Your pics show considerably more luster, but the same ugly toning.

 

Jason, you are so draconian and dogmatic sometimes. Yes, the coin is "uniquely" toned. And, yes the toning is not rainbow or subtle. But, I agree with Mark -- even so, "ugly" is a blanket statement of somewhat juvenile utility. It may be ugly in your eyes, but no more ugly than, say, your 1949S MS65+FBL PL Franklin Half is ugly in my eyes.

 

Fair enough - it should be understood that when I state my opinion, it is taken as an opinion. If you prefer, I'll describe the coin as "offensive to my eyes." If I think something is ugly, I'm going to call it ugly - I'm not going to sugarcoat it and pretend to like something I don't (or try and be polite and call it "uniquely toned"). And yes, eye appeal is incredibly subjective. I've always said that.

 

I always try to be honest, and that's what you should expect.

 

Jason,

 

In the future, don't call it ugly, use the politically correct term, "wholly original." But since we are past being PC, that coin is fugly!

[brg5658]

Fair enough - it should be understood that when I state my opinion, it is taken as an opinion. If you prefer, I'll describe the coin as "offensive to my eyes." If I think something is ugly, I'm going to call it ugly - I'm not going to sugarcoat it and pretend to like something I don't (or try and be polite and call it "uniquely toned"). And yes, eye appeal is incredibly subjective. I've always said that.

 

I always try to be honest, and that's what you should expect.

 

Jason, as you know from previous discourse here I am not offended nor do I honestly care if you use the word "ugly". I have not, and will not ask you to create a story about something for the sensitive readers (of which I am not).

 

Rather, in my opinion, it serves no purpose to write something off as "butt ugly", when one could simply say "I don't like it". However, we are not in finishing school, and you are free to express your opinions in whatever way you see fit. I am NOT the PC police, and honestly PC-ness drives me crazy. Now on a note of positivity, I find your PL half cent to be absolutely stunning. (thumbs u

[James_OldeTowne]

Speaking of images which don't tell the whole story - my guess is that this is yet another example and that the coin looks quite different and better in person. At least I hope so.

 

[q]

it looks like a VF+ from those miserable images!

[braddick]

Thank you James for your kind and generous offer to evaluate and photograph the coin.

 

It's received enough poor ratings within this thread (and the other) to last for awhile.

I personally could easily take further criticism you are likely to heap upon it but I'm not sure the tender feelings of this Walking Liberty half could handle it.

As its caretaker and guardian and to protect it from more verbal abuse, I must humbly pass.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Darn !

 

Actually, I happen to like the toning a lot, although it isn't mind-boggling or anything. Personally, I just find it attractive.