Satin Proof vs. Brilliant Proof 1936 Lincoln. How can you tell the difference?

[robec1347]

Does anyone know how to tell the difference between the Satin and Brilliant proofs in the 1936 Lincoln series?

 

I've seen Satins that look like Brilliant and Brilliant look like Satin. Are there diagnostics?

 

Satin

 

Satin

 

 

Brilliant

 

 

 

[e1cnr]

mirrors

 

your 2nd example could be a mechanical error

[robec1347]

If that is the only way to tell the difference, I’ll bet there are several mechanical errors.

 

It makes me wonder how many Brilliant proofs are out there that have become muted for any number of reasons? Are these now Satin?

 

I was hoping there was something a little more definitive such as the diagnostics in MPL's.

[BillJones]

Going by the photo, whoever called the seond one "satin" got it wrong unless it looks different in person.

[robec1347]

Going by the photo, whoever called the seond one "satin" got it wrong unless it looks different in person.

 

Don't these go through something like 3 graders before they are given grades and designations?

 

The coin belongs to Winged Liberty and he just received it back from grading this week.

[e1cnr]

it doesn't matter how many people see an item,

 

mechanical errors still occur

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

It is almost an easy call, based on an in-hand examination. Unfortunately, that is not the case with on-line images.

[Buffalo Head]

I was just wondering that the other day while looking one on e-bay for sale. No mention on the pcgs slab if was brilliant or satin, so it would be nice to know how to tell the difference....Joe

[MarkFeld]

I was just wondering that the other day while looking one on e-bay for sale. No mention on the pcgs slab if was brilliant or satin, so it would be nice to know how to tell the difference....Joe

 

The grading labels usually include either "Satin" or "Brilliant" or "Type 1" or "Type 2".

[WingedLiberty1]

Mark, you said in-hand it's a easy determination. What is the "tell"?

[rrantique]

 

 

Copper and nickel matte proofs are really more like Roman finish proofs.

.

. (See "Roman Finish'). A hybrid between a brilliant proof surface and a matte surface. Roman finish proof gold coins were struck by the US. mint in 1909 and 1910, although a few examples exist in other years. Some consider Roman finish proofs to be the most beautiful of all proof coins. (Synonym: "Satin Finish").

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

It is almost an easy call, based on an in-hand examination. Unfortunately, that is not the case with on-line images.

My sentiments exactly. In hand, there is almost never a question about it, especially if compared side-by-side.

 

Unfortunately, on top of the fact that digital imaging complicates telling them apart, PCGS "TruViews" are almost certain to be absolutely awful when it comes to the proof cents. I completely cannot stand the way they ALWAYS angle coins for those images, as if the only thing that matters is totally overblowing color.

 

Edited to add: Incidentally, contrary to most preferences, I prefer the satin proofs, and chose one for my run of proof sets.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, you said in-hand it's a easy determination. What is the "tell"?

 

The type 2/brilliant proofs are (no sarcasm intended) brilliant/reflective. The type 1/satin proofs are not, and exhibit more of a lustrous appearance, instead.

[mkman123]

The 1st pic is a satin?? The 2nd is a beaut

[e1cnr]

If you/winged liberty are still confused/wondering you should do a search of archives at Heritage or Teletrade. Their pics show head on and easier to tell than the tru-vues you show.

 

the lower grade brilliants are more difficult from pics because they frequently are hazed over or toned and do not show the reflection/mirrors well.

 

Satins are more like the mattes you are familiar with, they 'sparkle' and have a muted luster on rotation under light.

 

I find it more difficult to tell a satin from a business strike than satin from brilliant.

[brg5658]

It is almost an easy call, based on an in-hand examination. Unfortunately, that is not the case with on-line images.

My sentiments exactly. In hand, there is almost never a question about it, especially if compared side-by-side.

 

Unfortunately, on top of the fact that digital imaging complicates telling them apart, PCGS "TruViews" are almost certain to be absolutely awful when it comes to the proof cents. I completely cannot stand the way they ALWAYS angle coins for those images, as if the only thing that matters is totally overblowing color.

 

Edited to add: Incidentally, contrary to most preferences, I prefer the satin proofs, and chose one for my run of proof sets.

 

I agree with James. I don't know what method PCGS uses to image their coins, but they are almost always over-saturated, and the coins I own that have been imaged (by their previous owners) don't look much like the pictures in hand.

 

Does anyone know if PCGS has an in house photographer doing these one at a time, or is their process automated in some way with a very fancy scanner system? Axial-type lighting is okay to show the surfaces/colors of some coins, but I would never make it my default method. JMO.

[robec1347]

It is almost an easy call, based on an in-hand examination. Unfortunately, that is not the case with on-line images.

My sentiments exactly. In hand, there is almost never a question about it, especially if compared side-by-side.

 

Unfortunately, on top of the fact that digital imaging complicates telling them apart, PCGS "TruViews" are almost certain to be absolutely awful when it comes to the proof cents. I completely cannot stand the way they ALWAYS angle coins for those images, as if the only thing that matters is totally overblowing color.

 

Edited to add: Incidentally, contrary to most preferences, I prefer the satin proofs, and chose one for my run of proof sets.

 

I agree with James. I don't know what method PCGS uses to image their coins, but they are almost always over-saturated, and the coins I own that have been imaged (by their previous owners) don't look much like the pictures in hand.

 

Does anyone know if PCGS has an in house photographer doing these one at a time, or is their process automated in some way with a very fancy scanner system? Axial-type lighting is okay to show the surfaces/colors of some coins, but I would never make it my default method. JMO.

 

Interesting as there is a Q&A from the TrueView photographer going on ATS right now.

Link

 

 

The amount of coins Phil photographs per day is astounding and herculean with around 200. If you've attempted to image coins at all, you will realize how incredible this number is.

[brg5658]

Interesting as there is a Q&A from the TrueView photographer going on ATS right now.

Link

 

 

The amount of coins Phil photographs per day is astounding and herculean with around 200. If you've attempted to image coins at all, you will realize how incredible this number is.

 

Hi Bob, that is indeed a massive throughput. My personal preference is maybe in the minority. I really like the image of the first coin you posted, but the 2nd and 3rd are just out of wack. The colors are way over saturated and almost cartoonish. Again, just my preference to have the coin imaged more similar to its in hand look, or at least to offer two images of coins that are shot in this manner. I think a straight-on shot and an axial-like (tilted) shot do a better job of giving a true "picture" of the coin.

 

I'd love to know the set-up that PCGS uses for imaging coins. I'm sure that's tightly guarded information, or at least Phil chose to skip answering that question in his replies. Nonetheless, his images are stunning.

[robec1347]

Interesting as there is a Q&A from the TrueView photographer going on ATS right now.

Link

 

 

The amount of coins Phil photographs per day is astounding and herculean with around 200. If you've attempted to image coins at all, you will realize how incredible this number is.

 

Hi Bob, that is indeed a massive throughput. My personal preference is maybe in the minority. I really like the image of the first coin you posted, but the 2nd and 3rd are just out of wack. The colors are way over saturated and almost cartoonish. Again, just my preference to have the coin imaged more similar to its in hand look, or at least to offer two images of coins that are shot in this manner. I think a straight-on shot and an axial-like (tilted) shot do a better job of giving a true "picture" of the coin.

 

I'd love to know the set-up that PCGS uses for imaging coins. I'm sure that's tightly guarded information, or at least Phil chose to skip answering that question in his replies. Nonetheless, his images are stunning.

 

I would love to see his setup.

 

To view, his toner images may look cartoonish to some, but in certain light some of the coins actually exhibit those colors. Since he is only giving the client one image, the toner lover is wanting one that shows colors. I'm not saying all are perfect, I have some that I'm not happy with.

 

It can take me a day just to do both sides of one coin and still not be happy. I'd be thrilled to have my photos turn out that good and go to the next coin in a manner of seconds. Admittedly, I would tone some down a bit. I would just love to have the ability.

[Buffalo Head]

I was just wondering that the other day while looking one on e-bay for sale. No mention on the pcgs slab if was brilliant or satin, so it would be nice to know how to tell the difference....Joe

 

The grading labels usually include either "Satin" or "Brilliant" or "Type 1" or "Type 2".

 

Ya know, your right. I didn't even notice.