• 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.

Interesting differences in photos...and GRADE!

Started by jom,

21 posts in this topic

jom

jom

Posted
Posted

Here's a contrast in different photography and grading over time. This coin I used to own (my photo on top). Now it's with a dealer with the bottom photo.

 

One important thing is that the flatness in the leg area isn't as prominent in the bottom photo (neither is that hit on the leg) and it looks overall much brighter...now.

 

The funny thing is the coin was re-graded to MS65 since I sold it about a year ago. However, I find it hard to believe PCGS would put this coin in a 65 holder with those hits and the flatness. The asking price is now about 3X what I got for it at auction last year. Who says PCGS is tougher? Really? Puleeeze... :baiting:

 

25c-24s_Pin_zps28779047.jpg

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hard Times

Hard Times

Posted
Posted
The hit on the leg appears to be missing altogether.......plastic surgery?

 

Chris

 

How about even metal or photoshop surgery? There is the hint of a 'bright' area where that ding used to be.

 

Best, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCumberdale

HCumberdale

Posted
Posted

From close inspection of the two photos, it definitely looks like the same coin to me, but the bottom photo certainly does hide some of the hits. I notice that the top photo has a tiny nick coming down from the left side of the "G" in God. Completely gone in the bottom photo. Not even a trace by my eye.

 

For what its worth I like the top photo much more, and based solely on the photos alone, I would probably not be very attracted to the bottom coin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bsshog40

bsshog40

Posted
Posted

I agree it being the same coin also. It looks like you can barely see where the hit on the knee is but it looks like a possible photoshop fix. The brightness has taken the hits from around the G in god, the hits on the front wing of rev also. I like your top photo as it looks like it represents the coin honestly as opposed to the bottom photo that is somewhat deceptive. I really don't see where 65 is such a bad grade for this coin though. It only has a couple minor hits which I think is allowable. I don't think the hit on the leg is soo distracting that it would inhibit this coin from being a 65. JMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brg5658

brg5658

Posted
Posted

John, was it in an NGC MS64 holder or an PCGS MS64 holder when you sold it? Just wondering.

 

It's definitely (100% sure) the same coin given the pattern of toning. I'm not a big fan of the bottom images (way too washed out), but I also think that your images on the top had the light just right to make that small ding on the leg look much worse than it really is. (shrug)

 

It is an extremely attractive coin! Why on earth would you sell this! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keigwin

Keigwin

Posted
Posted

Most certainly the same coin.

 

The top images are much better, by my standards.

 

I don't think flaws have been photoshopped. It's a matter of lighting and angle and the over all softness.

 

I agree with Bobby on the grade.

Lance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conder101

Conder101

Posted
Posted

The bottom photo is overlit and there is a bright glare area right where the hit on the leg is. When I tip my laptop screen back it diminishes the brightness and the hit starts to become visible.

 

The top photo is more attractive, I think they have deliberately shot the second photo with lighting set to conceal the defects. While it does conceal them I would be less attracted to a coin with the second image than I would be to the first image. To me it kinda defeats the purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kryptonitecomics

kryptonitecomics

Posted
Posted

First as has been point out...the lighting and clarity of the photo is lacking on the bottom picture...I don't believe the photo was intended to hide the flaws...it just looks like a lack of photography skills to me unless the rest of the dealers photos are on point and this is the only one with to much light and lack of focus?

 

2nd and more importantly the flaws I am seeing do not knock the coin out of the Gem category to me so it looks like you had an undergraded coin and someone noticed and got the coin into the correct holder...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The coin was graded by PCGS at 64, now it's PCGS 65.

 

One of the reasons I was thinking it might be a tad over-graded was a recent discussion I had with John Albanese (nice guy!) about a coin I sent in that got rejected. It was a PCGS 65 SLQ (see below) that he told me got rejected because of the area on the leg. He said he thought those kinds of issues should keep coins out of gem holders. In JA's defense, this was the only rejected coin I've had I just could NOT agree with...the others I've had rejected I could see his POV. See below:

 

25c-20p.jpg

 

I showed this coin to a few people at the recent Long Beach show and not one of them felt this did not belong in a 65 holder...especially with something based on the leg area. However, it is good to see the 24-S has not been CAC'd as that would contradict what JA had told me....as the 20-P has no where near the problems the 24-S does in that area of the coin.

 

Here's a larger shot of the two coin's obverses....just for fun. Of course, keep in mind large photos tend to magnify marks and whatnot.

 

Together_1200.jpg

 

BTW, thanks for the support on my photograph. At least I'm doing something right with those....

 

jom

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dimefreak

dimefreak

Posted
Posted

interesting he would have an issue with what seems like a "clean leg" but no issues with the scratches next to her head. Thats why I personally dont care what CAC says. However, many collectors do so I am most likley wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
  • Author
Posted
interesting he would have an issue with what seems like a "clean leg" but no issues with the scratches next to her head. Thats why I personally dont care what CAC says. However, many collectors do so I am most likley wrong

 

No...it wasn't the scratch near the head...I asked him that. The focal area of an SLQ is the knee/leg...or rather ONE of the areas. Head strike and the shield would be the others.

 

I also understand your caution with CAC. I've seen stuff I don't understand either but like I said the 20P is the only rejected coin I've had so far I just didn't understand...given what I think is an obviously eye appealing coin and I felt it was odd they wouldn't sticker it. Then again maybe JA thought it was a low-end 65...a "C" coin. I don't agree with that either but there you go.

 

Also, anyone that thinks CAC doesn't make mistakes is nuts. All of these TPGs make them. Even JA doesn't believe he doesn't make mistakes...the TPGs and CAC are only tools for us...and should be used accordingly.

 

EDIT to add: On the grading issue with the 24-S. I guess this is where my price vs. grade bias come in. The reason I don't think this is a "gem" is really due to the price jump. I don't see this coin as anywhere near worth $3400 or whatever they are asking. I'm not a "grade freak" so to speak. I just look at what I feel is a good price and go from there. BTW, I don't feel bad I missed out on the price increase. I know looking back there was no way I would going to try an upgrade with those marks. I was wrong but that is 2020 hindsight. With the bad experiences I've had with re-grading and the cost issues I know that wasn't in the cards.

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman1794

coinman1794

Posted
Posted
The coin was graded by PCGS at 64, now it's PCGS 65.

 

One of the reasons I was thinking it might be a tad over-graded was a recent discussion I had with John Albanese (nice guy!) about a coin I sent in that got rejected. It was a PCGS 65 SLQ (see below) that he told me got rejected because of the area on the leg. He said he thought those kinds of issues should keep coins out of gem holders. In JA's defense, this was the only rejected coin I've had I just could NOT agree with...the others I've had rejected I could see his POV. See below:

 

25c-20p.jpg

 

I showed this coin to a few people at the recent Long Beach show and not one of them felt this did not belong in a 65 holder...especially with something based on the leg area. However, it is good to see the 24-S has not been CAC'd as that would contradict what JA had told me....as the 20-P has no where near the problems the 24-S does in that area of the coin.

 

Here's a larger shot of the two coin's obverses....just for fun. Of course, keep in mind large photos tend to magnify marks and whatnot.

 

Together_1200.jpg

 

BTW, thanks for the support on my photograph. At least I'm doing something right with those....

 

jom

 

 

I think those hits are much less menaingful than you think they are ;)

 

I've seen PCGS MS66 coins with as much contact on the leg that were accurately graded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
orifdoc

orifdoc

Posted
Posted
Most certainly the same coin.

 

The top images are much better, by my standards.

 

I don't think flaws have been photoshopped. It's a matter of lighting and angle and the over all softness.

 

I agree with Bobby on the grade.

Lance.

 

My thoughts exactly. Creative lighitng can hide even MAJOR problems.

 

Also, I have no problem with a 65 for this coin, from the photos anyhow.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I think those hits are much less menaingful than you think they are ;)

 

I've seen PCGS MS66 coins with as much contact on the leg that were accurately graded.

 

What of the flatness? Some could say the coin was AU. hm

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman1794

coinman1794

Posted
Posted
I think those hits are much less menaingful than you think they are ;)

 

I've seen PCGS MS66 coins with as much contact on the leg that were accurately graded.

 

What of the flatness? Some could say the coin was AU. hm

 

jom

 

Flatness does not automatically equate to wear. Weak strike is not uncommon on the leg and does little to the grade. Wear is very easy to spot, but I cannot tell from a picture. Also, contrast between the raised leg and the rest of the design could be a result of changes in the toning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I think those hits are much less menaingful than you think they are ;)

 

I've seen PCGS MS66 coins with as much contact on the leg that were accurately graded.

 

What of the flatness? Some could say the coin was AU. hm

 

jom

 

Flatness does not automatically equate to wear. Weak strike is not uncommon on the leg and does little to the grade. Wear is very easy to spot, but I cannot tell from a picture. Also, contrast between the raised leg and the rest of the design could be a result of changes in the toning.

 

I don't think it's AU either. I probably should have said some people would call that a slider or stacking rub or some such.

 

I should note that I take back what I implied either about the price difference between 64 and 65. On the graysheet it isn't all that much difference (about 1.5X)...so an upgrade isn't that big of a deal. The asking price is pretty substantial though.

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing