Somewhat deceiving picture...

[jom]

Here's a coin I found over at ANR (upcoming auction at FUN). I thought..."wow...pretty coin" at first but after looking at it and putting it on my "watch" list I recalled something. A coin I used to own that I bought from Tonelover (John Rosenthal) back in 2001 looked similar. I had sold the piece about a year later to Strat (John Ruiz) and then in 2003 Tonelover pointed out to me it was in a Greattoning auction on Ebay. The coin just can't find a home it seems. Anywho, I pulled out my original scan of the coin and this is what I found:

 

ANR picture:

 

My scan:

 

Well, this is the same coin no question. The problem I see here is that ANR's picture is so nice it makes it look incredible. The FACT is the coin is not really that lusterous or particularly bright. I would NOT have sold the coin if it was. This is my opinion obviously but it is Tonelover's as well as we just discussed this the other day. BTW, I bought the coin as a PCGS MS64 and it was still in a PCGS holder when the coin was being sold by Greattoning last year. Now it's in an NGC 65 holder...what a shock.

 

Whatever the grade this is a good example of a fairly deceiving picture. It is far more subtle in that it's not hiding some scratches or hairlines and I certainly do NOT think ANR is doing this on purpose. But...it just goes to show you that you never know what you are going to get with photographed coins.

 

jom

[Hoot]

I recall your quarter from that time. Didn't you advertise it or post a thread about it? Anyway, coins that roll through auctions do so for a reason. This one probably will again in the not-so-distant future. Looks like it has some AU-ish attributes or a fundamentally weak strike and odd lack of tining on high points. Nice fingerprint. Some fingerprints are acceptable, but that one does not sit right with me. Oops, there appear to be two.

 

Hoot

[jom]

I recall your quarter from that time.

 

You might be thinking of the 26-S I bought earlier this year. I bought and sold this particular coin before I ever made a post here at NGC.

 

Fingerprints don't really bother me too much especially if it's toned. I find that a good fingerprint shows the coin has some originality. On the other hand, a somewhat dull lack-luster coin does bother me, however.

 

jom

[TomB]

The miracle of overlit photography.

 

I remember your coin before you bought it from Jon as he won the coin from one of the auctions that PCGS used to conduct on their site.

[michael]

a fantastic thread

 

you would be shocked

 

if i posted all the coins on here that i have found from my research all the coins that upgraded at both serivces or from one service to another the past year or so that was not that great in the point less holder and even less so in the new upgraded holder

 

 

michael

[gmarguli]

Is it possible the "dust" on the coin was lightened? You can use solutions to very lightly remove the dust to help bring out the luster and color without really distrubing the toning. Or so I've heard....

 

 

But...it just goes to show you that you never know what you are going to get with photographed coins.

 

Have to learn how to read auction company pictures.

[jom]

I remember your coin before you bought it from Jon as he won the coin from one of the auctions that PCGS used to conduct on their site.

 

Wow! What a pedigree! Too bad no one seems to want to keep the coin.

 

Is it possible the "dust" on the coin was lightened? You can use solutions to very lightly remove the dust to help bring out the luster and color without really distrubing the toning.

 

You know...maybe that's it because I've heard that also. Won't acetone work or is it something else?

 

jom

[jom]

Bringing this up. The coin did NOT sale in the ANR sale after all. Not really a surprise....

 

jom

[CarlWohlforth]

Interesting. I like both photos of the coin. It seems the ANR photo used more light and, perhaps, a bluer light. I would be very interested to see GreatToning's photos...