• 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.

Very odd...

Started by Danye West,

18 posts in this topic

Danye West

Danye West

Posted
Posted

I got interested in toned coins through Rick Tomaska's YouTube videos. I have never bought from Rick Tomaska, only sold to him. But his website is always interesting to browse. I do notice that one coin I sold him, and a coin that DM sold him ended up looking far more colorful on his site. And that all his proof coins look super cameo and spotless.

 

But this baffles me:

 

http://www.randicoins.com/store/pc/1953-FRANKLIN-NGC-PF-67-70p6548.htm

It looks like a PF67+CAM

 

http://www.randicoins.com/store/pc/1953-EVEREST-FRANKLIN-NGC-PF-68-CAMEO-70p6043.htm

It looks like a plain old 66 to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted

In my humble opinion, his images are juiced. I don't care for it at all.

 

This is why I also write off many registry sets his clients create that use a similar style of photography (and may have even been taken by R and I Coin). The photos have a way of taking a coin that NGC has NOT even given a designation (not even a star) and making it look UCAM or close to it.

 

While many find this harmless, I find it annoying. One of the areas that interest me is 1936-1942 coinage that is cameo or near cameo. I have seen a number of coins that I believe have been juiced and touted as being special. All it does in my humble opinion is to create a reputation that coins with contrast from this period are common and that even cameos are more common than what they really are. This is NOT the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
Posted

What marks do you see on the 68 to call it a 66?

 

Ricks's photography method is to create those black and white extremes which hides the surface. Only difference I see is the white balance is off on the 68 making it look less black and white than the other one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
messydesk

messydesk

Posted
Posted

It's absolute folly to attempt to differentiate higher proof grades from any pictures, much less those on his website.

 

Curiously, the one not designated cameo appears more cameo than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted

I think this one fails the "CAM" test every time, even though the photos appear extremely juiced to me. The lapel shows the brilliantish area (lower right corner) - if that area is not frosted, in my experience, the coin simply will not get the CAM designation, no matter how well frosted the rest of the portrait seems.

 

Edited to add: I GREATLY dislike photos of cameo proofs and prooflike coins that are intentionally made to over-exaggerate the contrast. Indeed, I intentionally take photos that emphasize surface quality. It isn't as sexy, but it is more honest. Here's an example of an accurately-assessed NGC MS-64 DMPL:

 

l1884o03o.jpg

 

l1884o03r.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AHFreak

AHFreak

Posted
Posted
It's absolute folly to attempt to differentiate higher proof grades from any pictures, much less those on his website.

 

Curiously, the one not designated cameo appears more cameo than the other.

 

As someone who specializes in mainly proof and SMS coins, specifically Franklin and Kennedy proofs, This comment is as true as anything I've ever read on the forum here. Anyone who acts as if they can grade a proof based on a picture, especially pics like Tomaskas' has no idea how to grade proofs period. unlike business strike coinage, looking at photos of proofs cannot even get you in the ball park in terms of a grade.

 

I also agree that his photos are a bit out of control, but I know Rick enough to know that he isn't trying to be shady, or take advantage of buyers in anyway. He doesn't use software or programs to "juice" or "enhance" his photos. .. it's a simple matter of lights/camera settings/etc used to emphasize the contrast of the coin. Everyone does them different (coin photos) and this is simply how he does it. Not sure why OP feels the need to throw Rick under the bus with posts like these. I've seen it several times. Maybe OP has a secret love for Tomaska and wants to be him or maybe even be with him or something....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raisethis2

Raisethis2

Posted
Posted

I sell a few coins on E-Bay from time to time and I take great pride in attempting to show a coin exactly as it is. When I have the occasional proof coin to sell the photography just goes to . They are indeed hard to photograph. Knowing that I assume that everyone's coins look much different in hand.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
Posted
It's absolute folly to attempt to differentiate higher proof grades from any pictures, much less those on his website.

 

Curiously, the one not designated cameo appears more cameo than the other.

 

As someone who specializes in mainly proof and SMS coins, specifically Franklin and Kennedy proofs, This comment is as true as anything I've ever read on the forum here. Anyone who acts as if they can grade a proof based on a picture, especially pics like Tomaskas' has no idea how to grade proofs period. unlike business strike coinage, looking at photos of proofs cannot even get you in the ball park in terms of a grade.

 

I also agree that his photos are a bit out of control, but I know Rick enough to know that he isn't trying to be shady, or take advantage of buyers in anyway. He doesn't use software or programs to "juice" or "enhance" his photos. .. it's a simple matter of lights/camera settings/etc used to emphasize the contrast of the coin. Everyone does them different (coin photos) and this is simply how he does it. Not sure why OP feels the need to throw Rick under the bus with posts like these. I've seen it several times. Maybe OP has a secret love for Tomaska and wants to be him or maybe even be with him or something....

 

Are you suggesting he might want to skin him and wear his pelt as a coat?

 

I doubt that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
numisport

numisport

Posted
Posted

Sure lighting does strange things to cameos. If you had that '53 Franklin in hand you would be holding one of the finer known coins hence the Everest designation. '53 Franklins exist with higher levels of contrast but not many if even one in that 68 grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AHFreak

AHFreak

Posted
Posted
Sure lighting does strange things to cameos. If you had that '53 Franklin in hand you would be holding one of the finer known coins hence the Everest designation. '53 Franklins exist with higher levels of contrast but not many if even one in that 68 grade.

 

Really? That's very interesting because he states right in the listing (Tomaska) that there are "only" 32 1953 Franklins in PF68CAMEO graded with NGC.

 

So yeah there are one or two others at this level. ... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
Posted

I technically bought the 4th coin in my sig from RT because I fell asleep w 10 minutes left in the ebay auction he won and had to track him down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
numisport

numisport

Posted
Posted

R & I offers the finest coins for the grade. I would venture to say that among the 50 or so '53 Franklins graded by the 2 TPG's only small number maybe a hand full are of this caliber. Many have milky spots and ugly toning while others may have die polishing that you may think lowers the grade. I guess really I would want to have the coin in hand to make a judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danye West

Danye West

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It's absolute folly to attempt to differentiate higher proof grades from any pictures, much less those on his website.

 

Curiously, the one not designated cameo appears more cameo than the other.

 

As someone who specializes in mainly proof and SMS coins, specifically Franklin and Kennedy proofs, This comment is as true as anything I've ever read on the forum here. Anyone who acts as if they can grade a proof based on a picture, especially pics like Tomaskas' has no idea how to grade proofs period. unlike business strike coinage, looking at photos of proofs cannot even get you in the ball park in terms of a grade.

 

I also agree that his photos are a bit out of control, but I know Rick enough to know that he isn't trying to be shady, or take advantage of buyers in anyway. He doesn't use software or programs to "juice" or "enhance" his photos. .. it's a simple matter of lights/camera settings/etc used to emphasize the contrast of the coin. Everyone does them different (coin photos) and this is simply how he does it. Not sure why OP feels the need to throw Rick under the bus with posts like these. I've seen it several times. Maybe OP has a secret love for Tomaska and wants to be him or maybe even be with him or something....

 

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted

 

I also agree that his photos are a bit out of control, but I know Rick enough to know that he isn't trying to be shady, or take advantage of buyers in anyway. He doesn't use software or programs to "juice" or "enhance" his photos. .. it's a simple matter of lights/camera settings/etc used to emphasize the contrast of the coin. Everyone does them different (coin photos) and this is simply how he does it. Not sure why OP feels the need to throw Rick under the bus with posts like these. I've seen it several times. Maybe OP has a secret love for Tomaska and wants to be him or maybe even be with him or something....

 

I think you are being incredibly unfair to the OP.

 

(1) I interpret his question as sincere, and given some of his other posts, I do sincerely believe that he may not know the answer to his question. The fact that the OP is a minor and newer to collecting solidifies that to me.

 

(2) Call it whatever you like, but I do think criticism of the photos is indeed warranted. As you concede the photos are taken to over emphasize contrasts and have indeed come to the point of being "a bit out of control."

 

(3) No one specifically stated that Rick had an intent to defraud or to be "shady." Indeed, there were a couple of coins that he had that interested me. To be sure I could tell the photos were selectively taken, but was curious as to the amount of contrast. I received an honest and candid response, which was appreciated. Nevertheless, it is disconcerting to me because (1) I could have purchased the pieces and been on the hook for return shipping and insurance and (2) it exaggerates the contrasts and makes the coinage I collect seem more common with contrasts than it truly is when every mediocre contrasted coin is hyped up through photos.

 

I have nothing against Mr. Tomaska personally. I have indeed purchased coins from him through eBay and fully understood what I was getting. I paid a fair price and have no regrets. If the price is right, I would have no problems buying from him in the future. But I do think the imaging technique has a lot to be desired. That is not dealer bashing - that is constructive criticism.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danye West

Danye West

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you Coinman.

I don't know the answer to my question.

I do think that the coins aren't all being represented as they actually look (which doesn't mean I believe this is dishonest), but that wasn't that wasn't the point of the post. What I was saying was if non-cameo coins can look so cameo, why can't one of the highest tier cameo ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing