Quiz: Why is COLOR important for authentication? 1 1

[RWB]

This illustration might help members who are confused about the color temperature (5500K, 2700K, etc.) being bandied about in this thread.

5500K (in between 5000 and 6000 above) is considered normal daylight here on planet earth.

A "standard" light source will have a color temperature of 5500K and a CRI (Color Rendering Index) or 100 (but 95 is OK).

Edited September 8, 2020 by RWB

[Henri Charriere]

Begging your indulgence!  I couldn't resist... 

"Anybody see Ritzie or Rutzie?  Just now threw this under a fluorescent, and voila!  RWB IS RIGHT!  Color is critical.   NOW, I get it!"

[physics-fan3.14]

21 hours ago, Insider said:

So, with regard to those 6 factors, what would be the ideal combo in a coin grading situation?  I have heard that sunlight is good.

Sunlight, in my opinion, is one of the absolute worst light sources for examining coins. I'm not sure why it's being bandied about. 

The key to lighting when examining coins is *consistency.*

It doesn't really matter what type of light you use: if that type of light works for you, and you understand how it interacts with a coin, and you are able to see the appropriate details and defects, then it is probably an adequate light source. 

However, if you are used to using fluorescent light and your eyes are trained for fluorescent light, and then you attempt to use incandescent, halogen, Ott, or whatever else type of light - your results will be different. Always use the same type of light, and don't change. 

I mean, if you want to really take it back I guess we could just use oil lamps like they did before electricity? 

[Insider]

2 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Here is my "off the cuff" excessively snarky first impression:

It sounds like what you want to do is not "grade" coins, but "downgrade" them instead.

I'm considered one of the most critical/conservative graders in the U.S.  My personal grading standards have not changed.  I call them straight and let the other guys determine the TPGS "commercial" grade.  

[Insider]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

There's one advantage Skip has that I will never be able to match - nearsightedness. That can be a valuable asset to a numismatist. I'm about as presbyopia/farsighted as people get. If I take off my glasses and have a coin on a bench in front of me, I'm lucky to be able to FIND it.

This is 100% true.  A young, nearsighted collector can see things most need a hand lens to see.  As we age, we get more farsighted.  This is the simple explanation.  I'll let an ophthalmologist give the real story.  

[Insider]

2 hours ago, RWB said:

So, is this the type of light you refer to?

I guess this is the way they com now.  Mine is over forty years older.

 

[VKurtB]

12 minutes ago, Insider said:

I'm considered one of the most critical/conservative graders in the U.S.  My personal grading standards have not changed.  I call them straight and let the other guys determine the TPGS "commercial" grade.  

That's great, Skip, and there's a lot to be said for holding one's ground. But it comes with a risk, no? It is the ever-present risk of being seen as "out of touch". If I have an AU58 that YOU PERSONALLY might have had a part in grading at one point (it is in an older-ish ICG slab), might I do better in 2020 sending it to our hosts here? A 1925-S Cali commem. I am seriously considering setting up a fluorescent light to see what makes it a 58 now. I always thought it was undergraded. Maybe the "market", such as it is, came to me.

Edited September 8, 2020 by VKurtB

[Insider]

 

This is what they look like now.  Not something I would like - it's bulky-ugly!

[VKurtB]

11 minutes ago, Insider said:

This is 100% true.  A young, nearsighted collector can see things most need a hand lens to see.  As we age, we get more farsighted.  This is the simple explanation.  I'll let an ophthalmologist give the real story.  

My primary care M.D. says I need an ophthalmology referral, for Type 2 diabetes anyway. I used to "be that guy". I did component level repairs to Swiss circuit boards in the late 70's/early 80's.

Edited September 8, 2020 by VKurtB

[Insider]

Mine looks like this with a base:

 

[RWB]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Begging your indulgence!  I couldn't resist... 

"Anybody see Ritzie or Rutzie?  Just now threw this under a fluorescent, and voila!  RWB IS RIGHT!  Color is critical.   NOW, I get it!"

 

I can tell that's a fake right away --- look at that shadow ! AND -- the statue atop the Capitol is facing the wrong way....

Edited September 8, 2020 by RWB

[RWB]

RE: "Sunlight, in my opinion, is one of the absolute worst light sources for examining coins. I'm not sure why it's being bandied about."

The real difficulty with daylight is the sky color, not the sunlight. It also varies a lot with the time of day, cloud cover, etc. It's a reference for better managed light sources. Sunlight is 5500K and CRI = 100.

RE: Insider -- "Mine looks like this with a base"

That's good. There are multiple styles. Have you ever changed the bulbs? What kind of bulbs (regular, cool white, daylight) are in the fixture now?

[Insider]

31 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

That's great, Skip, and there's a lot to be said for holding one's ground. But it comes with a risk, no? It is the ever-present risk of being seen as "out of touch". If I have an AU58 that YOU PERSONALLY might have had a part in grading at one point (it is in an older-ish ICG slab), might I do better in 2020 sending it to our hosts here? A 1925-S Cali commem.

I get paid to be "out-of-touch."  An ex-finalizer at a major TPGS asked me if I wanted some constructive criticism.  I replied of course.  He told me I cannot grade SE (thank you).   That my be because he got no 70's.  None of his NGC 69's were upgraded either. 

BTW, I am holding an NGC MS-70 SE that I just bought.  It is a TRUE MS-70 without a mark, hairline, or blemish.     These coins are out there waiting to be "cherried" by anyone.   

[Insider]

9 minutes ago, RWB said:

RE: "Sunlight, in my opinion, is one of the absolute worst light sources for examining coins. I'm not sure why it's being bandied about."

The real difficulty with daylight is the sky color, not the sunlight. It also varies a lot with the time of day, cloud cover, etc. It's a reference for better managed light sources. Sunlight is 5500K and CRI = 100.

RE: Insider -- "Mine looks like this with a base"

That's good. There are multiple styles. Have you ever changed the bulbs? What kind of bulbs (regular, cool white, daylight) are in the fixture now?

I bought four sets of bulbs to try.  All different wavelengths.  I think I settled on "daylight."  I have not needed to change a bulb in 12 years so far.

[Henri Charriere]

22 minutes ago, RWB said:

I can tell that's a fake right away --- look at that shadow ! AND -- the statue atop the Capitol is facing the wrong way....

Reconsideration? Great thread!

[RWB]

2 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Reconsideration? Great thread!

Your face is reflected in part of the reverse. Situational awareness.....

Related to Quintus Tullius Cicero

Edited September 9, 2020 by RWB

[physics-fan3.14]

3 hours ago, Insider said:

I'm considered one of the most critical/conservative graders in the U.S.  My personal grading standards have not changed.  I call them straight and let the other guys determine the TPGS "commercial" grade.  

The advantage you have is that you don't play politics. Your standards and convictions have stayed constant over the decades. 

I respect that. 

Some don't. And some don't understand that. 

This objectivity and experience also means that you have a certain way of viewing things that may seem foreign or outdated to some. You have far more experience in authenticating than anyone else on these boards (or, probably any other board you've attended), and only one other professional grader regularly posts on the forums (as far as I know). I'm not sure everyone knows your Curriculum Vitae, but I think it is truly impressive. 

As far as I'm concerned, the forums should be far more concerned with learning what you know than questioning everything you say. (having attended your seminars at FUN, and interacted with you in person, I can say that you are truly one of the most knowledgeable numismatic professionals I've ever met). 

Guys - Insider is literally one of the most experienced numismatists you've ever had the chance to talk to. Why do you feel the need to submit him to the Inquisition rather than learning from what he has to say? If he says that fluorescent lights are good for him, why not try them out and see for yourself? If they don't work for you, explain why! If you've tried fluorescent lights, explain what you liked or didn't like. Don't just dismiss him out of hand for no apparent reason. Explain what works better for you and why. We've had dozens of nonsensical posts with circular logic chasing your tail to show Insider he's wrong because you don't like his style, or your ego is bigger than your pant size. 

I'll tell you what - I'll trust Insider's experience over many of your anecdotes any day of the week. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by physics-fan3.14

[Insider]

17 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

The advantage you have is that you don't play politics. Your standards and convictions have stayed constant over the decades. 

I respect that. 

Some don't. And some don't understand that. 

This objectivity and experience also means that you have a certain way of viewing things that may seem foreign or outdated to some. You have far more experience in authenticating than anyone else on these boards (or, probably any other board you've attended), and only one other professional grader regularly posts on the forums (as far as I know). I'm not sure everyone knows your Curriculum Vitae, but I think it is truly impressive. 

As far as I'm concerned, the forums should be far more concerned with learning what you know than questioning everything you say. (having attended your seminars at FUN, and interacted with you in person, I can say that you are truly one of the most knowledgeable numismatic professionals I've ever met). 

Guys - Insider is literally one of the most experienced numismatists you've ever had the chance to talk to. Why do you feel the need to submit him to the Inquisition rather than learning from what he has to say? If he says that fluorescent lights are good for him, why not try them out and see for yourself? If they don't work for you, explain why! If you've tried fluorescent lights, explain what you liked or didn't like. Don't just dismiss him out of hand for no apparent reason. Explain what works better for you and why. We've had dozens of nonsensical posts with circular logic chasing your tail to show Insider he's wrong because you don't like his style, or your ego is bigger than your pant size. 

I'll tell you what - I'll trust Insider's experience over many of your anecdotes any day of the week. 

Thanks but please delete most of this.  I'm here to learn and argue.  I understand and like folks who question EVERYTHING.  I don't post anything I cannot back up and defend.  There is a way to disagree and argue w/o being disagreeable but dishing out sarcasm (which I do all the time) is OK with me.  

Note that there are two posters asking questions.  As soon as I discovered that one of them was serious about trying something new FOR HIMSELF to test my opinion rather than parroting "the common knowledge dispensed for decades by the coin dealers," I've become very helpful in order that he can prove what I posted has some merit.

I USE BOTH FLORESCENT LIGHT and 100w INCANDESCENT LIGHT.  I'd use the reflection from a tomato can lid if it would help me see the characteristics of a coin better!        . 

 

 

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Insider said:

Thanks but please delete most of this.  I'm here to learn and argue.  I understand and like folks who question EVERYTHING.  I don't post anything I cannot back up and defend.  There is a way to disagree and argue w/o being disagreeable but dishing out sarcasm (which I do all the time) is OK with me.  

Note that there are two posters asking questions.  As soon as I discovered that one of them was serious about trying something new FOR HIMSELF to test my opinion rather than parroting "the common knowledge dispensed for decades by the coin dealers," I've become very helpful in order that he can prove what I posted has some merit.

I USE BOTH FLORESCENT LIGHT and 100w INCANDESCENT LIGHT.  I'd use the reflection from a tomato can lid if it would help me see the characteristics of a coin better!        . 

 

 

Thank you for this sentiment, Skip. Reflexive “armpit licking” obsequiousness serves no good end. 

[Zebo]

Personally - I can do without some of the back and forth, but on the other hand. I am learning something here from Insider and Kurt. I currently use either a 75 watt incandescent light source or sometimes a 75 watt incandescent in combination with an Ott light. Based upon the discussion here - I may try something a bit different. I also use two 5500k diffused light source for my coin photography - which isn't all that good (skill level) at the moment.

Roger has also added some good comment in this thread. 

Good information. Now if you could only improve my eyesight!

[RWB]

13 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Guys - Insider is literally one of the most experienced numismatists you've ever had the chance to talk to. Why do you feel the need to submit him to the Inquisition rather than learning from what he has to say? If he says that fluorescent lights are good for him, why not try them out and see for yourself? If they don't work for you, explain why! If you've tried fluorescent lights, explain what you liked or didn't like. Don't just dismiss him out of hand for no apparent reason. Explain what works better for you and why. We've had dozens of nonsensical posts with circular logic chasing your tail to show Insider he's wrong because you don't like his style, or your ego is bigger than your pant size. 

I'll tell you what - I'll trust Insider's experience over many of your anecdotes any day of the week. 

If you refer to my questions, you are wrong. Their purpose is to understand what, why, and how an unconventional light source can contribute to improved recognition of surface defects. No one is being tied to a stake (or "steak" if the victim was later the Cardinal's dinner entree) and toasted alive.

[Insider]

13 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Thank you for this sentiment, Skip. Reflexive “armpit licking” obsequiousness serves no good end. 

Do you actually talk this way?   

[VKurtB]

1 minute ago, Insider said:

Do you actually talk this way?   

Yes, I actually do, on nearly an hourly basis. I work around politicians. I know “armpit licking” when I see it. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by VKurtB

[RWB]

Last question: What are the things that you can identify better with fluorescent light than with your 100 watt tungsten light or other sources of light?

Edited September 9, 2020 by RWB

[physics-fan3.14]

8 hours ago, RWB said:

If you refer to my questions, you are wrong. Their purpose is to understand what, why, and how an unconventional light source can contribute to improved recognition of surface defects. No one is being tied to a stake (or "steak" if the victim was later the Cardinal's dinner entree) and toasted alive.

No, I am not referring to you. 

[RWB]

2 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

No, I am not referring to you. 

OK. Thanks!

:)

[Insider]

6 hours ago, RWB said:

Last question: What are the things that you can identify better with fluorescent light than with your 100 watt tungsten light or other sources of light?

Changes in the color/texture of the microscopic surface.  Friction and luster defects. Surface ALTERATIONS such as tooling and especially repairs.  Die polish vs hairlines.  Degree of wear that causes design loss. 

The glare of an incandescent light obliterates the micro characteristics of a surface and "masks" the Id of rub/strike. 

The key to all of this is the STEREO microscope.  I've already posted that a blind man can see a wheel mark or a FRESH contact mark with a light bulb.  However, once the contact marks tone down or the coin gets circulated nothing (tooling, scratches, etc) can hide from florescent light and magnification.   

[RWB]

Thanks! I will do some information consolidation and testing. The questions are: Is daylight fluorescent (dual tube 400 mm length) similar to other varieties of fluorescent? If the source dimensions remain the same but the spectrum is altered are results different? Are there advantages to narrow band sources or use of filters to restrict wavelengths? Can polarization be used to identify non-metallic contamination? Plus a bunch of others....

This will take a while.

[RWB]

Thanks! I will do some information consolidation and testing. The questions are: Is daylight fluorescent (dual tube 400 mm length) similar to other varieties of fluorescent? If the source dimensions remain the same but the spectrum is altered are results different? Are there advantages to narrow band sources or use of filters to restrict wavelengths? Can polarization be used to identify non-metallic contamination? Plus a bunch of others....

This will take a while.

[VKurtB]

I'd be willing to bet that polarization would pay big, if somewhat strange, dividends. I see polarizers with new attributes are now out there. Quarter wave retardation was just the beginning.

Edited September 10, 2020 by VKurtB