Just FYI, NGC has rendered their opinion on this coin which I have included at the bottom of this first page: Authentic NGC slab or not? Counterfeit or not? 1 1

[gmarguli]

I admit the rest of the slab turned a little too blue. However, I think a lot depends on the original picture (more original light probably reduces the blue) and probably the original Photoshop settings.as these might be different in every version. It's also possible that the seller uses another photo editing software, such as the free ones on their phone. 

Here is another pic from the seller. These are new pure copper, so I assume they are bright red in person, but to me they look copper-nickel.. And I didn't pick this because of the person on it, these are just for sale and make a good point about color.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by gmarguli

[VKurtB]

On 5/28/2022 at 8:49 PM, gmarguli said:

I admit the rest of the slab turned a little too blue. However, I think a lot depends on the original picture (more original light probably reduces the blue) and probably the original Photoshop settings.as these might be different in every version. It's also possible that the seller uses another photo editing software, such as the free ones on their phone. 

Here is another pic from the seller. These are new pure copper, so I assume they are bright red in person, but to me they look copper-nickel.. And I didn't pic this because of the person on it, these are just for sale and make a good point about color.

 

I agree 100%. That copper round at the right strikes me as particularly not right. Too blue in the highlights. Many photos posted by most posters on this board are clearly done with “automatic white balance” turned on, and that’s not good for gold or copper or bronze and/or colored backgrounds. Hands and fingers are problems too. I got my photo “chops” during the film era, and there was no AWB. You had to carefully balance light and film, usually with 80-series Kodak Wratten filters, often several of them. 
 

I STILL can’t believe Skip Fazzari uses fluorescent lights. That’s just so stinking wrong on soooo many levels. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by VKurtB

[Coinbuf]

On 5/28/2022 at 5:17 PM, VKurtB said:

So no, stick it where the moon don’t shine, Coinbuf. You blew this call really badly. 

Are you really this much a fool or just stupid.   Let me repeat I never said it was or was not a fake, only that I could not tell from the photos, the only thing that is blown is what little of a reputation that you had before you played the court jester in this thread.

[tejas1836]

On 5/28/2022 at 3:54 PM, VKurtB said:

What ever that creature is in the obverse, LOOK AT THE TIP OF THE “NOSE”. It is not even remotely the same shape. 

The creature is a lion. The NGC image is horrible. It makes it appear that the lion has a rhino horn which it doesn’t.

The image from the store is closer to what the coin actually looks like.

[VKurtB]

On 5/25/2022 at 9:40 PM, Coinbuf said:

I think it is the same coin but the lighting/editing is vastly different and making some of the details disappear,

“I think it is the same coin” Hmm.

[VKurtB]

On 5/28/2022 at 10:07 PM, tejas1836 said:

The creature is a lion. The NGC image is horrible. It makes it appear that the lion has a rhino horn which it doesn’t.

The image from the store is closer to what the coin actually looks like.

So you deny both coins depict what was in the slab at the time? Is that what you’re trying to say? I agree that it looks like a tiny rhino horn. Are you suggesting it wasn’t there? What about every dark spot on the NGC shot being missing in the store’s shot? C’mon guys. Are you suggesting that all those dark spots on the NGC shot were boogers left on the slab’s exterior?

Edited May 29, 2022 by VKurtB

[Coinbuf]

On 5/28/2022 at 8:12 PM, VKurtB said:

“I think it is the same coin” Hmm.

Yes I think, not I know, that is a big difference, also you took that small section out of context.  I go on to say that it needs to seen in hand and that I admittedly know zero about ancients.   You are making all this up out of thin air to support your lie in a sad self validation effort.    I know you are a jerk from your posts here, but now I'm beginning to think that you have some severe mental issues.

[Coinbuf]

On 5/28/2022 at 8:07 PM, tejas1836 said:

The creature is a lion. The NGC image is horrible. It makes it appear that the lion has a rhino horn which it doesn’t.

The image from the store is closer to what the coin actually looks like.

Thank you for providing some actual knowledge of this coin to this thread.

[VKurtB]

On 5/28/2022 at 10:21 PM, Coinbuf said:

Yes I think, not I know, that is a big difference, also you took that small section out of context.  I go on to say that it needs to seen in hand and that I admittedly know zero about ancients.   You are making all this up out of thin air to support your lie in a sad self validation effort.    I know you are a jerk from your posts here, but now I'm beginning to think that you have some severe mental issues.

Well I do have very few slabbed ancients, but I do own quite a few raw. 

[VKurtB]

On 5/28/2022 at 10:21 PM, Coinbuf said:

Yes I think, not I know, that is a big difference, also you took that small section out of context.  I go on to say that it needs to seen in hand and that I admittedly know zero about ancients.   You are making all this up out of thin air to support your lie in a sad self validation effort.    I know you are a jerk from your posts here, but now I'm beginning to think that you have some severe mental issues.

So what are you and Tejas saying? NGC edited the shot to add dark spots? Come on guys. This is simple comparison. The fact that it’s an ancient is completely immaterial. Either A matches B or it doesn’t, and this one doesn’t come within a mile of matching. 

[VKurtB]

On 5/28/2022 at 10:21 PM, Coinbuf said:

it needs to seen in hand

Preaching to the choir on that one. That’s my mantra on EVERYTHING, in case you hadn’t noticed. But these differences were and are HUGE and OBVIOUS when blown up. Like being able to discern a small date 1982 from a large date. 
 

On second thought, that might not be the best example for this board lately, but the degree of difference is similar. 

[Coinbuf]

On 5/28/2022 at 8:56 PM, VKurtB said:

Preaching to the choir on that one. That’s my mantra on EVERYTHING, in case you hadn’t noticed. But these differences were and are HUGE and OBVIOUS when blown up. Like being able to discern a small date 1982 from a large date. 
 

On second thought, that might not be the best example for this board lately, but the degree of difference is similar. 

So, you say that everything must be seen in hand, EXCEPT this one coin because, according to you, you know these two photos prove it all.   You do know just how ridiculous you sound chasing your tail around this thread trying to save face, right (what little you have left).    First you say internet photos cannot be trusted, then these are the best photos ever and there can be no mistake (on your part anyway ) and then you go back to your "mantra" that everything must be seen in hand.

You don't even know what this particular ancient is actually supposed to look like do you?   So far only one forum member (not you bty) actually knows just what this coin is supposed to look like in hand, so you have no idea which photo is accurate.

For someone that has always proclaimed yourself an expert in photography you seem to have zero grasp of the concept of digital photographic artifacts or lighting and how those issues (and others) can affect what the eye sees.   Well as I have always suspected, you have certainly proven to us just what a fraud you really are tonight throughout this thread.

[VKurtB]

On 5/29/2022 at 12:00 AM, Coinbuf said:

So, you say that everything must be seen in hand, EXCEPT this one coin because, according to you, you know these two photos prove it all.   You do know just how ridiculous you sound chasing your tail around this thread trying to save face, right (what little you have left).    First you say internet photos cannot be trusted, then these are the best photos ever and there can be no mistake (on your part anyway ) and then you go back to your "mantra" that everything must be seen in hand.

You don't even know what this particular ancient is actually supposed to look like do you?   So far only one forum member (not you bty) actually knows just what this coin is supposed to look like in hand, so you have no idea which photo is accurate.

For someone that has always proclaimed yourself an expert in photography you seem to have zero grasp of the concept of digital photographic artifacts or lighting and how those issues (and others) can affect what the eye sees.   Well as I have always suspected, you have certainly proven to us just what a fraud you really are tonight throughout this thread.

I am assuming BOTH PHOTOS are accurate. That’s the essence of the problem. Two different coins. One shows a black spot in the lion’s open mouth, and one does not. That is on the coin’s field, not a device. It can’t be affected by lighting angles like the large devices can. As for the devices, their distances from the coin’s edges are widely different, as is the size of the largest blob of the lion.

It is YOU, Coinbuf, who has destroyed whatever thread of reputation you may have once possessed. The OP DM’ed me thanking me for my insight in this thread. Did he to you? 

Edited May 29, 2022 by VKurtB

[Coinbuf]

On 5/28/2022 at 10:05 PM, VKurtB said:

The OP DM’ed me thanking me for my insight in this thread. Did he to you? 

Again typical of your need to brag, you are a sad little man boy.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Coinbuf

[GBrad]

On 5/28/2022 at 5:53 PM, gmarguli said:

There is the one in the first post that OP took with the brown color behind the coin and there is the one NGC took with the black background behind the coin. If you'd like, I can give you the name of my optometrist. 

Just for the record, the OP, meaning me, did not take any pictures of the "suspect" coin, nor its holder and label, which I clearly explained in my opening post (second sentence). I found this coin online, along with several others from this same dealer, that I believe to also be questionable.  

The photo's I supplied were straight from the actual NGC slabbed coin taken from NGC's certification verification page, and then the store's photos are exactly as they appear on their website.  I did nothing other than copy and paste what you see. I did not photoshop anything whatsoever. I just wanted to make it crystal clear that the pictures of the dealer's coin I supplied were not taken by me as insinuated. In addition, the entire slab's reverse was not shown on the dealer's website or I would have been sure to supply it. Just FYI.  

[VKurtB]

On 5/29/2022 at 1:05 AM, GBrad said:

I found this coin online, along with several others from this same dealer, that I bel

Yes, of course, which means you most likely have a thoroughly dirty dealer on your hands.