Another Bustie

[MikeKing]

I was going to put this on the "Man! This coin photography is tough stuff! " thread, but decided to put it here. but then, I think that would have been a good place to put this...anyway...I've been reading all these posts and the links and the incredibly valuable information posted by different, very talented, board members, Maybe I just don't have the patience I used to, but I am e t e r N a l l y frustrated by this, I try, I try, I try and the more I try, the worse it seems to get, I can't even see straight any longer and don't even know what I'm photographing (maybe it's time to just put it down) whatever, this is an 1833 bustie I got on ebay. Its got a great golden sheen and what I think is great luster, but my photos appear grainy, and I tried that thing with the glass tilted at 45 degrees and shining the light into it but I just get fogged up pictures (from the glare I can't seem to get rid of), in fact, I'm beginning to see double, so I gotta stop.

Anywho, these are two sets of pics, the goldish one is with one reveal bulb, the other one, which I actually like better, is with indirect sunlight (it's been pretty dreary here in CT so the light wasn't so bright).

Please comment, please let me know which of the two pics you would prefer and what you would like to see that your not seeing (yeah...focus...)

 

Thanks for your time

I don't have Overton any longer, so if anyone can assign this an overton number, I would appreciate it)

 

I would like to take all my coins out of holders just to photograph them.

Really.

 

James, you know what I'm talking about.

But I don't have the guts to do it because I can't seem to differentiate between atand nt //but I don't care about the grade.

 

M.

 

reveal bulb

this got grainier when I reduced it's size for the forum post:

 

 

indirect sunlight (cloudy day) also got grainier when I reduced its size:

 

 

anyway, I love this coin, it's neat

[EZ_E]

Those are decent photos, Mike! Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

What I did to get successful images of unslabbed coins was to have one light shining transversely towards the coin and to hold the other one in hand and maneuver it until I liked it and then shot the image using a remote on my camera set tripod.

 

I tried imaging a slabbed buffalo but had terrible results. Once again, "Man! This coin photography is tough stuff."

[Stanley]

Looks like the original skin to me with the mint luster and very little rub.

Do you mind if I grade it 55 on the high side.

[Bruceswar]

Those are decent photos, Mike! Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

What I did to get successful images of unslabbed coins was to have one light shining transversely towards the coin and to hold the other one in hand and maneuver it until I liked it and then shot the image using a remote on my camera set tripod.

 

I tried imaging a slabbed buffalo but had terrible results. Once again, "Man! This coin photography is tough stuff."

 

Slabs vs Raw is night and day when talking about taking photos. In time just keep practicing...and you will get better... nice pics and nice coin... I like both

[Hoot]

Hi Mike - I think you do a great job. No need to worry about your photography skills, as you do better than most.

 

I like the second photo best, as it seems more natural.

 

Very sweet coin. Looks like an O-112 (obv. 11, rev. K) to me.

 

Hoot

[James_OldeTowne]

Beautiful coin, Mike, and I think your images are quite good! I don't have my Overton handy, unfortunately....

 

I'd guess a strong AU-55?

 

James

[MikeKing]

actually, it's a pcgs graded au 58. I'm not the greatest grader so I really can't comment unless something is extremely blatantly off key, but I mention this in response to the two posts suggesting an au 55 because on the pcgs board, it seems to me, an incredibly inappropriate amount of times, someone will say "pcgs 55 ngc 58" or some such thing. It's actually quite annoying. Maybe I'll post this on the pcgs board if I can get the coin holder part out of the picture and title it guess the grade or some such thing...

I don't mind if it's a 50, 55 or 58, and I also wouldn't mind if anyone here could point out why they think it would NOT be a 58, because then I might learn something.

 

M.

[Elcontador]

Mike, there is usually a much larger NGC pop for a given Unc. grade of Capped Bust Half than its PC counterpart; perhaps that's why you see what you have read.

 

From the image, it clearly seems to be an AU coin, with slight luster breaks where wear appears (curls below LIBERTY, top of the cap, etc). Some of the flashier AU coins in this series often make it into MS 62 and sometimes MS 63 holders.

[Mozin]

I would expect this coin to go PCGS AU58 on a good day. It should easily go NGC AU58, or better. Nice looker.

[McKinley-migration]

nice

[James_OldeTowne]

As loose as grading is, this coin is a tossup between AU-55 and AU-58 at ANY service.

 

Mozin, it was stated that the coin already is in an AU-58 PCGS holder. It would not surprise me at all if you busted it out, and NGC called it AU-55.

 

I for one do not believe for a second that PCGS is any "tighter" on this series than NGC. However, I do believe that coins graded conservatively by NGC are MUCH more likely to be cracked out than PCGS coins, since the buyer of the PCGS coin likely paid an undeserved "brand of holder" premium for it.

 

One lesson I've learned time and again is that of all series, "grade" matters least on bust halves. The eye-appeal is EVERYTHING on these coins, and your coin definitely has it!

 

James

[MikeKing]

Looks like an O-112 (obv. 11, rev. K) to me.

 

Hoot

 

Hoot, you're right, it is an O-112. Took me forever to figure this one out, I felt like I was back at work. I don't know how you did it with the resolution on these pics, but I got a pic of the extra point on star 10. Didn't know if my camera could get that high a resolution, but on one setting, it actually did.