which photo of this 1811 1/2 C do you prefer????

[MikeKing]

ANR/STACKS

Heritage

 

STACKS

 

HERITAGE

[MunkyMan95]

Neither. Heritage's is too dark, and Stack's is too washed out. Yuck!

[James_OldeTowne]

Well, I can see the slab label in the second image, which lets me know what the grade is! The second image is better, of course!!

[bsshog40]

Heritage is the better of the two, but it still could've been a better picture in itself.

[Hoot]

The Heritage web site at least allows the zoom feature and change of brightness. The dynamic view settings make the Heritage images superior, but they all stink, in the final analysis.

 

Hoot

[MikeKing]

Do you think the coin has been brushed before holdering?

In the ANR photo (and usually, I've found their photos good but of late, pretty abnormal) it looks like a spot of corrosion about 1-2 o'clock, and the scratches are much more evident. Though, they describe the coin as being glossy and much better than the photograph.

[Hoot]

Do you think the coin has been brushed before holdering?

 

Yes, and recolored, etc. Most early coppers have. Whether a coin is holdered is only a matter of a very narrow definition of market acceptability. This is appealing to individuals who are less specialized in their collecting and/or familiar with early copper. Trust your instincts about the piece, Mike.

 

In the ANR photo (and usually, I've found their photos good but of late, pretty abnormal) it looks like a spot of corrosion about 1-2 o'clock, and the scratches are much more evident. Though, they describe the coin as being glossy and much better than the photograph.

 

There's active corrosion throughout the hair and head band, as well as in the 8. The spot in the northwest field is from metallic impurity and will not come off, no matter what conservation techniques are used. The coin should be conserved, however, to neutralize the corrosion, then recolored and left out of a holder.

 

Hoot

[MikeInFL]

That's an amazing comparison.

 

At first glance, I would have NEVER EVER thought that is the same coin. My first impression of the coin from the Stacks photo is this is a coin I would not consider for a second. However, the Heritage photos seemingly show a different coin -- one that I not only find desireable, but also looks original to me, other than a brushing/oiling -- unlike Hoot (who's far more experienced than myself), I do not see evidence of this coin being recolored, nor would I condone further conservation on this coin.

 

To answer your question, and in case you've not already guessed, I prefer the second photo.

 

Furthermore, and based upon my experience with old copper & Heritage photos, I would submit that the Heritage photo is probably a fairly accurate representation of the coin in-hand.....Mike

 

p.s. As an aside, the current price (and grade!) seems a bit strong -- the coin going from F-15 in 2005 @ Stacks to a VF-30 @ Heritage in 2007 strikes me as problematic. It looks like a 15 to me and I would value it as such. CQR on a AVG F12 is $1,250 and for a AVG VF 20 is $2,250 (remember these prices correspond to EAC grading) -- I'd value it closer to the F12 price than the VF 20 price.

 

 

[mgoodm3]

For once, the heritage pic. Both aren't great. when you reflect light directly off of glossy dark copper they tend to look white.

[Gembeeyou]

Neither. Heritage's is too dark, and Stack's is too washed out. Yuck!

 

I agree. If you have Photoshop, Picasa, etc., lighten up and crop the Heritage photo until it looks as close to the in-hand coin as possible.