| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 1,243 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
158 Posts |
Have a chance to add this one to the DANSCO album, but wanted to get some other, more educated opinions. This one was photographed a bit differently, with a combination of diffused overhead flash and direct lighting. The color is (still) a bit off, but the details are sharp....definitely looks better in the hand. I'm leaning toward MS-64..... what say you ?  Edited by CitizenPatriot
11/14/2011 10:19 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2797 Posts |
I would lean towards MS63. The contact marks on the cheek and neck keep this strong strike from making 64.
Keep in mind when you grade these that they are evaluated based on other coins from the same year and mint. Comparing a strong strike from the Philly mint to a mushy one from New Orleans is an apples/oranges comparison.
The 1898 Philly Morgans were strong strikes. Yours is a typical one for that year and mint. As you look at this coin you start deducting points for marks. Yours has a significant number on the cheek, neck, in the obverse fields and rim and around the rim on the reverse.
Would I add this one to a Dansco? Absolutely.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
158 Posts |
Thanks, SeatedNut. That's one vote for MS-63, so I may have been a bit generous with my own grade.
If others concur with your assessment, I may pass on this one because the asking price was not in line with the grade. There are plenty of others that I could buy at a more affordable price point.
I agree with you on the contact marks - they do detract from the overall eye appeal. Ultimately, the question is - how much ?
Thanks for the opinion - keep 'em coming !
Edited by CitizenPatriot
11/14/2011 1:25 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6384 Posts |
Seated Nut gave a great overview and I agree on an MS-63. I've seen MS-64 coins with similar degree of marks on the face and neck but adding in the small rim marks makes me opt for the lower grade.
Your photos show great detail but the luster is not very apparent. Luster quality can push the grade higher or lower. I don't think the 1898 is particularly known for brilliant luster so if your coin is really strong in that department the grade could tip back to MS-64. In any case, this would be a fine coin for an album but if the price is high you should pass. For maximum eye appeal you should consider a San Francisco coin from the 1879-1882 production years. Their combination of super strike and flashy luster is hard to beat for a type coin.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
158 Posts |
Quote:
Your photos show great detail but the luster is not very apparent.
Thanks, J. Photographing these coins has been a most interesting challenge. Capturing the luster or frostiness of a given coin has been a bug-a-boo for me, and I suspect it is the lighting. I can capture great detail easily enough, but the luster usually eludes me in the post-processing phase.
I'm going to pick up a LED macro ring light, which should help greatly when combined with other techniques. If I can get it right "in the camera", the final image should reflect that (no pun intended).Edited by CitizenPatriot
11/14/2011 2:18 pm
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
I agree with what has been said about the grade. This one's right at the 63-64 border.
A ring light will do you nicely for detail, but luster won't be happening with one. Your best bet for luster is a single small light (or two), as close to vertical above the coin as you can get it, and at either 10:00 or 2:00 to it. No diffusion - direct, point-source light. It won't show details nearly as well as what you're doing now, but it'll capture luster.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
I agree with the overall assessment. Looking at a MS-63+. Overall the coin looks like a MS-64 but some of the marks seem to be just a bit to severe and/or in the wrong locations.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
158 Posts |
Quote:
A ring light will do you nicely for detail, but luster won't be happening with one. Your best bet for luster is a single small light (or two), as close to vertical above the coin as you can get it, and at either 10:00 or 2:00 to it. No diffusion - direct, point-source light. It won't show details nearly as well as what you're doing now, but it'll capture luster.
Well, there ya go. Perhaps I'll try to shoot it again and see if the results are different. Thanks, all !Edited by CitizenPatriot
11/14/2011 4:44 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
158 Posts |
Okay, I shot the coin again using one direct light, directly over the coin, at about the two o'clock position. I can see a LOT more luster now. Thanks for the tip, SuperDave ! More opinions, please....... 
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
5375 Posts |
The first pics were better since the new ones look 'washed out'; the luster doesn't seem natural any more.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
158 Posts |
Quote:
The first pics were better since the new ones look 'washed out'; the luster doesn't seem natural any more.
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson..... "DOH!" |
|
Valued Member
United States
299 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,243 |
|
Posted 11/14/2011 1:24 pm
