Dar, once we got the camera stopped down to 5.5 and underexposed the shot, then you start to see things that are miniscule. It is really not fair to the coin to put it under what is basically a microscope.
Once we start using a microscope, we have to learn stuff like how to discern between die polish lines and scratches. Once I got the photo stopped right, the die polish lines in the field jump out. But die polish lines are raised rather than recessed as a scratch would be.
Worrisome to me was the very high points of the portrait look to have been abraded. Rubbed maybe. That was the only concern I had with this one. But again, CSI style photos are not fair to the coin. A small mark like that boxers cut to the brow will SCREAM at the camera. Not so in hand. In hand, under halogen light and 10X eyewear you can see that cut, but just barely.
The second set of shots probably give a better sense of the actual coin. Keep them small for an idea of what this thing actually looks like. Indeed, though not universally loved, this coin in hand is very nice. It turned out to be a 63 after all, so no high expectations.
I am far from even being remotely good at grading, but what I do know, I have learned right here on this forum. When I first came here I didn't know that there WAS such a thing as die polish lines. Flow lines. Focal area. Counting Machine Damage. Never heard of any of that.
Al Gore is The Man for inventing this internet.
When I started collecting in . . . . hmmmm . . . . 1965 or so, my house did not have a telephone. I think it was 1967 before we got a phone.
Ah, I am rambling, but the point is that all of this information is just . . . . . right there. . . . . like magic. It is mind boggling.
Edited by Jon K
08/16/2014 07:32 am
First Page
Posted 08/09/2014 11:59 am
