| Author |
 Replies: 70 / Views: 10,506 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
Bill, aside from a citing that crease which could be easily damage, what are your other reasons?  I'm still uncertain it's a large date by that crease alone. Since there are several documented differences between the large date and small date (which I cited above), I am going to have to respectfully disagree here. I simply don't see MD pushing around the metal that much, and have cited at least 5 distinct metrics that are unique to a SD that I see on this member's coin. Certainly, nobody should go by these photos alone. More importantly, I recall the dealer confirmed a SD in-hand. I would have declined to post this other pic because the overall image quality isn't good, but it clearly shows one thing: the shape of the 9, which I personally doubt is possible on a large date: |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Another helper.  So back to my original question: Was the two images on the first page the same coin or images from two different coins on the first post? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4113 Posts |
I find just turning the coin upsidedown and examining the position of the bottom of the 7 in conjunction with the bottom of the zero tells right away if its a large or small date 1970S.
The 7 extends way below the zero on the large date, and on the small date, they line up exact. Very simple (IMHO)
Edited by chuckster 125
01/18/2009 11:02 am
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
193 Posts |
COOP Quote:
So back to my original question: Was the two images on the first page the same coin or images from two different coins on the first post?
Yes they are |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Maybe it's an advantage that I'm looking at this with a fresh viewpoint, never having tried to attribute one of these, and maybe it's a disadvantage. I just spent half an hour playing with these images, and came to the conclusion that I can't come to a conclusion. The photos are simply not good enough - the coin is not parallel to the camera, imparting perspective distortions; the resolution is insufficient for me to tell exactly where the end of the 9 is pointing.
I think we're all drawing too many conclusions from too little evidence.
The original photo is plainly a Large Date. The 9 is conclusive. The second photos, which Kurt posted, are far more tentative. Yet, after carefully comparing the marks, I'm quite sure they're the same coin. This only proves that the only way this coin can ever be conclusively attributed in the venue of this forum is for it to be precisely imaged by someone with both the skill and the technology to take a large, high-resolution shot under exactly parallel orientation.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
Quote:
Was the two images on the first page the same coin or images from two different coins on the first post? Yep, and fortunately in this case there are big marks on the date to compare the different shots--which I spent a bit of time doing in photoshop. Despite the lighting and image quality issues there are a several notable metrics on the coin which are pretty conclusive for a small date-- imo. In this case, the little issues can throw a person off. Creds to everyone for posting their informative pics!  Jewellge, Those are two nicely scaled comparisons between a LD and a SD. Despite the technical limitations of your imaging equipment, you've made your case well. Obviously the "small" photo is the same coin we've described all along...it would be hard to miss! Interesting lighting too on the 7--it brings out new details.  I'm going to try to fix the lighting on your two pics to see if that helps. Dave, it should be noted that his dealer attributed his coin as a SD in-hand, which I consider far more conclusive than my endless image analysis. So I've done what I could with this one from the available pics-- simply to support this member's hunches. While I'm pretty darn certain, I'm not going to be an irritant about it.  Cheers everyone--this was a stimulating thread. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5619 Posts |
Why things like this topic make this site wonderful, everyone has their opinion and some things work well for some and others have their own way of doing things, that said, great discussion and again, IMO, even the Red Book states and refers to the high and low #7, this reference is all having to do with the top bar on the 7 being equal to the height of the zero, or the #7's top bar being lower than the height of the zero. I find this diagnostic PUP along with the fact that the curve in the loop of the #9 and the point, on the #9 at the terminal end facing the #7 is pointed and forms a more complete loop than the example of the large date numeral.The large date #9 has a flat end on the loop facing the #7, and does not complete the loop as much, as in the loop in the small date. Just my opinion, this I believe is a small date LMC....  PS:Great photos from all who posted them, Thanks. |
|
Valued Member
United States
193 Posts |
Looks good   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5619 Posts |
Now that really looks good,nice new home.....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3507 Posts |
OK....It may be....I am just not as convinced as I would like to be based upon the picture.
Edited by foundinrolls
01/18/2009 10:00 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
Bill, I understand your position and apologize for "putting you on the spot". Since my opinions carry far less weight than yours, it's far easier for me to take risks.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
A better image would help me. There is glare on perhaps some Machine Doubling that is throwing off the first image. I'm still not convinced yet. The first larger image appears to be large date on the inside of the 9. The second looks more correct. So a better image may help with less glare/one single light source. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3507 Posts |
Kurt,
No problemo...I don't usually backpedal but the picture could be better so....I'll wait for better pictures, maybe:-)
This is just a joke but I saw this on a bumper sticker or something like that:
"Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken" :-) Like I said.. A joke:-) Noone can jump on me for a joke:-) By the way, I've been wrong occasionally:-) If I am, I say so. Let's see where this one goes:-)
Bill
|
|
Valued Member
United States
193 Posts |
OK I'm game, let me try and focus  on getting sharper pictures of the date.
Since my current camera, even with digital enhancement, will not give a sharp image I am going to have to borrow a camera that will allow extreme closeups.
Maybe today or tomorrow
Stay tuned
|
| |
Replies: 70 / Views: 10,506 |
First Page
Posted 01/18/2009 01:33 am
