| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,034 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
646 Posts |
Edited by Wideglide
03/03/2023 3:45 pm
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Pics too dark to see surface details clearly.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36782 Posts |
I agree with Frog, hard to see the surfaces.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
646 Posts |
These pics may be a bit better...   |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
599 Posts |
Pics are not good enough to grade for my eyes.
Watch your top knot
|
|
Moderator
 United States
15455 Posts |
Mint state is all I can offer based on those photos - too dark and slightly out of focus to be more definitive.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
18673 Posts |
it looks like you are using some type of overhead lighting. cant do that. the holder itself is going to create glare let alone lighting. I dont think they are out of focus just hard to determine what the fields look like.
if you cant get better photos the obv looks like it has a lot of chatter in the right field and even the luster may be gone from that area. the high points of the feathers on the chest and legs seem to be either flat from strike or the luster has been removed. these are the areas in question.
best guess MS63 based on the obv
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Still can't get a good feel.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
Nice MS64, shot at 65, a rather soft strike though.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
646 Posts |
Quote:
the obv looks like it has a lot of chatter in the right field The haze in the right field is on the holder. I am having lighting problems with this microscope, might have to get some auxiliary lighting, even though it has LEDs around the lens, and two on movable goosenecks.  Edited by Wideglide
03/03/2023 4:01 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
The lighting needs to be further from the source, more perpendicular (flatter) and less parallel -- the copy stand type setup is fine. I'd try at 45 degrees or even 30 degrees relative to the plane. Diffuse lighting is better than direct lighting (think about the difference between an item sitting in a brightly lit room vs. someone shining a bright light directly at an item in that room -- even if the light output from both sources is identical, the directionality and intensity of the source will make quite a big difference in how the photos appear and how you set up your camera.)
Most cameras don't play well with direct light sources that are parallel to shiny objects. The reflected light from the surface necessitates a fast shutter speed along with 100 ISO film / f16 stop or thereabouts, to avoid over-exposure, but that doesn't give the film / CCD enough exposure time on the areas of the object that are in shadow or low relief. The end result is usually excessive contrast and a loss of sharp detail as seen in the photo of your nickel on the copy stand.
Exceptions would be proof coins with cameo type surfaces, or in cases where a coin is badly worn and you need to bring out as much contrast as possible.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
646 Posts |
Sorry, forgot about the reveal on this...  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2365 Posts |
I was going to say an MS63 or 64...then I saw your photo. Beautiful "Walker"! Congrats
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,034 |
|
Posted 03/02/2023 6:10 pm
