| Author |
 Replies: 37 / Views: 3,272 |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
OK, my brethren and sistren Morganophiles, it's my turn now that I'm getting myself operational on my Canon S2 IS (still have a long way to go). Positive characteristics: very high luster, cartwheels beautifully. Moderately well-struck with good Eagle breast detail and just OK on Liberty's hair, especially over her ear. Light frosting on the devices which makes a good photo difficult. Negative characteristics: well, I'll let you pick them out. Canon settings: ISO 400, 1/100th at F7.1 (F8 tended to exaggerate the coin's marks more than I liked), distance from lens to coin about 16". Lighting: 1-100w and 1-60w common light bulb; used "tungsten" white setting, 1st macro setting. I could have posted this in the Photography forum, but I wanted grade opinions more than camera technique critique.   This Morgan is going on the block shortly. Fred I do not know why the text did not wrap unless it has something to do with the image size upon enlargement. Edited by Morgan Fred
10/03/2006 10:36 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
Hi Fred Are you going to post pics for us to look at or just the description ?  The coin looks like a MS-66 to me, I dont think the dies cracks both obverse and reverse would detract from the grade,, Rick Is the coin Raw or in a PCGS slab ? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
That's a great looking CC Fred. I can't see to much wrong with it. I see a few scattered contact marks but not sure if its the holder or the coin. I see a couple in Miss Liberty's forehead and a couple small ones low on the cheek area and one on her nose.a couple small contact marks on the reverse.I would say MS63 possibly MS64. I love all the die cracks.  Thats the most I think I have ever seen. Edited by TLS5933
10/03/2006 11:48 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
 United States
2684 Posts |
Rick, just for you, I included the photos.  And actually, I hadn't noticed the die cracks on the obverse. Stupid of me not to notice, but once you pointed them out, I took a closer look. While the camera exaggerates the cracks quite a bit, they're not really noticable in hand, but under a lens, they come right out. I would estimate the obverse die crack (or cracks) extends around a third of the coin between the stars and rim - there are even fainter die cracks not visible in the photo. Terry, good eyes! The only marks visible in hand are the two tiny side-by-side marks on her forehead and those can be seen only if the light is right. I probably could have eliminated them in the photo by top or upper side-lighting instead of lower/bottom side-lighting. It's amazing how the camera picks up the slightest mark. by cartwheeling the coin, a couple of the other marks become visible. My major problem with photographing this Morgan was too much luster reflecting light over and covering up parts of the coin, so I had to compromise with the lighting and f-stop. I hate parting with this Morgan, but I gotta pay for Jeep repairs. After a few more Morgan-folk check in, I'll post the whole slab. Fred |
|
Valued Member
United States
151 Posts |
Fred,looks like and sounds like it's a strong MS65 but based on the pics I can't say anymore than that.The pictures are nice but they're hiding most of the luster and probably some scratches.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Morgan Fred
Rick, just for you, I included the photos. And actually, I hadn't noticed the die cracks on the obverse. Stupid of me not to notice, but once you pointed them out, I took a closer look. While the camera exaggerates the cracks quite a bit, they're not really noticable in hand, but under a lens, they come right out. I would estimate the obverse die crack (or cracks) extends around a third of the coin between the stars and rim - there are even fainter die cracks not visible in the photo.
Terry, good eyes! The only marks visible in hand are the two tiny side-by-side marks on her forehead and those can be seen only if the light is right. I probably could have eliminated them in the photo by top or upper side-lighting instead of lower/bottom side-lighting. It's amazing how the camera picks up the slightest mark. by cartwheeling the coin, a couple of the other marks become visible. My major problem with photographing this Morgan was too much luster reflecting light over and covering up parts of the coin, so I had to compromise with the lighting and f-stop.
I hate parting with this Morgan, but I gotta pay for Jeep repairs.
After a few more Morgan-folk check in, I'll post the whole slab.
Fred
Fred, yes the camera brings out things we never see and somewhat exaggerates them to look worse than they are. I have found using direct window light (not direct sunlight)to give a much better picture. I just cannot get a good picture using light bulbs as my source of light. I down loaded your pics and adjusted them to my liking to give the grade I did.  It looks like it might be on the edge of PL in my pics,does it in hand? |
|
Valued Member
United States
66 Posts |
Well I'm new, but the sharp strike and absence of any hideous bagmarks put me at a 65/66 on this coin.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
Yeah, artificial lighting isn't exactly the optimal means for digital photography for me, but I don't have any other option short of taking my operation outside. I don't have any windows in my travel trailer which are usable for natural-light photography. I have done it outside, but it's a PITA to set up, then take down each time and I'm subject to weather patterns (here in the AZ desert, not much rain nor overcast, but there's a lot of wind) and, of course, can only do it during the day.
Terry, it's close to being prooflike, but the slightly weaker strike on the obverse keeps it from this designation.
I'll post the slabs later today.
Fred
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
  When I purchased this Morgan, both the seller and I thought it should grade MS-64 at PCGS, even with PCGS's really tight standards on Morgans of the past couple years. When it came back from PCGS at MS-63, I was disappointed, but not crushed. PCGS has been known to bodybag perfectly good uncirculated Morgans as "cleaned". This is on the block with Coins 'n Currency.  Fred |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
Still a very nice,high dollar coin.I agree,it should have been a MS64. I have a 1890 CC that I think PCGS under graded also. I think it should have been MS64 also.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
Fred I'm dis appointed for you !! I dont see anything that would keep this coin down in grade,, the 66 I gave was without subtracting for the cracks, I guess the PCGS grader does not like die cracks and attributes them to die fatigue which is not always the case .
Rick
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
Rick, I think those two little hits on the forehead would keep it from MS66.If not for that It probably would be. I don't believe they would subtract for die cracks,but I could be wrong.I think PCGS likes to keep the population of the high grade,high dollar coins down. I wish they would just grade on merit and let the chips fall where they may. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
First line in the PCGS grading guide concerning mint State examples !!
Lite contact marks on the highest points is evident even in the highest grades,, it appears that a few marks are acceptable even in the highest graded coins,, I just wish that PCGS would follow their own guide .
Rick
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
Terry, that's one nice 90CC! I would also agree that it should be at least MS-64 if not higher. Rick, I think PCGS is looking for any excuse whatsoever to keep Morgan Mint State grades down so that they can lower its population reports. I agree that die cracks normally shouldn't matter with Morgans since they're so common, but PCGS plays by its own rules. As I mentioned, I thank my stars that it didn't come back in a bodybag like the 1890CC NGC MS-62 I sent in a year ago. PCGS labeled it as "harshly cleaned" although it had gorgeous luster and its own faint die crack which would have been abraded off with any type harsh cleaning. It is not without reason that I did not renew my membership in PCGS' Collectors' Club last month. It's gonna be tough replacing these two Morgans, presuming I can sell them. However, rainy days are usually followed by sunshine . Fred |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
I'd have said 64 all day, shot at 65. You're shooting from a tripod, right? Drop the ISO to 100 (experimentally) and the aperture down to 4.0. You will then be able to quicken the shutter speed to likely over 1/250 and lose the 100w in favor of another 60w. You're shining the lights from about 4:00 and 8:00 with the bright one at 8:00, if I'm seeing it clearly. Lower ISO makes the camera less sensitive to light but also less sensitive to noise. The best image quality is to be had at the lowest possible ISO setting. With this much light, it probably won't make a difference lowering the light sensitivity. Dropping the aperture greatly increases the amount of light going into the sensor, allowing you to speed up the exposure time. This, in turn, makes a sharply-focused shot much more likely, and allows you to use less wattage on the coin. Here's a set in Super Macro, with two 60w Reveals at 10 and 2, ISO 100, 1/250 at f3.5 (obverse) and f4.5 (reverse). See the difference in blurriness at the tops? I wasn't centered on the coin, and 1 point in aperture widened the depth of field enough to bring the whole coin into focus. Note, I altered these in Photoshop for color balance, and to darken them slightly.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
I wish I could afford them Fred, I would adopt em. |
| |
Replies: 37 / Views: 3,272 |
Posted 10/03/2006 11:34 pm
