That looks like the robot arm.that picked up the miniaturized capsule Dennis Quaid was in in Innerspace at the end
All of the platforms on these machines are adaptable. You can attach a raised platform to it to get a coin/slab past the swinging arm. But, yeah, I'm sure it's only for those who earn champagne wages...
I disagree heartily with this. I'm well aware of the physics of color toning and why and how certain colors only come out at certain angles. But, really, when no reasonable viewing illumination is going to make the coin look like the picture, that borders on fraud to me. I'd be interested to see what PCGS would do with the coin in post #1. My experience is that TrueViews tend to represent the coin favorably but in a way that isn't too far from the "in-hand under a good light" experience. Oh, and @physics-fan3.14: those tilt stages are pretty awesome (they're for aligning lasers in labs, for those not familiar), but I'd guess it might be easier to move the lights than to move the coin in this scenario, wouldn't it?
I agree . It has to be juiced if the op is correct in stating he can't see the colors shown at any angle .
Exactly the same issues faced by a whole lot of people who try to take their own coin pics, and with the same results. Which of course is why they quite often choose to use the services of somebody else to take their coin pics for them. I used to have the same problems, suffered the same results. I experimented with everything imaginable from different kinds of lights, different kinds of bulbs, to flashlights and Coleman lanterns. I used diffusion shields on the lights and diffusion shields around the coins, even tried using both at the same time. Then one day I just stumbled across a technique that worked for me. Taking coin pics is like everything else, there are tricks of the trade - a lot of them, depending on what you are trying to do. To capture luster, to capture toning, to capture cameo, each may require a slightly different technique to achieve the desired results. But it can be done even when one cannot do it himself. And what Dave mentioned, axial lighting, that works too. http://www.school-of-digital-photog...g-axial-lighting-for-photographing-coins.html But there are other methods to accomplish the same things that does. Bottom line it's all about light and angles.
What part of "I'm not particularly happy with the seller for presenting an end-stage toner like this" did you miss? The fact that I try (not always succeeding) to phrase even anger in the form of reasonable discourse? But I'm only angry with the seller because he presented the coin in a fashion which non-experts could misinterpret. He did not lie. The coin has that color. And if you grok toning, images like that get immediately dismissed in your mind. You know they're extreme-case samples. Just like you know to dismiss a seller's claim that the AU coin he offers is an MS64. By all means, out the dealer. I'll say it again, I'm not happy with him. He showed images only an expert would evaluate properly. But it isn't like he lied about the grade or something similar. And why isn't the lighting I mention - or Doug discusses - "reasonable?" Especially when it's the way to evaluate toning, in the same fashion you'd want appropriate lighting to evaluate grade? End-stage toning doesn't need it for evaluation - if you know, you know it on sight under any lighting - but mid-stage toning can be far more deceptive than these images are, it's that stage where the "wild" toners lie and you could commit stupid money on an improper coin if you're not aware of it. Grade a coin under a single 60w incandescent - no other illumination - at your desk, and then take it out onto the porch in Noon sunlight and grade it again. You'll see two different coins with two different grades. This is why experienced in-hand graders new to grading high-resolution images consistently undergrade the coin; it isn't customary to throw as much candlepower - in such a carefully-prepared and aimed fashion - at a coin when you grade in-hand. It should be, because that kind of imagery presents a bunch of actual detail the grading "expert" misses with their accustomed grading procedure. I hand-grade coins under as much light as I can throw at them without blowing out highlights, as should everyone. Learning how to grade from high-res images taught me that addition to my hand-grading procedure. Few seem to realize (look at the example we're discussing here) just_how_important lighting is to the evaluation of a coin. Heck, if I could work out an axially-lit grading setup using beamsplitter glass, I would go to that process for hand-grading. Aside the fact that my eyes would need to be precisely vertical above and square to the coin, which is how axial lighting captures color so well. I really don't care what you or anyone else thinks of what I posted here. The OP now knows enough about how toning works so he'll never be deceived by this kind of image again, and that's the only goal. If my choice of verbiage offends, I'm unhappy with myself because that gets in the way of teaching. But it's difficult to phrase "you're wrong and need to learn more" in happy-happy-joy-joy fashion. I am always open to suggestions about how to become a better teacher.
Ya know @SuperDave, I would just TLDR many people posting something as long as you do on occasion. However, I've always been able to read yours with vigor. Even though I know you pretty well and know I'm about to read something I've heard you say a thousand times before, there's always a kernel or two of something new or a refresh on something I've forgotten. Keep up the cause brother. You have many more admirers than you know for the way you can plainly explain something in an academic or scientific manner that most can either comprehend outright or at least be nudged in the right direction for self research
I bought this last year for a little over $100. Unfortunately Jason it is operated manually, but one setting is a good fit for most shots. The motorized models can run into some money.
Ok, let me put it this way. This guy: sells what look like genuine, honest coins that are, for the most part, correctly identified (he sells a lot of ancients, and it's easy to misidentify some of them). He doesn't even use the word "grade" in his listings. And, if anybody reading this has more money than brains and wants to spend nearly $10000 on this owl, just click through to his listings and search for "athens owl". The guy seems to only be out for a buck, except he'd rather make 10 bucks off of someone who doesn't know better than make an honest buck developing a real clientele. He's not doing anything illegal, but I'm more than "not particularly happy" people like him are out there potentially souring people just getting started that don't know any better on the hobby. There's nothing wrong with "you're wrong and need to learn more," as long as you provide some of the "why you're wrong," and a little of the "more" they need to learn. I don't have a problem with you and what you post. I have a problem with this guy:
It's a good day to learn something new . I knew light and angles mattered for pics , but always figured that if I had the coin in hand and the color "was" there I'd be able to see it at at least one angle with enough light . Thanks to you , Doug and this thread I guess I was wrong .
I'm familiar with axial lighting and how it will show the colors on a coin without the glare on the slab, but that doesn't matter when actually looking at the coin..only for imaging. And after looking at the coin under several different lights I was finally able to make out the colors that are in the sellers photos but they are not even close to as vibrant. Those images are 100% absolutely juiced.
Fwiw I can see the same coin with.the same colors on both your photo and the sellers. But I know toners. You'll be able to see it too right off the bat once you start getting serious about color. It's just a matter of seeing a bazillion toners. What I like to do is find some amazing toners and dark proofs at Heritage during Long beach auctions then I go view them in hand. It gives one quite the perspective without spending a dime. What the seller of yours didn't do was to show pics more true to the in hand look along with those... and for that he should be admonished
Gotta agree with you again J, that's an ugly coin and not toning to my liking at all. Better luck next time OP.
