Seeing it in a different light

There have been many discussions here regarding photographing coins and here is an interesting comparison - three different photos of the same gorgeous Syracuse tetradrachm:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interesting how the toning is nearly invisible in the first two, but shows nicely in the third. Also, how the small marks on cheek and neck can be seen on the first and third, but hardly at all on the second!

 

Very interesting comparison, but at this level of expenditure, I would need to see the coin in hand before a bid was cast.

 

I agree, JA. It sold in 2011 for $26,000 plus buyer's fee. But it's such a great coin that it looks marvelous in all three photos!

 

Don't like the coin?, send it to me!

 

That third pic shows how amazing that coin is!

 

For me, the second pic looks the nicest.

On JA's point, I would pretty much never have an opportunity to view a coin in hand before bidding in the thousands - being in Australia and all. But my main interest is coins of rare emperors - not necessarily beauty. For me, coins just need to be authentic and legible.

 

What is considered legible? Identifiable?

 

I can see the beauty in all three images, but the toning in the third is magnificent.

 

Identifiable - and beyond doubt. I'm never going to find a "beautiful" tremissis of Anthemius or Majorian. The attribution just needs to be very clear.

 

The third is my favorite because you can see the toning and it looks the sharpest. Also the color seems like it's the clearest in that one and the little hits are visible.

That's just a very wonderful coin. I could only hope to be in the same room with it!

 

Sweet OP-coin, ancientnut ... congrats

Oh, and I agree with Bing that all three photos have their pluses (and although the third photo definitely has an advantage because it is a larger image, I'm actually a fan of the ghoulish under-lighting in the second photo ... maybe it's the sweet baby-blue background?)



=> great photos, great coin

 

In the second image, the skin tone looks so smooth and lovely. Howver, if it were of equal size to the third image, it probably wouln't look so smooth. I really love this coin no matter which image you use.

 

Steve, sorry I didn't state it in the OP, but I don't own the coin. However, perhaps some day...

 

The third seems to be a 'midway 'view' of the first two smaller images, combining or deleting certain 'attributes' of the others. I wonder which is the most accurately captured image as held in hand.......I'd guess the third with less toning and a more silvery appearance. In any case, as all agree, it is a magnificent coin!!

 

Can't be sure because the first 2 images are rather small, but I think the 2nd one was shot with the lens stepped way down, probably in low light condition. It looked so much softer, like there was quite a bit of diffraction. This (low light) might also explain why the colors looked bleached.

Vise versa, I'd assume the 1st image was shot with lens wide open. So was OP's own photo, so the differences between those 2 shots probably came from how bright and harsh the lights were.

 

The third image has a nice metallic quality. The others may show details, but they don't have the color and reflectivity of the silver the same way. If you had the coin in hand, would it have the surface of the third image?

 

I agree with JA about needing to see such a coin before bidding and with GH about that not being possible. That is why we have people who serve as auction agents who, for a fee, will bid on your behalf after looking at the coin and advise you on questions like "What shows on the coin that doesn't show on the photo?" I do not buy $26k coins but I have been represented on lesser items in the distant past when I considered buying coins I wish I could see. I would like to know who represented that coin with the second image. I would not be inclined to patronize them.

 

http://www.acsearch.info/search.htm...s=1&currency=usd&thesaurus=1&order=0&company=

Some may find interest in the range of these coins recorded as having sold in the link above. Very few went over $100,000 but the most interesting one to me was the 900 euro museum copy. I know that many of us find interest in electrotypes but the cheapest gold dekadrachm in that list was less.

 

The blue background and flat photography look familiar. Baldwin's, perhaps in the Prospero Collection? I have that catalog and would check but it is boxed up at the moment.