i hate buying coins that are scanned because all the problems and marks seem to never show up until it's in your hands. I took a chance in this Walker, a series I don't collect simply because it had a lot of meat on it. I know it's a common date but I thought it was at least an AU50. What do you think? Are you able to grade coins by scans instead of pictures? If so any tips for those of us who can't?
Scans are as good as, or better than most, images at objectively communicating the technical details of a coin. Depth, not so much - some features might seem "flatter" from wear than the scan might indicate. Luster, not at all except for one very important detail: the greater the luster, the "darker" the scan will appear. The same can also be said of reflectivity, meaning "dark" is not a feature you want to see on a scanned coin's devices (strong hint of polishing there). So, the coin here would do XF45 on a bad day and AU53 on a good TPG day; the reverse is of notably higher "grade" than the obverse, and it depends on whether they realize coins don't wear on only one face when they hold it. It will likely have very little luster, and that's why if I were to offer a grade for this one it'd be XF45. If PCGS called it AU I wouldn't call them liars, and my opinion is subject to change if it displays more luster in hand.
Based on the scans I'm at the XF-45 camp as well. It has pretty good detail. But I don't see any luster and that could be due to the fact that it's a scan and a low AU is certainly possible.
I see some luster which should be present on an XF/AU coin. Foe example, IMO, it's that bright color next to the rim from 2 - 5 on the obverse.
I prefer the pic of the standard '21...the scan makes it look dead. On the other hand, I actually like the scan of the PL. Unlike your statement above to me it is the picture that looks almost polished.
Scans are fine for XF and below, where all you're interested in is wear and damage. As soon as you have an AU coin, where luster starts coming into play, using a scan is not a the best idea.
That's because it did look polished. PL/DMPL does not have to include "frosty" surfaces, and this one had nothing "frosty" about it. The look is exacerbated by my technique as I was trying to illustrate reflectivity and the coin isn't square to the lens, but the scan is deceptive in the sense that it makes the devices look frostier simply because they didn't reflect nearly as much as the fields did.
Scans can work fine, even with luster but most people do not use the full functionality of their scanners programs, instead using the basic program to get the job done quickly. This is not always the case with luster, but usually so, at least for me. It can be very time consuming to use all the extra features available in a good scanner program. Much the same as using a program like Picassa to correct bad photo lighting, contrast, red eye, etc.
