Will my 1837 H10C HALF DIME - SEATED LIBERTY, TYPE 1, NO STARS LARGE DATE PCGS VF30 get a sticker from CAC? I need the sticker for this to make it into my permanent collection, my so-called Box-of-100 CAC Type Set that I have been working on for a DECADE+. Vote now or forever hold your peace!
I think it makes the grade, nice skin, only question is if it looks a bit greenish around the reverse? Voting green bean worthy.
Great coin! The Half dime has been a "bucket lister" for me for some time now and finding one Metal detecting is a Dream come true.
I'm going with no ....nice coin but there appear to be some surface issues (below the M of DIME for example sticks out)
This was the coin I was second most excited to get a sticker on, as I have been hunting for a nice "No Stars" dime for a long time! I am pleased to announce:
I think what I love about TrueViews / GreatPhoto is that they are so large and so detailed, you can see everything perfectly (well at least from that one angle). The downside of course, is that every flaw is magnified 30x! So the pixel-peepers like you and me and a few others, we can see these flaws and just totally write off a coin. But on a coin that is this small, the area you are talking about is just plain tiny, and I think overall its doesn't detract enough to warrant a no-sticker if the coin is otherwise very pleasing and appropriately graded according to TPG and CAC. Sometimes when I get consumed with those super high rez photos, I got to remind myself, back out of the 30x zoom, look at the coin overall, is it nice or not overall? Then baring any serious issues discovered while pixel-peeping, or pet-peeves of mine like rim damage, I usually talk myself into bidding. P.S. Doing some rough math here: 17.9mm diameter of the Liberty Seated Dime = 67.65 pixels, at least according to internet. GreatPhotos are natively 4000 x 2000 pixels. So If we take the height of pixel (2000) and say the coin itself take up about 95% of the image height, we are at 1900 pixels. 1900 pixels / 67.65 pixels (the coin real life sized estimate) = 28 So the coin Reverse, on my 27-inch monitor, at 100% size, is ~28x the size of the real coin. And then you ZOOM in, and forget about it. It could be 50x! So, my point being, we need to keep the actual size of the coin in perspective when pixel peeping so we don't lose sight of "forest for the trees". Something which I am very prone to do.
You are right that the oversized image makes every hit and mark look worse than it is in hand. I just thought the general look of the surfaces was off and the part I mentioned was extra "confirmation" of what I was seeing. I have no issue with the sticker and think it is a nice coin overall.
I don't know how you can equate the measurement of a physical object with a number of pixels. A pixel is just an addressable sample of the object. The more samples, the more pixels. The size of the coin on your monitor depends on how much you zoom in, and how it looks depends on the number of pixels in the image versus the pixel resolution of your monitor. But I get what you're saying - extremely high resolution images of small coins accentuate the flaws.
Well, I know the exact dimensions measured in pixels of the great collections "Great photo". The image lists its properties , and size in pixels can easily be accessed on a desktop. My image editing software also tells me when the image is scaled to 100% or more or less than 100%. So I know if the image is zoomed or at it's native resolution / scale. I also know that the dimensions of my monitor and the resolution I choose to run. Meaning most of these numbers are a known quantity. So on my setup I can guesstimate fairly accurately. How many pixels the real life physical coin would appear on my screen at 100% scale is also measurable / calculable. I don't know for a fact I'm doing the math perfectly but I believe that I am. Since I'm curious now, I'm going to actually try to do it a different way and see if I get about the same results. I will post back once have a alternative confirmation and update my post. As necessary, if I was way off. But yes, the overall point is more along the lines of the fact that these photos are extremely enlarged versus the physical coin and we need to keep that in mind when we're pixel peeping.
I sort of get what you're trying to do, but you can't measure a physical object in pixels. A GC 4000x2000 GreatPhoto of the obverse of a Barber dime trimmed to the edges is 1890 pixels wide. So that is the diameter of the dime in pixels, for the particular resolution that they use. In my example, the GC 1890 pixel image is 584mm wide on my screen at 100%. The physical dime is 17.9mm. So you can say that the image I see is ~33 times bigger than the physical dime (584 / 17.9). But you can't say the dime is really 58 pixels in diameter. I think all you're trying to do is determine the level of magnification a particular photo, right?
I was only trying to estimate the number of times larger The photo of the coin is on my monitor versus the actual size of the coin. 10x, 30x, etc. that way I can keep in perspective any flaws. I can think to myself, how big of a deal is this flaw? If it's 25 times smaller than what I'm seeing on the screen, do I think it's a deal breaker for a potential purchase or a potential CAC submission.
