Better Equipment for Error Spotting

I've worked with one of those Chinese scopes with the LCD screen for a while now. I really dislike it. The screen resolutions low and the auto-balance lighting often makes errors look present when they are not. Shadows are nightmare.

What's some better equipment y'all have used? Preferably looking for something with adjustable zoom and shadowless lighting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In my honest opinion. None of them!
If you really need to zoom that close into a coin, then it's sort of silly.



Let's see if maybe someone could suggest something though. You don't have to take my word for it

 

Not much into errors, but I agree with @paddyman98. If you need to see that close whats the point? I'd say maybe 10x magnification and a trustworthy site to learn to ID where the errors are.

 

I've got the cheap Hayve scope (I think I paid around $30), it's fine for what use it for (attributions). It has a USB cord that hooks into your laptop or desktop and you can view it as big as that screen allows. I ordered a taller stand so I can view an entire coin with it. That was my only gripe. A separate cord for snapping photos would have been nice but hey, for $30, no complaints. FYI, it has adjustable zoom, but I don't like my lighting either.

 

It may depend on your vision. For normal vision, 10x is plenty. I still have a 16x loop I bought when I was 11 or 12, and it is still all I need, even though my vision isn't what it was back then. If an "error" is so small it takes more than that to see it, it's not very impressive.

 

The nice thing about scopes is, you can take photos with them, cheap China junk or not. Technology is amazing. I had Lasik done 24 years ago for distance vision because I can't tolerate contact lenses, my eyes are too dry. Prior to surgery, I could read the serial numbers off a fly's ass. That all changed with surgery, now I need cheaters and my close vision gets worse with age. Still worth it though.

 

Very few scope images posted on the forums are good enough to get good answers.
I can't but there are those that get great images with their phone.

 

I understand. All my posted images are taken with a hand-held Canon Camera so old it is literally held together with rubber bands. In my old age I sometimes look at enlarged photos instead of the coins themselves.

 

I prefer old school ways, my eyesight is waning so it doesn't work as good as it used to, but it works.
I use a loupe and a large lighted magnifying glass with a light. A loupe is too much work for roll hunting. I use the magnifying light first. If something catches my eye, I grab a loupe 4X science type glass.

If you can't see an error or variety at this size then there probably isn't one there.

Make sure your loupe has good glass and is good quality you will be much happier being able to diagnose an error when it is clear.

 

I thought about it back when LASIK was just getting widely established. I loved the idea of having better than 20/20 vision, which can happen if you're very lucky.

But then I realized that I spend a lot of my time, probably most of it, looking at things that are close -- and for that, my native nearsightedness is actually an advantage. And when I hit my 40s and started to lose focal accommodation (as nearly everyone does), I could still look at coins or screens or gadgets by just peering under my glasses.

Mind you, if they ever find a reliable way to restore focal accommodation, I'll be sorely tempted. But I'm also aware that I get only one pair of eyes, and even a 1% risk of an adverse outcome is more of a gamble than I'm willing to take with them.

 

You take some great photos with your makeshift setup, I hope one day to take those half as good as yours.

 

Lasik doesn't last forever, it eventually fades. But how old are we going to live? It was worth it for me. I don't mind reading glasses, even though it's aggravating especially in low light conditions. When I first got it, I tested at 20-10 vision. Now it's more like 20-50. But I have developed cataracts, so when I finally decide to fix that I will probably be at least 20-30 again. Getting old is hell bro.

 

Yep, I figure I'll earn the privilege of cataract surgery one day, and maybe at that point I can get an upgrade. At the very least, I'll have a decision to make, whether to keep my OEM nearsightedness or reset to distance-corrected. For the reasons I described, I'd lean toward the former.

Tell me about it. But it still beats the alternative!

 

That was through the old school magnifying glass. I got lucky,
Photography really has to be fun, it doesn't just happen.

 

I have cataracts, my vision was fine until I started using magnification, reading glasses are the price I pay now. 1.25 magnification. I have always had 20/20 vision until around 40. I was the only one in my family that didn't wear glasses. It was a pride of mine, still not gonna give up coins.

 

Yep, Dad was the same way, eagle-eyed with no glasses until he hit his 40s. My son seems to have gotten that gene from him, too. 40 is when the lens starts to stiffen up.

I still suspect my nearsightedness had a lot to do with all the time I spent at age 2-5 with my nose buried in books. (Worth it, though!)

 

If you can’t see it with a 10X loop than it’s not worth having. The higher the magnifying you use the more mistakes you’ll find. Magnifying above 10X is a waste.

 

I have a terrible time determining mint doubling vs light shadows when magnifying a coin. Even the photographs on Vam World confuse me when they don't use pointer arrows. Doubled ears? I'm about totally useless determining those. I end up forgetting what a normal ear is supposed to look like. I think I could watch a video seminar and still not crack that mystery.

 

And that is one reason I’m not a variety collector. I do have some varieties but I’m really not into them.

 

I was but anymore I just look for and browse the top 100 listed varieties. It cuts down on the tedium. I love clashed ones though, even if they don't generate a premium.