I think the photos juiced , look at the difference in the slab and coins color . So I couldn't really say without seeing it in hand .
That toning resembles a lot of AT coins I've seen. Apparently NGC thought it was MA, though. I personally don't care for it.
I thought it was a proof, and if so, the colors looks legit to me at that angle of light. So based on your comment it's not a proof?
Looks like a proof coin that has been imaged with the lights at such an angle to bring out the color and then has had its saturation boosted a little in post-image acquisition processing.
NGC is very "fussy" about toning. If they accepted it, than I would think it was NT. I can't tell much from the pictures. I've bought one coin from Greattoning before and I know that the photo was enhanced. I'm still very pleased with the coin and have nothing bad to say about him/her as a seller. Here's the half dime I bought. In hand, the right field and details are actually silver. You be the judge.
I mostly agree. Could be an unjuiced photo also. Proofs like this are weird. You can get very colorful, pretty photos of them at times, which look nothing like a coin in hand, even without trying to be nefarious. I thank this board for pointing this out to me. I do not buy early proofs based on photos. If I want one, I go to a dealer or a show and see it in hand first.
I've seen many high end Lib nickels with natural toning that were similar in color, although the saturation looks a little overdone.
You could say this about many PCGS TrueView photos, and even many of the best photo-takers here on CT. Images looks fantastic, tack-sharp focus, high res, tons of light, and shot at the most ideal light angle to make the colors "pop". Nothing necessarily nefarious, but yet, the photos do not represent the normal in-hand view, under normal light, with human eyes. These pictures are accurate, but they only reflect one "reality", which is perhaps 1% of the possible realities for a given coin. Now, we all want to show off our coins in the best possible way, it's nothing different than say a business woman dressing up for a meeting, putting on makeup, and looking her personal best. But if the same person wears sweatpants 99% of the time, how accurate is the first reality? This has been kind of bugging me lately, because when certain people do this, we call it "juicing", especially when talking about artificially boosting color saturation. But if someone spends an hour of prep to get the most ideal coin pictures, this is okay. So called "in-camera" manipulation / setup as opposed to post-processing with software. IMHO, some of these "un-juiced" photos can be equally misleading. I've purchased a few myself. Not trying to step on any toes here, as I truly respect and admire the people who post the best coin photos here, and I try my best to replicate their work. It's just say new collectors need to understand that one photo cannot necessarily tell a person how a coin "looks", especially when talking about toned coins.
I agree completely Geekpryde. You said what I meant much better than I. Early proofs are most prone to this, which is why I said I simply do not trust photos of early proofs, especially if toned.
a significant amount of Jefferson nickels got past pcgs and ngc until they caught on. I'm sure another poster can reference this better then I can. this is the ebay post. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1912-NGC-PF...81?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item58aad73a7d
Amen I got a few I got a friend to take better pics of with their better camera but most of mine taken with my beat up old iPhone 4 and my coins is better then they look woodwork I can do photos not so much I do my best is all
