What does a coin “in hand” look like?

In some cases, several photos are necessary to get an honest depiction of the coin. Additionally, an in hand observation of the coin gives one a three dimensional perspective of the coin while exposing it to various light variations, not captured by photos. Defects are clear and leave nothing to the imagination.

Grading coins is always easier in hand versus photos, despite the photographer’s best efforts. This is clearly demonstrated in the GTG threads on CT.

The perfect example cited earlier is the pyramids or the even the Grand Canyon. How much more definitive are those sites versus photos!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

He said the same thing about one of my jokes.

We still have nothing to show for it.

 

To me, it means trying to get a photograph of a coin that looks as close as possible to how it looks in my hand. So many auctions have lousy photos that I pass them by, but a well photographed coin attracts my attention.

 

Imagine buying that coin from the photos only, and then getting the "in hand" version of the coin. Upon complaint to the buyer, he responds "right, you cannot see the amazing coin with your eyes, but an expert photographer, by putting light at various directions all at once, and getting the reflections just right, can generate that beautiful image that's so much better than you can see!"

That wouldn't exactly be the transaction I'd want to have...

 

"Say, Mister. Will you stake a fellow American to a meal?"

 

The coin below was part of the same lot of coins as the image I posted at the beginning of this thread. I shot about 40 of these cartwheels at the same time, with the same light.



Is this a pretty coin? No. Does my photography work make it look beautiful? No. Zoom in on it. Does it allow you to see all the crap stuck to it much clearer and faster than a few millimeters at a time with a loupe? Yes, because this is how the coin really looks when an expert photographer, by putting light at various directions all at once, and getting the reflections just right, generates a coin image that makes your viewing of it so much better, easier and faster than you can see in hand.

Here's another one, same batch.



Zoom in on it. That's a pretty beat up coin, and you can see every bit of it, at once, clearly and easily. Looking at this image online, would anyone feel these coins were being misrepresented?

 

I don't think your photographs misrepresent the coins. (To me, the 'pretty' one is misrepresenting itself, in that it has an 'artificial' shine and colour, but that's a different story). They are not the same as having the coin 'in hand', but you wouldn't expect them to be.

 

That is exactly my point; there is no more 'artificial' shine and colour on the pretty one then there is "artificial" dirt and scratches on the others. That is how the coins look when properly illuminated. There seems to a bias in this community that if it's pretty or attractive, it must be photoshopped, ergo; fraud. The other two coins are typical of the coins I shoot, most of which are not attractive, but if you bought either of the other two online, based on the photos, would you complain or return them because there don't look as dirty or beat up in hand as they do in the picture? I doubt it. You'd probably be happy about that. If you really wanted to look for each bit of dirt or scratch on them in hand with a loupe, you'll find them, but you see them all at once, properly lit, with the photo. So why would anyone complain or return a coin that looks better in a photo, simply because they can't see it, all at once, in hand? You said yourself, "They are not the same as having the coin 'in hand', but you wouldn't expect them to be." All of this sort of circles back to my original post. Why do you want to capture what a coin looks like "in hand" when that is rarely how it actually looks?

 

On the contrary, I would say 'in hand' means 'how it actually looks when I have it in my possession'. No one photo can do this, but some will seem closer than others (although that will be a matter of opinion). Your photos aren't misrepresenting the coin, but some will give a different impression of how the coin might be when you have it in your possession to others. Therefore more photos (or videos) from different angles would help.

Even from the ones you've posted, I feel I have a better idea of how the 'pretty' coin would be 'in hand' because you've posted both the close-up and the one of it in your hand.

 

That's not true. You don't see them all. You only see what the image lets you see. In hand you can see everything about a coin and that gets really important when dealing with coins of much value.

 

It's also true that a coin can look much better in hand than even the best photo. Some really benefit from changing light, and the reflection you'd try to cut out in a photo. I have a few Celtic bronzes that look great in person, but are impossible to photograph - in some cases you can't even work out what they're depicting!

 

I think what most of us are alluding to when we use the term "in hand" is control. When the coin is in our hand then we have, at least potentially, the ability to see every aspect of the coin. That imparts a sense of control over our judgement of the coin. OTOH, when we see a photograph of the coin, we have ceded our control over the viewing and judgement of the coin to an unknown third party. This is of particular importance if there is a monetary transaction at stake as we have all been taken in by poor or downright fraudulent photographs.

So, when we forum folks are trading photos for non-transactional purposes, we attempt to photograph the "in-hand" state in order to imply that the photograph is a relatively honest depiction of the coin aspects under discussion, for example; luster emphasized versus detail.

 

I photograph a lot of expensive coins and even more cheap ones, and honestly, if you can’t see something on the coin in my photo then you won’t see it in hand with the naked eye, and most certainly not in a lesser quality “in hand” style image, so it’s a moot point. If the “something” is so small it doesn’t appear in my shot, then you need a loupe to find it anyway, so the image becomes irrelevant. Regardless, the point has never been to replace the need for personal Inspection with a photo, or somehow circumvent an honest depiction of the coin, but simply questioning the wisdom of using an inaccurate standard as the benchmark.

 

I will take "in hand" over any photograph you can show me. That even goes for a coin show with poor lighting. "In hand" allows you to experience the piece from as many positions as you can turn it. That beats any two dimensional photograph, including the PCGS “True Views” which are coin “glamor shots” from my experience.

 

Agreed, a coin in hand is always much better, but this discussion is specifically about capturing an accurate coin image. What are your thoughts on that?

 

When I photograph something, I sit with the coin in hand and work on the color to get a match. I also might take an angle shot to get more of the luster. The hardest coins to photograph are Mint State pieces with luster and color in slabs. The easiest are circulated raw coins. Slab windows always add problems to the photographing process.

 

Made me chuckle. The "in hand" standard for photography is possibly the least egregious standard in use in coin collecting. (If you don't believe that, I would suggest tuning into almost any thread where grading is the topic.) I would hazard that pretty much everybody understands what is meant by the term and everybody buys into the ambiguity and imprecision.

That said, your photographs are delicious, far exceeding my poor capabilities. If there was a spectrum from 1 to 10 where 10 represented the coin as it actually is, then your photographs are probably in the 8-9 range and mine are in the 1-3 range. And I agree that a well-executed photograph can tell much more about the coin than is often seen in-hand. I have often been disappointed with a coin after photographing it and seeing all the defects magnified and thrown up in my face, alas.

I suspect that your attempt to elevate us to your level of expertise, artistry and professionalism will be futile, not that I begrudge you the effort. Please keep the beautiful photos coming-we all love pictures of coins.

 

wow!

rats, it wasn't me

 

Love your crossed FLAGS Charles Brooks... Be safe