In viewing threads on this forum there are two phrases that are shot from the hip very often: 1) 'Looks like a fake to me', and 2) 'Looks artificial to me' with absolutely no explanation of why that opinion. While everyone has the right to express an opinion, it seems that an obligation for an explanation follows usage of that right.
coinpapa what you may not realize is that sometimes "looks" is all there is. When you have looked at enough coins, genuine coins, and you see another - sometimes that other may just look off, not right in some way. It isn't always something you can put your finger on, point to it and say, this or that is the problem. Now I realize that when this happens it doesn't help to further anyone's education or understanding. But when you think about it, have you ever anyone who explain experience to you ? You can point to this or that to explain experience either. That's because experience is the whole ball of wax, it's everything that a person that has done over a period of years, sometimes a period of decades, sometimes many decades. And how do you explain what has happened to you in 4 or 5 decades ? Short of writing a book anyway. So when someone says looks like - what they are telling you is that based on their experience it "looks like" a fake. Or it looks artificial. You can always question how or why they think that way - but they may not always be able to explain it. Because as I said, sometimes the "look" is all there is.
however, I do agree that if you have an opinion, you should justify it. Even if you just say "I don't know why, but it just doesn't look right to me." I happen to agree, too many AT's and NG's without reasoning.
I hear what you are saying, but it seems to me that of all the people who should be able to explain what they are saying it would be those with the 'experience', if not them, then who? 'I can't explain it' is not an explanation, it is the total lack of one.
I agree completely, it is the lack of one. But let me give you an example. I'd say you have vast experience in being able to tell one color from another, like blue from red, or yellow from blue. Now pretend I am blind - please explain to me the difference between yellow and blue ?
Am I blind also? We are talking about an explanation, just because you cannot comprehend the explanation, does not mean I cannot make the explanation.
The better question would be "do I have less experience than others?" I'm sure the answer would be yes, because there is always someone that knows more. If someone told you that a dog was white, but you knew it was black, how would you explain your reasoning?
okay, lets try to make more sense out of this thread: "It looks fake to me." I have seen coins like this. There may not be anything glaring, like an obvious added mintmark, or the wrong design for the date (see Chinese fakes in amny other threads). But, having looked at many other coins of the type the piece may just look 'off' and not natural. An example may be a dished look to the coin, like the 1900 O (as I remember) Barber dime, which looks slightly different from most other dates. It just looks off to me, but I will never be able to explain why, just it is real. It almost looks like a different master die was used. Color: See this link: http://www.cointalk.com/t78979/ That (to me) is an obvious artificial toning. The colors are not natural, and are too sharp. Could it be natural? Sure, and the man in the moon may be real. Yes, there are dark natural toning coins, but this is not one of them.
I agree and disagree. Sometimes you have to look at who is making the post. The better or more knowledgeable posters like Doug and Mark Feld will explain why they think what they think - and you can ask them questions. Some other posters say fake and never respond with an explanation or they say "I just know". In some of those cases I just ignore them. Yes "AT" is tossed about, but that is really hard to determine and even the experts can be wrong. Soemthing you just have to keep in mind. Then in all of this - keep in mind the only thing we have to go on are the pictures provided. That alone can cause people to see something that might not really be there. Copper is a good example - you don't get the color right, it could look recolored or worse. The one thing you did not mention is cleaned - that gets used a lot. And yes a lot of the coins are cleaned - and yes you will get different opinions on what is harsh and not harsh. Again it is only opinions - if you ask, be prepared to accept what people see. Granted they may not be right, but can only form opinions on what they see. And the final judge is the person who has the coin in hand. And yes, sometimes you have to ask for an explanation. And yes sometimes the in-experienced think they know more than the real experts, but they will learn as time goes on. Personally I think I have improved, but know I still have a long way to go.
compare ths color in this thread, the Barber $1/2 posted by IDhair to compare color.... THAT is real! And outasight!
Mark Great comment about cleaning. There are times when I could swear that a piece is original, yet others (dealers) say cleaned. Still learning.
I don't mind when fellow forumites state raw, unexplained opinions. But I am very uncomfortable when TPGs make important decisions about whether or not to grade a coin based on judgments that inherently have a high level of subjectivity to them, such as whether toning is natural or artificial. In those cases, "I just know based on experience" should not be adequate in my opinion. These judgments can have profound economic implications, and should be made as objectively as possible. Unfortunately, "as objectively as possible" may be not at all objectively, and therein lies the rub. Those things about which objectivity is impossible should not be the basis of major decisions, such as the "slab or bag" decision.
Ugly I have seen some coins I do not believe to be genuine. Why varies and I do appreciate the many times specifics being pointed out on the example like errors in fonts, placement, weights, seams etc.... Perhaps they should be valued by their "desirability" and beauty. Calling a coin "fake" can imply it is a good example of a real coin, but because it is not authentic, usually not desirable. And many times the posters are precise:sometimes later down a thread someone adds the definable characteristic. Gut feelings and uglyness can't always be defined. And sometimes they can.
