okay, from what little I know, this looks to be cleaned. What would it be graded, value. What are the problems?, etc? as long as it's not a fake I'll be fine 18% gray card white balanced. ..
I'm thinking you're using lights of two different color temperatures. The camera is white balanced to the one at Noon, but the one at 3:00 is too yellow and will throw off surface opinions. One swipe across an ironed cotton shirt can create all the hairlines we see here at once, so I don't consider them any evidence of cleaning. It has to be a guess because of the differing color temperatures, but my guess is original surfaces and some very_slight handling over the years as the coin spent most of its' time in one money chest or another.
Yes, some light hairlines, but I have had MS63 coins look the same when shot at certain angles. It has enough luster that it might grade. I would like more pictures under different light though.
There was a spot light around 3 which I thought of turning off but was lazy and didn't I was using two Nikon sb800s and a sb700 I'll setup lighting the right way and reshoot when I get a chance So a simple swipe across a shirt can cause those scratches .. I guess gold is soft. Can the same force/material do the same to silver, copper, nickel coins?
No, not nearly so easily, except for Proofs with their sensitive surfaces.. Folks new to grading gold consistently undergrade it vs. TPG's; that's a place where we have to make our own decisions as to how much leeway we allow gold for being so soft.
I believe it to be cleaned , if it was just swiped across a shirt the hairlines wouldn't be all over the coin and would be fairly parallel to each other . Hope she straight grades for you , though I myself wouldn't spend the money as it's a common date but worth keeping . I'm in at AU-58 .
Maybe this is better. Otherwise I'd have to set up my macro stuff instead of doing quickie lighting and handheld. ....
Top pics are way better , I can't see any tooling marks or other pups to think it's fake , looks real as rain to me .
MISINFORMATION ALERT! You think? Don't see any "market unacceptable rub" so Unc enough with continuous hairlines = 61. But we'll never know for sure as not worth grading unless you can get a "show special."
No, No, absolutely not. See Post#12. The majority of "light-catching streaks" on your coin (hairlines) are more serious than any hairlines from a shirt. However, from the photo your coin is NOT CLEANED OR HARSHLY CLEANED either. I formerly thought all coins that looked like yours were cleaned until I wised up. The hairlines on your coin can happen in a purse or pocket. Don't take my word for it. Buy a cheap modern clad quarter PROOF and rub it across your cotton shirt once, twice, three times and watch what happens, you may get some micro hairlines. Now rub it across your dirty rug. Look at it. Then really rub it back and forth hard. Try it. BTW, when I see some lint on my coin, up it goes to my shirt rather than walking across the room to remove the lint "properly."
Yeah, I was hand holding in macro mode .... I should have setup the tripod, remote trigger, etc. but didn't bother as I had about 5 minutes spare this morning. I'll redo when I actually have some time.
They didn't wear their shirts as comfortable as we do, at the turn of the century. With that said, you're technically correct; the point I wanted to make was that one swipe across something could cause that many marks on a gold coin. However, the second set of images showing hairlines running in a different direction - although it still doesn't make me think the coin mechanically cleaned - does make me think it saw more circulation than I originally thought.
It may be an effort, but a tripod is basic for good focus. On the most recent photos the Obs shows sharp focus at 10 o'clock and hairlines, and at 4 o'clock things look blurry. Again the Rev shows sharp focus at 12 o'clock with sharpness and hairlines showing up the same way. We can't overcome the cleaning problem, but sharpness over the whole requires working with a wider depth of focus, i.e., a smaller aperture.
