Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2419926, member: 1892&quot;][ATTACH=full]501215[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Images can be deceptive. Everything you see in my first image, I did in the Gimp, and it was a rush job because I was creating this and didn&#039;t care much about surface quality:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]501216[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>You&#039;d never know it wasn&#039;t an easy MS67 if I were more careful about the alterations and addressed the front edge of the profile and the eye (which should have been an <b>instant</b> red flag to any experienced student of photography, which is why I left those details there). Images are deceptive, and the first skill necessary for successful evaluations of coins based on images is to know how to evaluate images.</p><p><br /></p><p>My experience in coin imaging suggests to me that the OP coin&#039;s woes are being greatly exaggerated by digital imagery. If you&#039;ve shot enough circulated coins, you&#039;ll know that you can make <b>almost every single one</b> show hairlines from certain lighting angles, differing for each coin. Silver coins hairline jouncing around in your pocket. My thinking is further reinforced by the complete lack of visual distraction in the narrower nooks and crannies which shouldn&#039;t have been successfully cleaned by a brushing which appears this minor in such clear images.</p><p><br /></p><p>However, the most important takeaway is, this is only one set of images under one lighting circumstance, and <i>neither of us</i> (to the extent we disagree) is proven right.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in