My attempt to get a better picture out of this camera; besides the color I think these came out well (no it doesn't have this golden toning in reality; that's just the lighting.) This one popped out on the tray in the coin store as soon as I looked in the display case. What do you think? (of both the coin and the pictures lol...)
The coin itself looks in pretty nice condition, the color in the picture really takes away from it unfortunately because it is unnatural looking.
Can try later but the Statue of Liberty half was taken in natural light coming through the window which isn't available at 11 at night unfortunately lol... The natural light was causing its own problems as it was getting a lot of reflections of the proof surface. Shouldn't be as much of an issue here, will see what I can do.
Appears to have the details of an AU/BU example, but I wouldn't feel comfortable calling the surfaces original until sufficient photos are provided... And by "sufficient", I mean ones that don't make the coin look gold-plated. Instead of using a traditional lamp w/ dome-head bulb that throw the white balance out of whack try using a halogen or natural daylight-reproducing lamp... or even just sunlight from a window.
Not much sunlight to be had when it's almost midnight lol... used a flash this time, risks washing it out with the reflections, but the colors came out better. Edited the OP with new pictures.
Yeah, flahes suck, as you're not able to view the pic before you snap it. The obverse looks better on this one, but the reverse is over exposed.
The coin is AU, probably AU55, and you can see this by the flatness along the top ridge of Ms. Liberty's exposed right leg (the viewer's left side) from the ankle up through the thigh. This is the highest point on the obverse and will show wear (flatness) most quickly. The fact that it is so white is indicative that the coin has been dipped at least one time because coins with this level of wear that are 80+ years old do not remain blasty white without a dip. I think it is entirely market acceptable and that most would love the coin.
Thanks; this one's for my type set so I was trying to find a more common date so could afford it in high condition. I figured it must have been dipped at some point but thankfully nobody tried to otherwise polish or clean it. It seems to have started to retone slightly in the fields. I saw the wear on the leg, is also a tad bit on the head and emblem on the shield (though these might just not have been struck fully); the reverse shows a tad on the eagle's left wing. Is a little scratch between the second L and A in "DOLLAR" but doesn't detract too much (and you have to look pretty closely to even notice it). I love the texture on the panels that she stands between, I haven't seen these on many of these quarters unless they're in fairly high condition. This is the first I've seen where you can notice the pattern on the obverse's rim. Paid $68 for this and seemed like a really good buy (for what it's worth the Red Book claims this is worth $80 in AU 50). Apparently from 1925 on they made the date more recessed to protect it from wear; 1917-1924 the date is very high and can wear off quickly (I have quite a few worn SLQ's with very difficult to read dates). Thanks for your thoughts all. So far the best results I get from my camera taking pictures of coins is using a lot of natural light and no flash (especially on proofs).
