If so, could someone please post an example(s) ? I've been trying and trying to understand grading from MS to MS70 and I'm not getting anywhere. I've purchased and read The Official ANA Grading Standards for U.S. Coins by Kenneth Bressett Grading Coins by Photographs by Q. David Bowers Making the Grade by Beth Deisher published by CoinWorld These books came highly recommended yet none explain what luster breaks or 'wear' looks like! It's almost as if they assume it's so easy one should just know. I've said it here many times and in private messages, what I see as a luster break or 'wear' I see on ALL coins to some degree (PCGS MS65, NGC MS64, PCGS MS62, etc. etc.) In turn it's hard for me to believe I understand it....
Some people here claim so, but it would take absolutely expert photography. Most cannot tell the difference between reflections and luster. I will be honest--unless the photograph is professional quality, I can't, and that is as an experienced collector.
I don't think a "professional quality" photo could even be able to show a break. A high-quality video could because you can move the coin around to show where the luster break occurs. Chris
I agree. What amuses me is when somebody gets an E-bay quality picture, and says "it is AU because there are luster breaks" or "the coin is dripping with luster." I take raw or max Jpegs of coins, and can't see it so how do they miraculously see luster or breaks? What they're seeing is either light or flash bouncing off of the coin, or the light from the autofocus.
Color me confused because I cannot imagine how anyone could not see a break in the luster in a photograph. A break in the luster is caused by wear, are you guys really saying that you cannot see wear on a coin in a photograph ?
Wear is completely different. As regards luster, what you are SEEING in a photograph is reflection---either available natural light, photo lamps, or flash. The only other possibility is reflection of the autofocus light, as it emits a strong red glow when the autofocus locks on any item. Chris is correct--luster that is not enhanced by artificial means is only observable when the coin is moving--a la cartweel effect.
Luster cannot be seen without light. Luster is the reflection and refraction of light. A reflection is what you see when you look at it with your naked eye in person. So of course what you see in a photograph is a reflection, because it can't be anything else.
Yes, agreed. However, it is 90% of the time ARTIFICIAL light. It is easily enhanced or exaggerated by the lights to illuminate the coin, and the autofocus. Natural light tells a lot more, and luster breaks absolutely cannot be viewed from a photograph without significant error. My feelings based on looking at coin photographs for years. This is the Ebay syndrome--a coin can look completely different based on how it is illuminated. One can buy a coin that bears no resemblance to the photograph Both luster and tone are impacted by this fact.
Doug, here is an example. I took a random Morgan off of Ebay. THE ONLY parameters I changed were light level and contrast. Yet, it looks like a completely different coin, in terms of tone, and luster. Were I to buy this coin from the photograph, it makes no accurate representation about either quality--the photograph simply isn't accurate enough, or can be manipulated: Before: After:
If you can't see luster in photos, you must not know what luster is. That, or, you've never seen a decent coin image. :scratch:
I disagree with that 100%. You are of course welcome to your opinion, but every book you pick up will tell you that coins are best viewed in a darkened room under an incandescent light if you want to see any and all flaws and/or breaks in the luster. I disagree with that too. The way you are saying it implies that it is true of any picture, but it isn't. I agree entirely that pictures can, sometimes, be very misleading. But it depends on the picture. Yes, some pictures can hide things or not show things that you would see if you looked at the coin in person. But that is by no means true of all pictures. Some pictures are extremely accurate. So to say that you cannot see luster breaks in a picture just isn't true. Change that statement and say that you cannot see luster breaks in some pictures, and I'll agree with you.
I assume by "luster break" you are talking about "rub" that indicates the coin has seen some circulation, correct? Well, anything you can see with your eyes you can photograph. The question is if you can "see" what you want to see with one eye closed, and holding the coin still. Usually we examine whole coins with both eyes, so we get a stereo effect that makes identifying things like rub much easier. Also, we don't hold the coin still, but instead move it around in the light to see the effect of different light angles and viewing angles on the presentation of luster. If you need both eyes, or movement of the coin, to see something on it, then it can't be effectively photographed with a single-image camera. So try holding a coin with some rub, with one eye closed, and move it around until you see what would convince you the coin has rub, and then imagine if that image were a photograph. Would it still be as convincing?
The issue you identify is one of the biggest challenges to effectively evaluating coins from photos, and why many folks around here will say things like "you need to evaluate coins in-hand before committing to buying a coin".
IMO yes breaks in luster can be photographed, but knowing that luster breaks look different in pictures than they do when a coin is in hand is very important. Because lighting and many other things can be adjusted on photos being 100% accurate telling when a coin has rub or breaks in luster from just a photo is probably not doable, but being 100% able to tell on coins in hand is a stretch also, and even the TPGs get it wrong sometimes. Give it time, and look at tons of coins whenever possible and you will start to learn how to tell. Sometimes telling an AU58 from an MS64 is pretty tough.
