Do you ever look at old coin pix and think ugh?

I actually don't think those coins can take a bad picture

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Great improvement in the pictures. I think mine are still close to your befores. I am thinking about going to find some OTT lites on Friday if I can find the store. Maybe those will help. I don't need them to be as nice as lances, but anything to improve what they currently look like.

 

From what I see, you collect old copper. Brown copper is by far the hardest type for me to capture. And yeah...Lance's photos are on a different level for sure. Luv em.

 

Yeah, there are lots of threads on photography. It'd be easy enough to look them up.

I started shooting about five years ago. Began with a compact camera with a nice lens (Panasonic Lumix), a tiny desktop tripod, and one gooseneck lamp.

I wanted better so I made upgrades, first with an everyday D-SLR and a barely suitable 50mm macro lens. It was too heavy for the desktop tripod. So I fooled with a full-sized one and gerry-rigged stands and lighting. Awkward, but better.

Later came a copy stand, remote shutter release, lots of experimenting with all the different lighting, a 100mm lens.

Finally I bought Mark Goodman's excellent book, Numismatic Photography, studied it, and then picked up a used 180mm macro which I use now almost exclusively.

I've said this before, as have others: you don't need a professional set-up for nice quality photos. A lot of CT members have demonstrated that. What you need is lots of patience, plenty of experiments, and good post-processing software.

I shoot all images "raw" which captures detail that would otherwise be lost, and then bring them forward. Detail hidden in shadows, or overwhelmed by glare for example, can be recovered. All photos require adjustments to make them as true to life as possible.

I'll put up some more IHC photos later, as long as no one feels I'm overdoing things.
Lance.

 

Okay, the last batch of IHC's. Promise.

Anyone notice no '77? Ha...I haven't got one.
Lance.

 

No, really, Doug...I value your opinion. Speak up. Here are much larger versions, if that helps. Click on them.
Thanks,
Lance.

 

Always nice to see old copper, nice coins!

 

I still think the way the die was polished makes it look proof like. If you look at all the pictures the area in front of and behind the Indian look glossier than the other business strike coins you posted. And more nice coins.

 

I am not sure I understand. I agree that most die polish lines I have seen on early copper are in one direction. On the other hand, on the obverse of this coin only the fields have these lines which would be expected for die polish lines. In addition, the lines are no present on the letters, but break and then resume, look at the TES and (M)E. These lines very much appear to be present on the highest part of the die and do not extend into the devices which would be consistent with die polish.

I can't see these being post mintage scratches, are you thinking they are something else?

 

I never heard the "rule" that polish lines must always travel the same direction. No argument that that is usually the case. But it seems obvious that this is an exception, if indeed there is such a rule.

What other explanation can you offer?

It's always fun finding a coin that stirs debate. Some things are always learned.
Lance.

 

I'll go the route that there is no rule. I have seen the lines in different directions as if the machinist rotated the die as polishing off the rust. And as a machine worker that had to sharpen die cutters on occasion I will say it's not necessary for all the strokes of the hone to run parallel.

 

Doug,

The fact is none of that explains why there are no hairlines on the devices. As was already mentioned, some of the hairlines stop at the devices and continue on the other side. This is totally consistant with the hairlines being on the die. Your theory is that the coin was mishandled or wiped, but what if it was the die that was mishandled or improperly polished. That would explain the coins lines without having to deal with the "problem" of the clean devices.

One more piece of evidence to support my theory is the somewhat famous 1921 - S Vam Morgan 1i Polished Obverse
A lot of crossing lines there. No lines on the devices.

http://www.vamworld.com/1921-S+VAM-1I

PCGS got it right and the coin deserves the grade.

Happy Thanksgiving to all

Mike

 

So no one ever used a wire brush to clean the rust off a die before use? Sorry but I found that around machine shops that is common practice and even hardened tool steel will show the marks when it's done. If the lines went onto the devices I would agree that the graders got it wrong but they do not. That plus the fact I have seen several coins that have been struck though steel wire errors that say wire brushes were used on the plant floors.

 

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Those lines do not look like flowlines, or die cracks to me, so that leaves hairlines or die polish lines.

Your explanation of the mechanics to polishing the die are helpful and explain why most die polish lines are parrellel, but is it possible the die was polished in more then one orientation to the disk? So polished once, then rotated 15 degrees and polished twice?

 

Beautiful Lance. Tell me you shot these pix's with your cell phone

 

I used to think that. Now, with weak eyes, the ability to blow the pictures up is all that allows me to 'see' the coin at all.