Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2414526, member: 1892&quot;]Just by way of explanation, here&#039;s why I think why I do:</p><p><br /></p><p>First, everything which looks &quot;dark&quot; or &quot;black&quot; in the way of marks on the coin should probably be discounted as less important than they seem in these images. If they were actual &quot;marks&quot; relevant to the grade, they would be reflecting light, like the other marks which *are* relevant. This means - to me, <i>tentatively</i> - that all the stuff westward of the mouth/nose in the field are things you and I probably wouldn&#039;t factor into the grade. </p><p><br /></p><p>Second, the fact that they&#039;re directly reflecting light <b>greatly</b> exaggerates the size of a given mark, especially in lower-resolution images where fewer pixels are available to describe a given feature. Those fewer pixels result in greater contrast between a light place and a dark place, and &quot;brighter&quot; pixels relative to greyscale where they do exist.</p><p><br /></p><p>Directly behind the mouth, and then on a line proceeding upward towards the eye, are marks we should be giving weight. Also, lower near the curve of the jaw/neck intersection. But all the little &quot;pinpoints&quot; in the center of the cheek? Maybe, maybe not. </p><p><br /></p><p>With better imagery, we could be arguing the merits of MS64 for this one. Or we could be arguing MS61, because a single light was used to create the images, and that lessens the effect of marks whose orientation is directly in line with the light path. Conversely, marks which are perpendicular to that path are unfairly exaggerated.[/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