Interpreting bad coin pictures

Why commit a copyright violation? Just point us at the site and let us look for ourselves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

by these photos I am assuming its been cleaned but hard to say for sure.

 

It appears to be AU with reasonably original toning, and it doesn’t jump out at me as being fake. That said, all sorts of surprises (e.g., scratches, graffiti, hairlines, etc.) can be hidden by images like those, so I would be leery of buying it.

 

Well, as Benjamin Franklin would say, "when in doubt, don't" and as my bridge mentor Charles Goren would say, "when in doubt, pass"
So in keeping with advice from sage ones, I won't and I will pass.

 

Ooh, interesting challenge, CBD.

First, I'm not convinced that there is necessarily nefarious intent on the part of the picture-taker. Dimes are tiny, this is probably shot with a cell phone, and getting an in-focus shot is difficult even for experienced hand-held photographers. Then blowing up that slightly out of focus shot will give a pixelated result, exactly as someone else mentioned previously.

The coin is obviously raw, but that's not a turn-off especially on early US coinage like this. Many people prefer them raw, and if you are knowledgeable enough to spot problems and fakes, you can do quite well with raw coins.

Nothing about this jumps out as fake. Dentils are correct, design details and positions are correct, it appears to be a crisp strike. Obviously, I can't see the surface details enough to spot bubbles or anything, but you're not going to get that crisp of a strike with casting anyways. If this is a fake, its a *really* good one.

Easiest to determine about the coin - it has nearly full details. Determining AU vs UNC from these pictures is impossible, so I won't even try. I would not wager UNC money on this coin, but at the very least it has high AU details.

I'm struggling to discern luster in these pictures, but that is probably due to the thick toning.

The toning has a natural look to me, it does not have the patterns that I associate with AT. AT would also probably be more colorful, even in these photos. Instead, this appears to be thick, natural toning. As someone mentioned earlier, there *appears* to be pull-away toning around the devices - a sure sign of old, natural toning. Pull-away is nearly impossible to duplicate, and usually doesn't recur on cleaned and retoned coins. In fact, I've seen the toning pattern on this coin enough times to wager that with good photos, you're probably going to have some very attractive deep shades of blue around the rims.

This toning also speaks to the originality of the coin - if it was cleaned, it would have been a long time ago. Unless there are a multitude of hairlines present, many collectors would have no problem buying this coin.

In summary, I think that this would be a good gamble at mid-AU money. You might get unlucky and get something hiding some problems, but I think its more likely that you'd get a pretty decent coin.

I look forward to the next chapter!

 

Very easy to interpret: No well known TPG Slab I pass - pictures of the coin do not matter. With Photo Shop, etc it's too easy to juice a pic. Again, just a personal preference. I want the TPG Slab researched and verified.

 

The coin is exceedingly original. That's pull-away toning on the reverse. The $600 bid is appropriate, as there could be some AU58-ness hiding in that picture that nobody will be able to see until the coin is in hand. Big win if it holders MS62 or 63.

 

So, as I said, bidding was winding down at about $600 when the seller posted a video of the coin. I admit that was stunned by what I could see even with the low quality video. After this, bidding fired up again and the coin reached $1100. Here are some stills I captured from the video, which I can't seem to find a way to post from my phone.
Anyway, what do you see now? Does your opinion change at all? Thanks.

 

The contrast of the Reverse lettering makes me suspect that the picture was edited. The date makes me question the coins authenticity.

 

I was thinking the coin had more color than the first images showed.

 

@GDJMSP ...a recent post listed the following grading weights:

Surface preservation = 40%
Strike = 20%
Luster = 20%
Eye appeal = 20%

Is this a “general” consensus or do the weighted percentages vary between TPGs? Or by collectors? If they vary, how the heck can you believe them?…Spark

 

This sums up what should be the proper advice for collectors who are getting into Internet buying. Unfortunately, with virus killing so many coin shows, this where we are now.

This topic is fast becoming a dead horse in my opinion. It's been my experience that bad pictures are usually a sign that the seller is hiding something. That even goes for the major auction houses when they provide pictures that are way overexposed which is a way to hide marks and spots.

 

If I am sceptical at all and can not make a valid decision I pass. Better safe than sorry good luck

 

If I could buy it for XF money then I'd take a chance on it. The poor imagery may hide a scratch or some other mark. I wouldn't pay the price of a comparable slabbed AU/MS coin.

 

Since I go for die varieties/die marriages of Capped Bust or earlier coins, I need sharp images to ID the PUPs.
Most of my 3+ figure coins come from GC, Heritage or Stack's since their images are generally sharp enough to ID the variety OR they may have do that work for me.
A few slabbed eBay coins fall into that category too.