Photographs for another round of Zohar's beautiful coins!

Zohar sent me another batch of mostly Thalers for photographs. As always, a group of wonderful, big world silver, eye candy coins.

Enjoy the show! They are posted from oldest to newest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Man! Those are some amazing coins (candy) that Zohar has. And the photography is excellent, really shows the awesome toning and detail brg.

 

Thanks for posting them, Brandon!

Chris

 

The first 9 coins are kinda ugly, but the last two, nice. Maybe it is the photographic style. No brilliance, flat drab, dull smudges of muted colors, grays, browns. Kinda lifeless. A few have some toning, but we all know this is actually coin damage, so despite the blues and golden tones, they fail. I just cannot get any beauty from them. Maybe different techniques would be more appealing, at least to me. Who am I. I will try to find a sample of a Taler with LIFE. Back in a bit.

 

Okay here are a few samples I dug up which are each Thalers, from different periods, but each to me, is much more attractive than the first 9 samples from the OP, anyone else agree, or do I alone have a twisted sense of "beauty"?
I mean I can "feel" the silver in some of the images below!!

 

p.s. I also would prefer that the coins #4, #5, #7, and #8, in the OP were photographed with cleaner coins, I mean some are downright grungy, dirty!! I mean if you posed for your portrait, would you be needing a shave and all sweaty and dirty? These coins could have had some of the debris first removed. Oh well......

Its almost past my bedtime (I know some of you had wish I went to bed earlier!!). But one more sample, with more COLOR. Another Thaler, a restrike (good night)!!

 

Brandon - I truly appreciate your diligent effort to capture these in such a true view manner. You have great skill. All are updated on my website.

 

@GSDykes , Thanks(?) for your extremely negative replies and opinions.

With regard to the 4 photos you posted --

#1 and #2 are shot with "diffused light" and don't show any luster or life. Not to mention #2 is massively out of focus.

#3 is an okay image, but out of focus in the right field/side. That particular method of photography where the surfaces are just drowned in light can also hide a lot of surface problems.

#4 is underlit, improperly white balanced (clearly red-shifted), and could benefit from being rotated to proper orientation.

With regard to your comments "I also would prefer that the coins #4, #5, #7, and #8, in the OP were photographed with cleaner coins"...well, that comment is hilariously indicative of your lack of knowledge of coins of this era and age -- 300 to 400 year old silver coins do not come blast white. These coins have some of the most original and pleasing surfaces you will find on any coins from that era. None of the coins exhibit "debris" -- what I think you're seeing as such are imperfections in the planchets which were common for these coins from the 1700s.

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. I strongly disagree that anything you (@GSDykes ) have posted is even in the same realm of quality or beauty as the coins I posted that belong to Zohar.

Good luck on your continued journey to reach "coin photography nirvana" -- but you are not there yet.

 

Lovely coins and in very best grade. I am amazed how these were preserved after all those years. I always love city view thaler s and wildman thaler and i am biased towards the Sri Lankan 5 rupees as that where i was born.

@GSDykes, do you own the coins you attached pictures ? Some time the coins in hand is much more attractive than the pictures. I can never get a good picture (off my iphone) and be satisfied with it compared to what i see in naked eyes.However no reason to be so harsh on brg5658's pictures.

 

Doppeltaler thank you for the kind words. I sent these to brg5658 for imaging as his work is superb. One can not like the coins, yet the images are truly representative.

 

No I do not own them. I am certain that the Thalers in the OP are much better in hand than the illustrated photographs which brg5658 shared. I simply search for what I considered to be beautiful photographs of these types of coins, coins with no debris on them (at least not seen in the photos). Really sharp detailed images can often look terrible as all of the little imperfections seem glaringly evident, especially if the photo is enlarged. Some coin owners prefer more aesthetic type (softer) portraits. Thank you for your comments. PS do you have a digital camera, besides your iphone??

 

GSDykes - the coins look like the images and I have yet to see better imaging than brg5658. Your imaging, being gentle on this issue, are the type I can do myself yet do not meet the quality I was looking for. Brg's are top end and present a far better display on my website. Yours (and mine) are not there.

Now liking the coins or not is a whole separate issue. I have looked at thousands of these to pick these out as the finest I can find. There is no coin damage which you confuse toning with. Study the history of these and then come into the debate.

 

I like the coins, not the aforementioned photographs. They (your coin photos) were made/adjusted using Photoshop CC 2015, on a Windows platform: the one's posted are low resolution. That is my opinion. You are not asked to like or dislike my meager efforts (I have not posted any of my choice type photos, yet), that is your call. As to damage, tarnish can affect nearly all coin metals. It is actually a chemical reaction embedded within the surface molecules of the coin's metal. This is caused by: atmosphere, holders, handling, improper cleanings, et cetera. Since it is or becomes embedded within the metal itself, it is true damage, an alteration of the original surface. To remove it, entails removal of some of the coin's metallic surface. Numismatics often like the damages' appearance, as the reactions can cause colorful colors to dazzle. These colors are the result of "damage" (sulphides, oxides, et al). Some numismatics do not like damaged coins. It is all relative to the individual's taste. Some of the coins displayed in the OP are damaged, and just plain dirty. Careful extraction of debris before the photographic portraits would have resulted in a proper archival keepsake (in my opinion). Most photographers are not qualified to remove such crud, that is a separate operation. Some folks like to keep the dirt, debris, grease, oils and other eyesores. Again it is all relative. If you like your photos, fine. I just think the coins show damage and debris. Why is that offensive to you? Here is a tiny sample of what I am talking about, as you seem to think this is some sort of a "debate".

 

I like my coins and the photos. To each their own taste. I also do not like dipped coins. Some like blasts white. All is Yates driven.

 

Yes, Photoshop was used to create the obverse and reverse composite images. some editing software must be used to create such a single image of both the obverse and reverse. Of course the ones posted on the internet are low resolution, they are meant to display on a computer screen, not to print poster size photographs. I'm not sure what your point is. The full size, full resolution, original images are in my possession and the possession of Zohar, and I don't really understand what that has to do with anything.

These coins look like the photos -- and if you don't like photos that show coins how they actually look, then I guess that's your prerogative. But, why don't you take your diatribe elsewhere? This thread was created to show some beautiful coins in the Zohar collection. This thread was NOT created as a means for your personal ego trip ramblings. You freely admit none of those images you posted were actually taken by you -- so you're judging something you personally can't even do. Makes sense.

Maybe this is a first chance for me to try out the "ignore" function on this forum. I've never had the need to before, but you're certainly tempting me.

 

Yeah c'mon brg, why didn't you at least clean the coins up a bit with a q-tip before posting pics?

Seriously though, beautiful pictures and coins as always - my compliments to both the collector and the photographer. That reverse toning on the 1733 has to be some of the prettiest I've ever seen. So many of the 17th/18th century European crowns I've seen are harshly cleaned/dipped, so it's a great pleasure to see completely original patina and toning.

 

I was going to write a lengthy message about how Brandon is one of the few successful numismatic photographers that offer services to collectors and about how Zohar buys the best quality available, etc... But instead I'm just reminded that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, art is highly subjective, and tact can't be bought.

Cheers,

Roman