Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Photos that don't look like the coin
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Valentinian, post: 3142934, member: 44316"]I want to write about photos. This post was inspired by a recent win in a Naville auction. Here is their photo:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]803631[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Roman Republican denarius of moneyer</p><p>C. Coelius Caldus, 51 BC</p><p>Portrait of an ancestor C. Coelius Caldus who was Consul in 94 BC and defeated the Salluvii in Gaul.</p><p>C∙COEL∙CALDVS COS below neck. Spear and carnyx behind.</p><p><br /></p><p>The reverse is complicated:</p><p>table with figure behind preparing epulum</p><p>L∙CALDVS</p><p>III VREP (VR ligate)</p><p>on left, trophy with carynx and oval shield|</p><p>on right, trophy with Macedonian shield</p><p>IMPAX donw left, CCALD down right</p><p>CALDVS IIIVIR below [He loved advertising his name. It is on this coin four times! Is that a record?]</p><p><br /></p><p>Crawford 437/4b. Sear I 406.</p><p><br /></p><p>The surface is bad--what I call "dry" and porous. They cited it as ex CNG in 2003 and I found an photo on-line at CNG:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]803628[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>They only had this small image, but it confirms that the coin is dry and porous. </p><p><br /></p><p>It is rare enough that I wanted it anyway at the right price and I got it. When it arrived I was pleasantly surprised. I know my photos are not good, but I did my usual with a small camera on a copy stand and got this:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]803630[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>This is much closer to the way the coin looks. This photo is more metallic and makes the coin look less dry. But, I still thought the coin was better, so I tried again at my desk. I propped my iPad on a 4" box and took this on a black background: </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]803639[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>This looks a lot like the coin. Sure, the coin is porous. I admit it could be a lot better. But, in hand it is not nearly as dry as the sale photos suggest. This post is about photos and compare this photo on black to the auction photos which were all I had to go on when I bought the coin. Quite a difference! (By the way, it sold for 57% of what it sold for in 2003, in nominal dollars, not inflation-adjusted dollars.) </p><p><br /></p><p>Show us another coin that turned out not to look like the sale photo![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Valentinian, post: 3142934, member: 44316"]I want to write about photos. This post was inspired by a recent win in a Naville auction. Here is their photo: [ATTACH=full]803631[/ATTACH] Roman Republican denarius of moneyer C. Coelius Caldus, 51 BC Portrait of an ancestor C. Coelius Caldus who was Consul in 94 BC and defeated the Salluvii in Gaul. C∙COEL∙CALDVS COS below neck. Spear and carnyx behind. The reverse is complicated: table with figure behind preparing epulum L∙CALDVS III VREP (VR ligate) on left, trophy with carynx and oval shield| on right, trophy with Macedonian shield IMPAX donw left, CCALD down right CALDVS IIIVIR below [He loved advertising his name. It is on this coin four times! Is that a record?] Crawford 437/4b. Sear I 406. The surface is bad--what I call "dry" and porous. They cited it as ex CNG in 2003 and I found an photo on-line at CNG: [ATTACH=full]803628[/ATTACH] They only had this small image, but it confirms that the coin is dry and porous. It is rare enough that I wanted it anyway at the right price and I got it. When it arrived I was pleasantly surprised. I know my photos are not good, but I did my usual with a small camera on a copy stand and got this: [ATTACH=full]803630[/ATTACH] This is much closer to the way the coin looks. This photo is more metallic and makes the coin look less dry. But, I still thought the coin was better, so I tried again at my desk. I propped my iPad on a 4" box and took this on a black background: [ATTACH=full]803639[/ATTACH] This looks a lot like the coin. Sure, the coin is porous. I admit it could be a lot better. But, in hand it is not nearly as dry as the sale photos suggest. This post is about photos and compare this photo on black to the auction photos which were all I had to go on when I bought the coin. Quite a difference! (By the way, it sold for 57% of what it sold for in 2003, in nominal dollars, not inflation-adjusted dollars.) Show us another coin that turned out not to look like the sale photo![/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Photos that don't look like the coin
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...