I can think of many reasons: 1. So you can see them when your physical coins are not available 2. So you can learn how different aspects affect the picture of a coin, so you can get a better read of the coin in the picture 3. So you can share your coins on sites like this 4. So if you are trying to teach someone about a small aspect of a certain coin, you can blow up a picture and highlight exactly what you are talking about And I could go on
1) no such time of significance exists. 2) Whuuuut? 3) Don’t care. 4) I can and do that on an as needed basis, at time of need.
You are paranoid of eBay because you can’t interpret pictures well. Learning how to take pictures would greatly improve that skill.
This Proof US-Philippines Peso has a great design, lovely colors, and offers better value to me than a more expensive want (a proof Morgan): And a Morgan (obverse is not toned):
Yes they were made in the US. The proofs in Philly while business strikes were made in Philly, Denver, and San Francisco. https://www.pcgs.com/news/a-collectors-guide-to-us-philippine-proof-pesos
I am literally an award winning photographer in national competitions. The problem in photographing coins is in the subject matter's basic nature, not a lack of technique. It's the same with portraiture. Lighting angles make ALL the difference, and I can NEVER assume whether an Internet coin seller is attempting to reveal or conceal, and neither can you. The only difference is, I know it.
This is basic coin photography knowledge. And by knowing that knowledge, one can successfully see through almost any eBay seller photographic charade. And if it was impossible like you say, then why could I successfully predict the in-hand appearance of almost every single coin I bought on eBay? This was a conversation started with an innocent discussion on the merits of photographing one’s coins. And with that I am done with this tangent. As you have said, some people here are staunchly set in their views, and nothing would be enough to convince them otherwise.
Well, you must just exude magical fairy dust, I figger. This is the Photoshop (and similar) generation. You can never tell ANYTHING about a coin pictured on the Internet that is from a seller with whom you don't have a pre-existing relationship of trust. Mannnn, you should see the digital "nose jobs" and umm, err, "augmentations" I performed as a photographer in the film/digital borderlands. I shot medium format AND 4x5 sheet film and had great scanners AND film recorders to bang out new "original" negatives. Why so big? Because before that I did MANUAL retouching, with dyes, a brush, and an airbrush.
@robec , Any idea why the 1937-D didn't get a higher grade? I mean that thing looks positively flawless. I can't find a single hit anywhere. Is the luster muted? I think it looks better than the bottom one.
Originally it was NGC MS66BN. The first time PCGS saw it they graded it 64BN. This wasn’t during their current conservative phase. It happened about 5 years ago. I believe it should be 66. Luster is above average and the surfaces are as clean and spot/mark free as any Ive seen. I don’t have an answer, but eventually I’ll be sending it in again.
Unless there are some 1937-D’s in 67 that are clearly superior in comparison, I haven’t a clue. I didn’t want to be a homer by saying this should be 67. I know ownership adds at least 1 point, but I agree with you.
Only two? OK. You da boss. I’ll divide my two into gold and silver. Not only are they nice, your humble tightwad here got both at very nice prices. And the winner of the most outstanding old gold acquisition of 2018 is: And now for the most outstanding silver acquisition of 2018: