Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2332574, member: 19463&quot;]My limited knowledge of photography makes it hard for me to understand how this could possibly work especially for old catalogs with images technically very different from today&#039;s standards (including those with plaster casts?).&nbsp; The worst part in my mind is that the number of sales that only photographed the best coins will mean there would be few hits for coins not worth several hundred dollars in 1970.&nbsp; This will lead to the impression and give evidence that coins producing no hits are recently looted even if the only sin of the coin was not making the cut when it was sold a hundred years ago.&nbsp;&nbsp; I see this as a valuable tool for Dekadrachms but not so much for tiny fractions of obols.&nbsp; I would love to see examples of successful hits in the oldest sales currently indexed showing both the old and new images together.&nbsp; It would seem a technology with value increasing exponentially with the number of obscure catalogs indexed.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>A question: How does a coin having changed over the years affect the likelihood of a hit?&nbsp; I mean something as simple as toning or cleaning or as extreme as it being a victim of bronze disease (yes, there are very rare coins that would be worth running even if they had been victimized).&nbsp; It would also seem good to scan in records of coins not in sales but illustrated in early literature (could we find coins looted from a museum by establishing a match, for example, to one of the few Reka Devnia plates?).&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Update:&nbsp; AJ hit to a plaster cast is really impressive.[/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