The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

I have a nice one, when ready...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@Goldsayshi463. IMHO you would probably get better photos if you placed the coin on a solid background. (White or black depending on the coin). Take the photos from directly overhead and not at an angle.

 

Hey goldsayhi, Don't worry too much about what the ratings say. I've been collecting for a couple years now and I'm sure most of my coins wouldnt Even break a four. As long as you enjoy your coins And you're getting them for good prices that's what matters most!

 

Do we have an active coin right now?

 

Technically the raw cent posted, but it looks like the results are are inconclusive since it is hard to tell much from the photo.

@Morgandude11 is next
@CircCam is up after

 

Okay, a Franklin. This was a Northern Lights pedigree coin. It was purchased in Las Vegas in 2016. It is a PCGS PR 65:

 

I'll give the Franklin a 6. It covers the complete spectrum and the colors are well distributed.

 

My first impression was AT, but that it’s a proof makes me think maybe the photo is just a little juiced. I’m saying 5 simply because I don’t think that photo is an accurate representation of the coin’s in hand appearance.

 

I'm at a high 5 but not enough to push through to 6.

 

I'll give the Franklin a 5.
(I'm also a bit skeptical of the photo being juiced)
Overall, I like it but I've seen several Franklins that are better (in my opinion) and would be the standard for a 6.

 

High 5. I agree with the photo possibly being juiced.

 

I'll go 6 on the Franklin

 

Those images are axially lit - and thus over-exaggerate the toning. My first thoughts were AT (artificially toned), but the toning on proofs often has more of a "pooling" look than on coins with frosty luster. All that being said (and assumed), I will give this one a 5. Proofs never "pop" in hand with toning like frosty luster coins do...the mirrors hide the toning unless turned perfectly in the light.

Lovely coin, and I'm sure it demanded a strong premium if those photos were used to market it.

 

As regards the photographs being juiced—the entire collection was photographed by a well-known pro for the 2016 show/ auction in Las Vegas at the same time. If this image is “juiced,” then all of the images are juiced, including some of the most famous, pedigreed Morgans. They were photographed under optimum conditions, but not over saturated, or artificially enhanced. As regards NT or AT, all of the Northern Lights coins were certified by either PCGS or NGC. I can’t speak to the toning being natural, but TPGs have vindicated the legitimacy of the toning, in their professional opinion.

 

I didn’t say the images were juiced. I said they were axial and this massively exaggerates the colors. The images can definitely come out of the camera and look like that, but the tweaking of the lighting can still be misleading. In general, axial photography is awful, and highly misleading.

 

So, based on your comment, this thread is useless since we shouldn't trust any photos.

 

The way I look at it, some photos are more obviously enhanced than others. Some are hard to tell if they are enhanced or not and are more of a personal feeling. Each of us can treat these on a case by case basis. For me, if the photo appears enhanced, I will discount the score by around one point.

 

How the hell did you come to that conclusion?

I said the images were AXIALLY LIT - that's a method of coin photography. I didn't say they aren't trustworthy - I said they are misleading. That means - you need to have extra information about the photos to understand what you are looking at.

I don't know what your coin photography experience is, but I have plenty - and those images are simply glamour shots. The photographer can be a professional, but that doesn't mean that he/she didn't use the absolute optimal method possible to show the colors. If you got that coin in hand and looked at it under regular lighting conditions, you would not see that kind of toning.

I get that the Northern Lights collection was specifically sold to highlight colors. I don't know if this was one of the Legend shows in LV or what, but when the goal of a marketer is to emphasize colors, there are misleading ways to do that. The interpretation of coin photos takes experience and patience. With lots of experimenting with photography, you can easily pick out what kinds of method was used - but if you don't understand lighting, angles of lighting, etc. you are going to be fooled to think a coin will look like that in hand.

Think of it another way - if the images of that Franklin Half were not cropped to just the coin, and included the full slab - you would know immediately that the lighting was done in a special way to bring out the colors. The slab would be very washed out, gray, and low contrast.

PCGS does this optimal artistic lighting with their TrueView images all the time. They have a lighting setup that is absolutely not like anything that a coin would normally be viewed under. For some coins, the TrueViews look realistic. For others, you are getting an artistically interpreted view of the coin - not a view that would equate to what the coin looks like in hand. Some dealers like John Agre at CRO recognize this - John doesn't use PCGS TrueView images for selling coins (even though they are often available for coins he sells) because the PCGS images very often over-exaggerate colors. John has Mark Goodman photograph his stock for that very reason - Mark Goodman photographs coins so that they appear in photographs close to what they would look like from most viewing angles in hand.

In summary, my point was that post-processing coin photos in software isn't the only way to create misleading coin photos. The lighting also plays a very large part. "Juicing" is generally accepted as a term for post-processing of images using software, and increasing the saturation or color profiles - I repeat, I never said the pictures were juiced. Others did, but I did not.

 

Don't blow a gasket here. Maybe your experience in coin photography puts you in a better position than myself and others. I didn't imply that you said the images were juiced. As you say, many factors can play into the look of a coin. If everyone photographed coins exactly the same way with the same lighting then we wouldn't be having this discussion. The way people look at toned coins is subjective anyway. I totally agree with most of what you said.

 

No gaskets blown. I just try to be thorough and clear in what I write.