Toned 1901 penny: why does it not look toned in real life?

okay


De gustibus non est disputandum

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Is my coin a proof? Liberty does look unusually shiny.

 

The seller's images appear highly manipulated. The coin is not a proof, but does look to have been polished or otherwise cleaned at one time.

 

PCGS TrueViews are photographed under highly controlled and optimal lighting conditions. Sometimes coins look so good that it can be deceptive, so I don't blame anybody for feeling a bit skeptical about their pictures. Disappointment is natural with the coin in hand because not all collectors have the luxury of optimal lighting conditions to view coins the way photographers at PCGS have. But this fine line doesn't stop any genius from pushing the limits by digitally boosting images beyond the believable. The occasional eBay seller might think they're smart for doing so, but would PCGS risk their reputation?

 

I actually agree with both geekpryde and jello_g with respect to their observations of PCGS TrueViews. Although their statements might appear to be somewhat in conflict, I actually believe there is significant overlap between them.

Not only does PCGS have optimal lighting conditions, but they are also imaging the coin while it is raw. This single change is a huge advantage for a photographer since it removes all of the slab glare issues that are so common with photography. This is especially important for toned coins, and even more important for toned proof coinage, since the angle of lighting and angle of imaging or viewing can bring out significant amounts of color. When a coin is already in a holder many of these angles cannot be used due to glare from the holder. Therefore, what is possible in a PCGS image might be extremely difficult or near impossible to reproduce once the coin is certified and in a holder.

Lastly, it is my understanding that PCGS is open to feedback from those who submit coins for photography and this might lead to images that could be thought of as more aggressive in nature if the submitter pushes for certain qualities.

 

Beyond lighting, there is also a difference between the digital sensor of the camera and the operation of your eye.

http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/digital-imaging/dynamic-range

And also this:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm

"If we were to instead consider our eye's instantaneous dynamic range (where our pupil opening is unchanged), then cameras fare much better. This would be similar to looking at one region within a scene, letting our eyes adjust, and not looking anywhere else. In that case, most estimate that our eyes can see anywhere from 10-14 f-stops of dynamic range, which definitely surpasses most compact cameras (5-7 stops), but is surprisingly similar to that of digital SLR cameras (8-11 stops)."

So a lot depends on lighting AND the camera used.