I won a lot from Heritage today for a Mercury dime that has some toning on the reverse. This particular dime has been auctioned through Heritage in the past - Jan 2006 - and the images from that auction and today's are very different. The photo taken in 2005: And the one from today's auction: I realize they changed the way coins are imaged last year, could the difference in appearance be just from the lighting/photo conditions? Or could it have continued to tone after being encapsulated? Once I have the coin in hand I'll be able to tell which photo is more accurate, I just thought I'd throw this thread up to get some other opinions in the meantime. =)
I actually like the tone in the first image better..It could be the lighting or the images themselves. The colors look more vibrant in the first one..
I think the colors were juiced or the lighting was different in the first image. I am not sure if the slab will prevent continued toning. It may just slow it down.
Too me it looks like the lighting was just different. In the first the untoned area it looks like glare and in the second it looks like frost. Nice looking coin either way. Once you have it in hand let us know which one best represents the coin itself.
I guess that could be the case with the first photos.. will be interesting to see pics when he gets it in hand...
I have some ASEs from 86-90 that were slabbed at least 5 years ago that continue to tone at a very small and almost unnoticeable pace. (I`m a stickler for details regarding how silver tones) Slabbing is not 100 percent airtight. In Your case though, I think that the lighting was the culprit. I agree with Mark H......nice looking coin regardless.
I definitely like the toning on the earlier image better - I found that image while doing my due diligence, and that's partially what drove me to bid on this particular coin. I'm hoping it looks more true to that image once in hand, and will let you guys know once I get it!
Had the coin continued to tone, I would have expected it to tone into more of the coin rather than simply continue to tone in the exact same area as the original photo. Therefore, I think the coin has not changed but the photographic technique has -- and this explains the difference you see. Said a bit differently, even a tiny change in lighting can cause a huge change in the way colors are captured in a photograph (and perceived in-hand). Anyone who's photographed (or held) a significant number of toned coins knows this all too well. I will wager $1 that when you get the coin in-hand it will look like the 2nd photo, but when you tilt it just right it will look just like the 1st photo. Please update us when the coin arrives, and I hope you like it when it does. Take care...Mike
