Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2474293, member: 1892&quot;]I&#039;m completely unconcerned with anything but hard fact, and will be the first to admit being incorrect <b>as long as fact proves it</b>. Fact trumps ego. Having been teaching coin photography for the last decade and working with graphics software since the 1980&#039;s, though, I feel I&#039;ve evolved a certain level of expertise regarding what can and can&#039;t, does and doesn&#039;t, happen in the digital imaging process and I don&#039;t see enough chance for the known distortions of such imaging to account for the spatial and sizing relationships in evidence here.</p><p><br /></p><p>That means, by my reckoning, there&#039;s somewhere around an 85-90% chance that the images TJ1952 has presented accurately reflect the features of his coin. Optical distortions in digital imaging begin when coin and lens plane are out of parallel. Of the 4 images presented in Post #41 only the larger detail image shows any out-of-parallel condition, and it is close enough that an experienced coin macro photographer can guesstimate the degree of distortion. In this case, my guess is &quot;not very darn much.&quot; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p>I am as interested as I am in this coin <b>solely</b> because the existing knowledge of the variety does not seem to support the physical evidence presented by it. When one considers the stature of those experts who designated the variety originally, a prudent scholar expects there to be an explanation for this coin in agreement with the laws of physics <b>and</b> &quot;prevailing wisdom.&quot; But, there&#039;s enough here for a prudent scholar to <i>require more proof </i>than &quot;because I said so.&quot;[/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