Was going to keep scrolling past this one on eBay, but decided to look-up the certificate number at PCGS and saw it was photographed for Coin Facts. That photo convinced me to put a bid in, which ended-up winning the lot. Seller's photos: PCGS coin facts photo:
I question whether it's the same coin. On the M over M, the top M is clearly separated from the upper left edge of the shield, on the TPG image, but not on the OP's coin. Also compare the lions' tails in the upper right quadrant of the shield.
It's the same - check out the die break on the reverse that runs through the 8 and through the top of the mint mark. It's present on both coins. Jwt - the truth is always somewhere in-between. Having said that, Phil at PCGS Photo does great work and I'm sure there's a way to tilt that coin towards the light that would bring exactly those colours out.
Tilting the coin is not the best way because it would make the coin look elliptical. Wouldn't axial lighting be better? Chris
I love both photos of the same coin.... Interesting how some of us grave after coins with colored tinting and others only desire the chocolate brown patinas...and how certain lighting conditions can significantly alter the impression (or reality) of a coin. I love it in either of its true forms, especially since I have a few 8 Reales but long ago had to sell that particular type 'pillar' dollar and I don't recall it being in that high a grade... Congrats R-T-R !!!
I'm pretty sure Phil uses tilt-shift lenses. It allows one to tilt the coin into the light, but keep the surface of the coin perfectly perpendicular to the lens (i.e., no elliptical shape). Axial is an absolute nightmare to actually set up, and requires a decent amount of tinkering between each coin. There is no way that Phil could do the throughput that he does with TrueViews using axial photography. I don't personally care for the look of most TrueViews because they are flooded with too much light, often making the surfaces impossible to assess. I also find TrueViews to be red-shifted, and very oversaturated. Most are artistically appealing (glamour shots), but rarely reflect the "first impression" look of a coin in hand. With regard to the OP's new coin -- that is a wonderful looking coin. As compared to the seller's pics, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the in-hand look. But, I don't think it will be quite as "sexed up" as the TrueViews. -Brandon
That's interesting, Brandon. I've never heard of tilt-shift lenses, but then I'm not a very good photographer. Thanks for the info. Just out of curiosity, what method do you use? I've seen some of your toned photos, and they looked pretty nice. Chris
Phil (and the rest of the PCGS photo staff) have the unique luxury of not having the coin in the slab when they shoot it, obviating the need for a tilt-shift lens. A tilt-shift lens is not easy to use, and is absolutely not an "assembly line" piece of equipment. To wit, it would greatly reduce his throughput.
Very true about shooting raw coins. Nor is axial lighting an assembly line piece of equipment. Are PCGS pics slightly off of full round then? The images are clearly taken with the coin tillted. John have you actually seen the PCGS photography room and processes? I would love to see pics or know details of how they image so many coins per day.
I haven't seen their setup, although I'd like to. If I had nothing but raw coins to shoot, I'd probably use bigger lights, higher up. That would give something pretty close to axial lighting while also allowing you to move them a little to show luster when appropriate. They'd also be on flexible arms so that I could easily move them up, down, and around.
