My Latest Acquisition

[Nordle11 564]

1 hour ago, UPINSMOKE said:

Thank you interesting reading on that thread. I hope it will help me improve when I get my setup right.

In the meantime here is another one of my purchases I photographed yesterday so hope it looks ok my 1899 Penny.

May I ask what the UIN is on that, is it 29895?

[UPINSMOKE 456]

33 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

May I ask what the UIN is on that, is it 29895?

Yes It is that UNI 29895, is there a problem?

Edited September 24, 2016 by UPINSMOKE

[Leo 91]

12 hours ago, UPINSMOKE said:

Thank you interesting reading on that thread. I hope it will help me improve when I get my setup right.

In the meantime here is another one of my purchases I photographed yesterday so hope it looks ok my 1899 Penny.

What grade was it given? Just for my learning.

[UPINSMOKE 456]

3 hours ago, Leo said:

What grade was it given? Just for my learning.

Leo it was given a Grade 80

[Leo 91]

I don't know if you do too, but I'm finding really hard to make decent photographs of bronze coins. They always look worse than in hand!

[UPINSMOKE 456]

41 minutes ago, Leo said:

I don't know if you do too, but I'm finding really hard to make decent photographs of bronze coins. They always look worse than in hand!

Yes same problem here as well but with all coins not just bronze. I have noticed just like you that they look better in hand than in a picture, I am certain this is because when the photo is taken it magnifies many area's that of the dependencies that you do not see with the naked eye. Especially like my 1899 Penny with some darkening to some area's. If the coin is pristine then you don't always get these problems. But then what do I know I am only new to all this.

Below another example my 1899 Halfpenny this looks ok in a photo but  in hand its looks so much better .

Edited September 24, 2016 by UPINSMOKE

[Leo 91]

That photo is actually good. Don't forget you also have the plastic slab refracting all the light.

Like you said, and this happens particularly with bronze, in my pics the silky soft sheen of the lustre is totally killed and replaced by speckles and dark bits that pass unnoticeable when in hand.

[Leo 91]

I think the halfpenny looks great, it has that silky feel. Maybe it's because it's a bit out of focus, but it looks UNC while the penny does not. But again, I know nothing. CGS have the last word

[UPINSMOKE 456]

1 hour ago, Leo said:

I think the halfpenny looks great, it has that silky feel. Maybe it's because it's a bit out of focus, but it looks UNC while the penny does not. But again, I know nothing. CGS have the last word

Yes you're right about cgs having the last word the grade of this one is cgs 85 so according to cgs it's graded as choice uncirculated BU where as the penny is graded as cgs 80 which is choice uncirculated. To be honest I think there is far too many grades it gets ridiculous I cannot see why they can't keep it to say 10 grades which I just think would be enough that in their wisdom they have chosen to use 28 grades according to the list I have, far too many in my opinion but then again what do I know.

Edited September 24, 2016 by UPINSMOKE

[Paulus 1,942]

Quite agree with you Mick, why have a 1-100 range when they only use 28 of them anyways?

[Rob 2,996]

I use a 2 point grading system - acceptable or not

[UPINSMOKE 456]

My latest acquisition broke the bank to get this one.    Victorian Crown 1899  LXIII.  2E. T of Victoria to space.

 

[VickySilver 775]

Wow, very nice bit there! Nice reverse strike as well. ?Dipped , but acceptable.

[UPINSMOKE 456]

6 hours ago, VickySilver said:

Wow, very nice bit there! Nice reverse strike as well. ?Dipped , but acceptable.

Interested in knowing how you can tell its been dipped, if you don,t mind me asking. Coin arrived today and in hand looks exceptionally nice very pleased, and another space fill in my 1899 coin set.

[Rob 2,996]

1 hour ago, UPINSMOKE said:

Interested in knowing how you can tell its been dipped, if you don,t mind me asking. Coin arrived today and in hand looks exceptionally nice very pleased, and another space fill in my 1899 coin set.

Uniformity of colour is usually a good indicator. Silver will tone down over time if untouched, with a degree of mottling in the toning from past handling residues. That is why 200 year old or whatever silver should look the real thing. The only way for silver not to tone (as it is a natural reaction with airborne contaminants) is for it to be hermetically sealed. Anything else is suspect.

e.g. http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/2315-1731-shilling-t-over-e-in-a-t/

this was liberated from the bottom of a broken Georgian drinking vessel in 2006, but even here we have a bit of toning present. Maybe as a result of heating the glass when it was sealed in, but otherwise there is no appreciable toning. Long term, any silver that is 100 years old you would expect to show some signs.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Rob

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, UPINSMOKE said:

Interested in knowing how you can tell its been dipped, if you don,t mind me asking. Coin arrived today and in hand looks exceptionally nice very pleased, and another space fill in my 1899 coin set.

You might find this link about dipping helps.

  

[VickySilver 775]

No need for my answer now that our gentlemen have done so; still a nice coin and am not taking away from it. Cheers!

[UPINSMOKE 456]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

Uniformity of colour is usually a good indicator. Silver will tone down over time if untouched, with a degree of mottling in the toning from past handling residues. That is why 200 year old or whatever silver should look the real thing. The only way for silver not to tone (as it is a natural reaction with airborne contaminants) is for it to be hermetically sealed. Anything else is suspect.

e.g. http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/2315-1731-shilling-t-over-e-in-a-t/

this was liberated from the bottom of a broken Georgian drinking vessel in 2006, but even here we have a bit of toning present. Maybe as a result of heating the glass when it was sealed in, but otherwise there is no appreciable toning. Long term, any silver that is 100 years old you would expect to show some signs.

 

59 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

You might find this link about dipping helps.

  

Thanks everyone for the info looked at both links, Interesting reading. I can see the appeal of toned coins now.

25 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

No need for my answer now that our gentlemen have done so; still a nice coin and am not taking away from it. Cheers!

Thanks I appreciate your feedback on my coin. I just love it the best in my collection so far, or should i say the one I like the most at present.

Edited October 22, 2016 by UPINSMOKE

[azda 973]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

Uniformity of colour is usually a good indicator. Silver will tone down over time if untouched, with a degree of mottling in the toning from past handling residues. That is why 200 year old or whatever silver should look the real thing. The only way for silver not to tone (as it is a natural reaction with airborne contaminants) is for it to be hermetically sealed. Anything else is suspect.

e.g. http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/2315-1731-shilling-t-over-e-in-a-t/

this was liberated from the bottom of a broken Georgian drinking vessel in 2006, but even here we have a bit of toning present. Maybe as a result of heating the glass when it was sealed in, but otherwise there is no appreciable toning. Long term, any silver that is 100 years old you would expect to show some signs.

You could do with upgrading those pics Rob

[azda 973]

18 minutes ago, UPINSMOKE said:

 

Thanks everyone for the info looked at both links, Interesting reading. I can see the appeal of toned coins now.

Thanks I appreciate your feedback on my coin. I just love it the best in my collection so far, or should i say the one I like the most at present.

Everyone has an individual taste, what appeals to me, may not appeal to others, but if you knew it had been dipped would you have still bought it? Knowledge is power and this is what the forum is all about, being better informed. The coin is nice, if the seller or whoever dipped it had left it alone it would have been better, after reading the link 1949 posted i didn't realise some people even use putty to deceive even the graders are the TPGs, it just goes to show you what lengths people go to to make a few $s...........

I'm going to add the link 1949 posted in the thread "useful links" for future reading/reference.......

[UPINSMOKE 456]

3 minutes ago, azda said:

The coin is nice, if the seller or whoever dipped it had left it alone it would have been better

I bought it slabbed through London Coins CGS grade 78 so would they have dipped it ?

[Rob 2,996]

Just now, UPINSMOKE said:

I bought it slabbed through London Coins CGS grade 78 so would they have dipped it ?

No. TPGs seem not to worry too much if a coin is dipped. It isn't the same as polishing as all it does is remove the naturl toning, but can leave a washed out appearance if done for any length of time. The coin will go dull if over-dipped and lose any natural brilliance

[VickySilver 775]

Occasionally and in the past they have been accused of dipping, but think that uncommon these days as many seem to (naturally enough) take pictures of their coins before submitting. NGC and to some extent PCGS have "conservation services" whereby they may clean up a coin. There is a famous case of an incredibly valuable 1893 S Dollar that was dipped by the TPG, perhaps at the submitter's request (?) and lost its beautiful natural toning as well as value in that instance.

 

Dipping not always bad and I have IMO judiciously dipped a couple of bits, but would not recommend it to the beginner. I would recommend experimenting with bits of no or little value if you've an interest to learn what it is about. As Rob and others have  implied appearance is entirely an individual matter, one which may evolve over time as well.

[PWA 1967 1,840]

Only my opinion but have looked at the photos and i dont think thats dipped.

The blemishes etc have not come out and think its more lighting with the photo.

Although the experts have disagreed .....i am not sure.

Still a nice coin though 

Pete.

[Paulus 1,942]

2 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Only my opinion but have looked at the photos and i dont think thats dipped.

The blemishes etc have not come out and think its more lighting with the photo.

Although the experts have disagreed .....i am not sure.

Still a nice coin though 

Pete.

I agree with Pete, it is most likely CGS photography not showing off the coin to best effect