How Good Can They Really Be?

[Guest richbedforduk]

When I found this one I thought it was blinding. Really good lustre, loads of detail, spotless, a lubberly one. Put into light and under a glass and it really made me smile .

So I thought that I would scan it and see it big

So it took a few minutes and I did

Then I looked at it big

It doesn't look fantastic anymore. You can see slight cracking/imperfections. Do the really good ones only look good to the eye, or do they still look as fantastic when scanned/photo'd and enlarged?

The good lustre just doesn't seem to come through on my scans, but I assure you that it's dead shiney.

[argentumandcoins 70]

The really good ones are few and far between, unless you buy some ghastly modern proof!

There are very very few coins that don't show some sign of circulation or poor handling when scanned/photographed.

If you liked it with the human eye I wouldn't worry about how it looks when blown up (unless you have bionic eyes of course!).

[Red Riley 2]

The really good ones are few and far between, unless you buy some ghastly modern proof!

There are very very few coins that don't show some sign of circulation or poor handling when scanned/photographed.

If you liked it with the human eye I wouldn't worry about how it looks when blown up (unless you have bionic eyes of course!).

The medal/medallion on the queen's shoulder is the acid test here. You can also try the lions on the reverse, but quite frequently the dies blocked up and muffled the detail.

[Peckris 579]

........

It doesn't look fantastic anymore. You can see slight cracking/imperfections. Do the really good ones only look good to the eye, or do they still look as fantastic when scanned/photo'd and enlarged?

The good lustre just doesn't seem to come through on my scans, but I assure you that it's dead shiney.

Scans are wonderful for detail, sharpness, and evenness of focus. They are dreadful for tone and lustre. Anything blown up that large will show the tiniest scuff, dig, etc, that aren't apparent at normal size.

I'd be more worried about some evident wear showing up - but even that may not be apparent at normal size.

[Rob 3,095]

I wouldn't be surprised that you were disappointed looking at it under a glass. There is obvious wear to the folds of the veil on the forehead, flat tops to the veil level with the ear and a bit lower, a gouge below the truncation and a few marks on the rims. All this adds up to a coin that is not uncirculated and so any image blown up is likely to resemble the Somme. A small amount of magnification when you acquired it would have shown this wear clearly. A coin with no marks is a real rarity and should be cherished. Never be afraid to pay a premium of some sorts for a pre-decimal coin that is mark free under a good glass because it might be a while before you see another. Modern minting techniques have ensured that virtually all currency pieces are bagmarked.

[1949threepence 3,367]

Blowing up pics of the coin always show up every imperfection, and even the slightest flaws, virtually invisible to the naked eye, are writ large. On a related level, I've said before that some sellers of coins don't always do themselves any favours with their photos, in which normal size pics are shown in a bad light (literally), or blurry, and the blow ups look dreadful. In hand the same coin looks, or can potentially look, very attractive.

Lustre is interesting. I've got a couple of buns in which the vast majority of the lustre seems to have gone, yet the coin has that unmistakeable sheen of UNC when turned in the light. It appears that atmospheric or other factors have eliminated the actual lustre, although the coin remains uncirculated in all other respects.

Edited March 18, 2011 by 1949threepence

[Red Riley 2]

Blowing up pics of the coin always show up every imperfection, and even the slightest flaws, virtually invisible to the naked eye, are writ large. On a related level, I've said before that some sellers of coins don't always do themselves any favours with their photos, in which normal size pics are shown in a bad light (literally), or blurry, and the blow ups look dreadful. In hand the same coin looks, or can potentially look, very attractive.

Lustre is interesting. I've got a couple of buns in which the vast majority of the lustre seems to have gone, yet the coin has that unmistakeable sheen of UNC when turned in the light. It appears that atmospheric or other factors have eliminated the actual lustre, although the coin remains uncirculated in all other respects.

Coin images are frankly a nightmare. I've been known to photograph a coin a dozen times just to get it to look like it does in the hand and in certain cases I've failed and just put it in the back of a cupboard in despair. Silver is easier than bronze, copper and even gold where the lack of tone makes a coin look 'flat'. If a base metal coin has uneven or mottled toning, the camera confuses this with its design contours and even though the coin may be near to uncirculated, the result is simply a muddle. When a coin has the slightest speck of verdigris, virtually invisible to the naked eye, an image can make it stand out like a spotlight.

[Rob 3,095]

I frequently struggle with pictures. Autofocus sometimes doesn't no matter what I do, and a succession of images have differing brightnesses, presumably because the flash is at different initial temperatures. Sometimes I just get fed up and resort to scans, which although less than perfect are at least uniform in their exposure.

[Nick 326]

I frequently struggle with pictures. Autofocus sometimes doesn't no matter what I do, and a succession of images have differing brightnesses, presumably because the flash is at different initial temperatures. Sometimes I just get fed up and resort to scans, which although less than perfect are at least uniform in their exposure.

The autofocus feature on a digital camera works by trying to find the maximum contrast between adjacent pixels within the focus sensor. Metal objects aren't the best for providing that contrast and hence sometimes the autofocus is pants.

If you have a point and shoot camera, your options are probably going to be limited, but you can try not placing the coin in the centre of the field of view. Most cameras will have several focus sensors and you will increase your chances of finding a focus if the subject is slightly off-centre.

For DSLR cameras with a focus lock facility you can set the focus using something easy to focus on (eg a small piece of paper with printed type on it), then lock the focus, remove the paper and take the photo. And if that fails, there is always manual focus.

[Colin G. 147]

........

It doesn't look fantastic anymore. You can see slight cracking/imperfections. Do the really good ones only look good to the eye, or do they still look as fantastic when scanned/photo'd and enlarged?

The good lustre just doesn't seem to come through on my scans, but I assure you that it's dead shiney.

Scans are wonderful for detail, sharpness, and evenness of focus. They are dreadful for tone and lustre. Anything blown up that large will show the tiniest scuff, dig, etc, that aren't apparent at normal size.

I'd be more worried about some evident wear showing up - but even that may not be apparent at normal size.

I agree scans are essential for comparisons, detailed studying of the same denomination, but will always show every flaw. They will even show tiny patches of verdigris not visible to the naked eye if you look close enough. Scan a coin, then photograph the same coin, you will be astounded at the difference.

Surprisingly cleaned base metal coins can come up very well under a scanner and seem to suggest lustre that is not there

Scans for study, photographs for admiration, recording and selling every time

[Guest richbedforduk]

Well, I am glad that I am not alone with this problem.

I have not been trying to take beautiful pictures of coins. I have just been using scanned images as a tool to look for specific detail and for posting here.

My initial post comes down to two things;

1 You pull a coin out of the bag, look at it, and think 'nice,'. Then check it under a light and glass and think 'Mmm, very nice'. Then you scan it and wonder if you've scannned the wrong coin.

2 The example at the top of the page looks great in the hand. I don't really mind that the gleam has gone in the scan, or that 'There is obvious wear to the folds of the veil on the forehead'. That is analysis that is beyond me, and is more important to whoever buys it. I was just curious about the marks that become apparent in the scan, in particular the marks on the flat areas of the obverse of the coin. Is that normal from minting, picked up during the journey from the mint, or wear and tear from being in pockets? If it is picked up along the way, could someone put up a pic of a similiar coin with faultless flat areas.

Thanks for all your interest.

PS. I did not get many replies on my Shilling Broken R query. Is that because people aren't sure?

[Nick 326]

Unfortunately the camera or scanner has a far greater resolution than the human eye, so all manner of defects become obvious for all to see. Bagmarks, light wear and hairlines will exist on most circulation pieces, so you would have to be lucky to find one without any marks. Most buyers will also tolerate some marks, so showing a 'warts and all' scan is probably better than a blurry low resolution picture that shows little detail.

The attached is the best 1887 shilling that I have. It was described as UNC in the auction catalogue, but you will still see it has some minor issues.

[Rob 3,095]

PS. I did not get many replies on my Shilling Broken R query. Is that because people aren't sure?

I think it is probably post mint damage because the adjacent R is intact and it is virtually certain that they would have used the same R punch for the two letters. To have a differently shaped R punched in would require 2 separate punches, one of which was defective, so unless you can say for certain there is no damage to the R, the former theory is more likely. From the image supplied, the tail of the R is almost touching the upright.

[Peckris 579]

I frequently struggle with pictures. Autofocus sometimes doesn't no matter what I do, and a succession of images have differing brightnesses, presumably because the flash is at different initial temperatures. Sometimes I just get fed up and resort to scans, which although less than perfect are at least uniform in their exposure.

Try manual focus - it's what I used for that 1970 Varieties Survey (plus a tripod!)

The attached is the best 1887 shilling that I have. It was described as UNC in the auction catalogue, but you will still see it has some minor issues.

All I can see are some extremely slight marks in the obverse field that would be all but invisible to the naked eye. That's a truly lovely shilling, Nick.

[Nick 326]

All I can see are some extremely slight marks in the obverse field that would be all but invisible to the naked eye. That's a truly lovely shilling, Nick.

Thanks. To the naked eye, it is a stunner. Under magnification, some of the lace is not as crisp as it can be, but I guess it's a case of the better the coin, the harder you look for imperfections.

[1949threepence 3,367]

Unfortunately the camera or scanner has a far greater resolution than the human eye, so all manner of defects become obvious for all to see. Bagmarks, light wear and hairlines will exist on most circulation pieces, so you would have to be lucky to find one without any marks. Most buyers will also tolerate some marks, so showing a 'warts and all' scan is probably better than a blurry low resolution picture that shows little detail.

The attached is the best 1887 shilling that I have. It was described as UNC in the auction catalogue, but you will still see it has some minor issues.

Very minor issues. In the hand I've no doubt it looks nigh on perfect.

[Accumulator 52]

Unfortunately the camera or scanner has a far greater resolution than the human eye, so all manner of defects become obvious for all to see. Bagmarks, light wear and hairlines will exist on most circulation pieces, so you would have to be lucky to find one without any marks. Most buyers will also tolerate some marks, so showing a 'warts and all' scan is probably better than a blurry low resolution picture that shows little detail.

The attached is the best 1887 shilling that I have. It was described as UNC in the auction catalogue, but you will still see it has some minor issues.

Very nice indeed. I recently scanned my two and was shocked at how poor they actually were, certainly not nearly as good as the one you show.

[Hussulo 6]

I agree, taking accurate and nice images of coins is a nightmare and I'm also still struggling with it.

This website is worth a read for some tips:

http://coinimaging.com/

Mark Goodman also has a coin imaging book out. You can read my review here:

http://www.coinsgb.com/Book_And_Product_Reviews/Numismatic_Photography.html

[Guest richbedforduk]

I agree, taking accurate and nice images of coins is a nightmare and I'm also still struggling with it.

This website is worth a read for some tips:

http://coinimaging.com/

What a great site and really good tips. I looked through his UK coins gallery. I am really glad that I don't collect coins, his images are so good I'd give up!

[Peckris 579]

I agree, taking accurate and nice images of coins is a nightmare and I'm also still struggling with it.

This website is worth a read for some tips:

http://coinimaging.com/

Mark Goodman also has a coin imaging book out. You can read my review here:

http://www.coinsgb.com/Book_And_Product_Reviews/Numismatic_Photography.html

V useful article - I've bookmarked that :-)