Let's See Your Copper Coins, Tokens, Or Medals!

[Danz]

I'm particularly partial to the tone of this 1868 proof penny in copper:

I LOVE IT! I look at your coin cabinet quite often and love that to. Keep up the good work.

[ChKy]

All the more reason to learn how to photograph your coins instead of "scanning" them. Scanning coins is good for documentation/insurance purposes, but doesn't show most coins in their true form.

It depends on what kind of scanner you prefer to use and on the photoshop version of course.

Usually I scan in all my coins...

just try that one: CCD technology scanners

[scott]

I have some very nice copper medals i havn't photographed yet.

[scott]

[scott]

got these 2 in Japan, coins are chinese on a string with a piece of paper on the bottom, coin dates seem to vary, dunno what the thing is but these are the old ones

1111-18

1102-6

dunno why they were on it, there was an 18th century coin on the same thing

[scott]

Northern Song, Emperor Shen Zong, Xi Ning Yuan Bao, seal script, 1068-77

this from the same period as the larger cash above

couple of other early cash i picked up here in britain

[Coinery]

All the more reason to learn how to photograph your coins instead of "scanning" them. Scanning coins is good for documentation/insurance purposes, but doesn't show most coins in their true form.

It depends on what kind of scanner you prefer to use and on the photoshop version of course.

Usually I scan in all my coins...

just try that one: CCD technology scanners

ChKy, are these exceptional examples of your scanner's capability, or are they representational? The images here are excellent for a scanner, what kind of resolution do you get? Did you resize the images here?

[ChKy]

ChKy, are these exceptional examples of your scanner's capability, or are they representational? The images here are excellent for a scanner, what kind of resolution do you get? Did you resize the images here?

That results are more or less standard. Here are other examples:

I have to admit, that scanning of copper coins is a big task! Feel free to contact me via PM regarding the scanner, resolution ect

[davidrj]

I have to admit, that scanning of copper coins is a big task!

Cameo proof - a nice image, but nothing like the view in hand. The best my scanner can do

Edited November 14, 2013 by davidrj

[davidrj]

I have to admit, that scanning of copper coins is a big task!

Uneven (woody) toning is problematic too

[Peckris]

ChKy, are these exceptional examples of your scanner's capability, or are they representational? The images here are excellent for a scanner, what kind of resolution do you get? Did you resize the images here?

That results are more or less standard. Here are other examples:

I have to admit, that scanning of copper coins is a big task! Feel free to contact me via PM regarding the scanner, resolution ect

Never mind PM - I think this information would be valuable to all of us. Ok, what scanner and Photoshop settings do you use? (I use an old Canon N670U at full 1200 dpi resolution, and Photoshop CS2, but I seem to not get very good scans out of that combination )

Edited November 14, 2013 by Peckris

[davidrj]

Never mind PM - I think this information would be valuable to all of us. Ok, what scanner and Photoshop settings do you use? (I use an old Canon N670U at full 1200 dpi resolution, and Photoshop CS2, but I seem to not get very good scans out of that combination )

Agreed! I use an Epson DX4400 Scanner/printer at 2400 dpi, Photoscape 3.6.5 for round cropping and rotation, plus Photoshop CS 8.0 for final presentation

[ChKy]

scanning in Cameo proofs is satisfying because of sufficient contrast between the mirror and mate areas of the coin surface...

proof with pure mirror finish are quite difficult.

Tried to post more pics, but I got the message that I am not allowed to post more pictures in that community...

I will look that up today in the evening and post that afterwards

[ChKy]

[ChKy]

[ChKy]

it works again...

[davidrj]

scanning in Cameo proofs is satisfying because of sufficient contrast between the mirror and mate areas of the coin surface...

proof with pure mirror finish are quite difficult.

Yes, the few I have all look so dreadful, I wouldn't want to share

Old hammered copper is much easier

[Rob]

I find the scanner much better for proofs than currency which are invariably featureless with a monotonous tone. However, it also appears to differ between scanners. The images below were taken using my old scanner which subsequently died, but I can't replicate this with the replacement which gives really flat and lifeless images. This is an image of a proof/specimen depending on whether you back Freeman or not.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Rob

[Rob]

This is a regular currency strike of the same type.

[Rob]

Finally, this is a camera image of the second coin. http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/c15%20pics/01857.jpg

[Nick]

I still prefer a camera for imaging any type of coin. A scanner offers you no variables - it either takes a decent image or it doesn't, whereas with a camera it's just a case of experimentation with lighting, setup etc to arrive at an acceptable image.

1937 proof farthing:

[ChKy]

I still prefer a camera for imaging any type of coin. A scanner offers you no variables - it either takes a decent image or it doesn't, whereas with a camera it's just a case of experimentation with lighting, setup etc to arrive at an acceptable image.

That is the kind of uncertainty I want to avoid. I need reproducable and stable results under constantly the same conditions in order to have the possibility to compare.

The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is a scanner

[Peckris]

Finally, this is a camera image of the second coin. http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/c15%20pics/01857.jpg

Now that's a case where I prefer the scan!

I still prefer a camera for imaging any type of coin. A scanner offers you no variables - it either takes a decent image or it doesn't, whereas with a camera it's just a case of experimentation with lighting, setup etc to arrive at an acceptable image.

1937 proof farthing:

That's tonally very nice, but you've got blown highlights below the parting and on the forehead, and on the wren's back. That could be avoided by underexposing, then bring up the shadow details. Even so, one advantage of scans is that the 'flatness' of tone also gives evenness of detail which can be lacking on a photo.

I suppose the bottom line is that scans bring out that predictable evenness of detail you want to show up, where a photo gives the beauty of tone often at the expense of that evenness. You pays your money...

Edited November 14, 2013 by Peckris

[Nick]

Finally, this is a camera image of the second coin. http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/c15%20pics/01857.jpg

That's tonally very nice, but you've got blown highlights below the parting and on the forehead, and on the wren's back. That could be avoided by underexposing, then bring up the shadow details. Even so, one advantage of scans is that the 'flatness' of tone also gives evenness of detail which can be lacking on a photo.

I suppose the bottom line is that scans bring out that predictable evenness of detail you want to show up, where a photo gives the beauty of tone often at the expense of that evenness. You pays your money...

There are some blown highlights, but that's easily fixed with a change to the camera exposure settings, or a diffuser between light and subject.

[Nick]

I still prefer a camera for imaging any type of coin. A scanner offers you no variables - it either takes a decent image or it doesn't, whereas with a camera it's just a case of experimentation with lighting, setup etc to arrive at an acceptable image.

That is the kind of uncertainty I want to avoid. I need reproducable and stable results under constantly the same conditions in order to have the possibility to compare.

The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is a scanner

I only had to find a setup that I like once. I now use the same setup for all coin images and therefore have reproducible and comparable results.