Peckris

I'm not sure if Numismatic Photography has much of a following of interested persons outside the USA, but Mark Goodman's book that you linked to is superb. I know of about two dozen or so of us semi-professional and professional numismatic photographers here in the USA, none of whom use scanners. There's a reason for that. Will you PLEASE stop with all that. Some of us have no choice. Peckris, no harm or foul was intended in my message. I was merely replying to Paulus' link to the Goodman book. The book has good tips for all coin photography and imaging. There is no reason to read into my post a personal attack -- none was intended. I didn't take it as such. But you were unintentionally tactless, so I'd just ask you to accept that if someone says they can only use a scanner, then leave it at that rather than implying that photography is the only worthwhile medium for reproducing coins.

Yes, but not the same as the 1922 reverse, which would be experimental only. Yes, that is a bit weird, given his enthusiasm for minutiae in the bun bronzes. I can only think that his passion was waning a bit by the time he wrote that up, or else it was only a provisional write-up. Yet I would say - purely from observation - that the 1922 reverse is more distinct than any differences between the 1911-26 reverse and 1927-36 reverse. It's instantly recognisable.

Is that your own numbering system? When I looked at them side by side I could see a lot of differences on the reverses, from slight to quite glaring.

I'm not sure if Numismatic Photography has much of a following of interested persons outside the USA, but Mark Goodman's book that you linked to is superb. I know of about two dozen or so of us semi-professional and professional numismatic photographers here in the USA, none of whom use scanners. There's a reason for that. Will you PLEASE stop with all that. Some of us have no choice.

I've just looked at Accumulator's pictures on his site - I can't see any pointing differences but no way his 1922 is the same die as his 1927 on the right - look at Brittania's hand and the ball atop the trident shaft. Bob's coin looks to be the same die as Accumulator's [url=http://s593.photobucket.com/user/microtome/media/hands.jpg.html][ /URL] So the question remains - which die was used for F192B and F196A? The other massive difference which is instantly noticeable, is the width of the rim - it's nearly twice as wide on the 1922 as on the 1927.

That's a great posting - thanks! However, I think Freeman is wrong in asserting "it was a surprise to learn..." etc. There's absolutely no evidence as to when exactly those mules were created or even struck. They could have used a 1922 date punch, for example, to test out new reverses in - say- 1925. There would presumably have been no intention to release any of them, and they are extremely rare.

FYI - we ALWAYS go 'off topic', it's one of the endearing features of this site. However, I see someone has created a new topic..

How on earth did you manage to scan the edge?

An hour???!!!!! Heavens to Betsy! I have never scanned a coin so I have no idea ... does 2,400 dpi take 1/5th of that time then - 10-12 minutes?? ChKy, what settings do you apply in Elements 5? I have Elements 6 and Photoshop CS2 so I should be able to reproduce what you do post-scan. Paulus, my 1200 dpi scan takes about 5 minutes, but then it's using USB1 so no wonder. Unfortunately, the results are always rather flat despite going for the 'Colour Photo' setting. One reason my pictures here are so bad is that often I'm using the old scans I did for my database, which were @ 300 dpi (about life size or a bit bigger). When they are doubled in size in Photoshop, it really does them no favours at all.

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

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 )

1st issue of Coin Monthly?

The one advantage of scans is that the coin is in the correct plane relative to the 'camera', and in perfect focus. In fact, the only disadvantage - though it's a biggie, as I said above - is the poor tone. Taking photos of my coins is just not an option. When I take images, the coin is perfectly parallel to the camera sensor. And, I shoot with a lens that has a corner to corner flat field. If you decide to tilt the coin to show color, then you can either bump up your f-stop a little to increase depth of field, or you can use focus stacking (of multiple images) to get the full coin in needle sharp focus. I'd say that scans are massively limited in imaging coins. To say that the "only disadvantage" is that the final product basically doesn't look like the coin in hand is sort of an understatement. I could add to that list that scans 1) don't show luster, 2) they don't show color, 3) they don't show depth/shadows of a relief or incuse design, and 4) they don't optimize the use of the tool (a coin sized object on a very large scanner bed). Even with a $25 lens I can take images of a coin that are superior to a scan at more than 2000dpi, but I can also show all of the things that a scan cannot. So, in my opinion, scans are good for documenting coins, but are pretty bad at taking images for selling a coin or posting on websites. The biggest (and maybe only) advantage of a scanner is that it's easy...the advantages end there. Nevertheless, scanning is my only option so I'm stuck with it.

I think this is the one you are referring to. That's the one! Thanks Nick (and rpeddie too). My Lanarkshire token has the same blue iridescence when viewed at the right angle. Sadly, scans miss this with a spectacular Fail. 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. The one advantage of scans is that the coin is in the correct plane relative to the 'camera', and in perfect focus. In fact, the only disadvantage - though it's a biggie, as I said above - is the poor tone. Taking photos of my coins is just not an option.

You lost me there, Peter! StuartI thought the thread was started by Richard (TG) (your avatars are similar) PS I've just sold your boat to an American so please advise me your bank details to enable funds transfer. how much have we made?There's a Nigerian knows the answer to that one

I think this is the one you are referring to. That's the one! Thanks Nick (and rpeddie too). My Lanarkshire token has the same blue iridescence when viewed at the right angle. Sadly, scans miss this with a spectacular Fail.

Yes, that's very nice. Did you delete one of your posts in this thread? I seem to remember you showed us a photo of a token which you'd turned slightly into the light to show off its wonderful prooflike fields, but I've looked back and cannot see it. I only ask, because my Lanarkshire token is the same - turn it slightly into the light, and it has a wonderful bluish prooflike-iness, which scans just can't show.

Very hard to find pretty bronze/copper from the Terror - some don't come in any grade better than this 2 Sols 1793 W minted at Lille - poor strike due to no copper available to add to the bell metal - R2 a similar one here Coins better than VF from 1793/4 are most likely restrikes, those that aren't command 4 figure sums "Men are equal before LALOI"? What's LALOI? I'd have thought God or Guillotine should be the right word here... If I remember right, Martin Coles Harman was an eccentric (American?) who possibly had bought Lundy Isle or at least owned a good deal of its land - he decided to issue his own currency but again (if I remember right) he was prosecuted by HM Government and told in no uncertain terms that he couldn't. That's a nice pair you have there.

Recessed ear on shillings? Wow, that's a new one on me.

Yeah, you do need to watch out for salt air. Silica gel is fine for moisture (though you need to chase the moisture out of them at regular intervals), but I'm not sure what you should do about the salt air. But if you're not right by the sea, it's probably much less of a factor.

True - the 1973 set was the first to use a bright red insert, which was probably the culprit there.

When I had to get an HP netbook a few years back (with Windows 7) I found that WordPad was a perfectly acceptable app for most of my everyday needs. What really really really annoyed me was that there was no email client on it. Think about that - no email client!!! I had to go through all the hoops of signing up for Windows Live and then downloading that whole caboodle - admittedly it was free - before I could start dealing with email. But think about it for a moment - what OS in its right mind would NOT give you a free emailer bundled with the OS? It would be like not getting an internet browser, though having said that, Firefox, Opera, and Chrome, are only a download click away ... oh wait ... (That's odd - the f buttons on my Mac are distinctly physical... so is the remote control if I couldn't be arsed to reach out and press an f key )

Actually, that isn't what I'd call 'brown spots', more a kind of golden toning around the legend. It's not unattractive, and with the RM mass-production methods - yes, even for proofs - it's not at all uncommon. You should see some of their early decimal proof sets (especially 1973) if you want a definition of 'ugly'.

Good tip, Peck - I'll try that! I suspect I'm still set to overexpose by half a stop - that was the setting I came up with, with much ecperimentation, a few years ago. Of course, that was in the gloom of a bus under a railway viaduct! Times have changed.... With few exceptions (e.g. snow) it's always better to UNDERexpose. The reason being that the other way, you can get blown-out highlights instead of dark shadows. However, you can pull out details hidden in the darkest shadows, but once a highlight is blown out to pure white, there's no way to pull it back to get detail.

... and with a "there for" and a grocer's apostrophe thrown in for good measure. Oh, Proof = Unc. Of course! Silly me. I "neraly" missed that.