Coinery

No, the Traveller USB camera is just used as a digital microscope for large magnifications of small areas of a coin ie examining overdates. As far as a digital camera setup goes, you'll probably want either: a digital compact with a macro mode; or a DSLR and a prime (fixed focal length) macro lens. In general, the more megapixels the better - it's easy to crop away those you haven't used. Obviously, the DSLR route is a lot more expensive, but prime macro lenses usually contain high quality optics and also allow you to position the camera further away from the coin - which makes lighting the coin easier. If you do go for a prime macro lens, one that will do 1:1 reproduction will be the dog's doodahs. This means that at 1:1 the object will be the same size on the sensor as it is in reality ie a shilling would only just fit into the frame. Thanks, Nick, very much appreciated, a great starting place. I think DSLR will be the way forward then. As you've obviously got your head around these things, would you mind if I came back to you for a little more advice on the matter when I've narrowed down a couple of set-up's?

Can you use them to take full images of coins, like crowns for example?

Very, VERY, nice! Azda, what is your photography set-up? I'm in the middle of researching a good set-up for myself, just for coin photography. Do you know enough about the hobby to offer any suggestions? Coinery, you may want to look at the ebay link Gollum has above, thats more of a professional setup for taking coin picture, camera seems mounted. I personally do nothing special, just the natural light (outside) I have a blacony on the house with a large ledge which is where i go (sometimes freezing my nuts off if the weather is cold and i have a few coins to do. I think basically its allabout the feel of your camera and knowing when the picture is right. Larger coins you can get quite close to, smaller coins need a little more distance or else they can look blurry after cropping Well if I am honest, I have all the things needed to do it properly apart from a macro lense for my canon digital, I was thinking of buying a cheap usb camera just for fun, and I have a light box in my darkroom that I can put coins on for pics if I can be bothereed to go into the loft, so if Coinery wants to grab that then I wont be moaning at him. Can I just check with you both then...is the Traveller USB camera the type that you use for your pictures, Azda, or do you use it simply to view items on the PC? And, Gollum, thanks for the gesture re letting the camera potentially go. Do you recommend this type of camera set-up, it's only 1.3mp, seems very low to me? I could really do with some good advice on this subject. I'm looking for a fixed set-up, that's solely for taking pictures of coins. Anything?

Have I got this right, 5% buyer's premium at Croydon Coin Auctions? Why so much cheaper than the rest? Anyone been? Any thoughts?

Very, VERY, nice! Azda, what is your photography set-up? I'm in the middle of researching a good set-up for myself, just for coin photography. Do you know enough about the hobby to offer any suggestions?

Of course! I didn't want to re-state the obvious! I came from a working background where the duplication of facts were a tedious and unnecessary evil.

I'm sure this seller has checked his figures, but all those auction pieces with high start prices, and no bids, will be costing a fortune...£1500 start price on one item!

Here's a good one. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-1902-Half-Penny-coin-110th-birthday-gift-/120842599960?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item1c22c7be18 Targeting the micro-market I'd say! Just hope someone gets me one, one day!

OK, so what's an ultrasonic cleaner? Any links? Also, what about the acetone? Will need to get the crud off before worrying about gloves!

So, just to clarify...are we saying that acetone is not detrimental in the least to copper, silver, lustre, or toning? That a good long soak in the stuff is harmless? I am getting to the stage in my collecting life where I'm growing increasingly anal about the handling of coins, for fear of the greasy acids damaging the surfaces in years to come...also, when buying a new coin I wish I could totally decontaminate it of any greasy residues before sealing it up and coveting it away. Acetone could be the answer to this prayer from what you're saying????

I agree too Coinery, I love nicely toned coins too. In fact I look at my collection of shillings rather like a chocolate box of different shades which highlights the fact that the collection is unique and reflects my choices. 'chocolate box,' what a delightful and poetic comparison, very nice!

Also, just to further clarify...when I said 'tarnish' it was very much tongue in cheek, I wouldn't have followed the statement with a cash offer of £60 (which I of course knew would not be accepted for such a lovely coin) if I truly thought the toning was best described that way. I guess this thread moved at a million miles an hour, easy to forget who said what when! So that's no to 60 quid then Paulus? 'joke...right!' A very interesting thread, like a numismatic soap!

[

Well, despite all the speculation, I'd still pay AU for the coin, and there is £60 waiting any time you want it. So, in terms of whether you've paid through the teeth or not, you could measure the wisdom of your purchase by what you can get for it. A top coin, I like it a great deal!

Try as I may, I can't see anything less than AU from the photos! I'd love to believe it's UNC, it's a beautiful coin...£60 still stands :-)

I totally agree. I'd much rather have a coin with even patina than with patchy uneven lustre. Take this 1862 penny (ignore the horrible scan - it looks great in hand; dark glistening virtually prooflike fields and such sharp edges I've sometimes wondered if ...) : it would value less than a BU example which I can kind of understand, but it would even fetch less than one with patchy lustre, which is just stupid. Just how I like a coin to look, and a good enough scan to see the sharpness of hair and fingers! I absolutely could not collect anything different. That's not to say I wouldn't buy different...I just wouldn't look at them and sail away to faraway thoughts and imaginings, as I often do with the coins I love! Thanks! You won't believe it, but I got that penny in the mid-1990s from the Midland Fair ... from a dealer who clearly didn't appreciate it : it was in his £1 box. Crikey, those days are long gone! Every joe in the street thinks he's won the lottery if he stumbles across any grade of penny in his grandma's sock drawer.

Not the best pictures, but it looks about there to me!

Would you mind me asking what your set-up was for the photography? One of the more difficult monarchs to photograph, and small denomination, well done, I'd say!

There is no officially laid down grading nomenclature but most people go with (in ascending order); Poor Fair F GF NVF VF GVF NEF EF GEF AU Unc. '+' and '?' are often thrown in just to indicate that it is (in the grader's opinion) better than or not quite as good as the stated grade. You will also come across 'Good' and 'Very Good' which are only semi-official in the UK although the norm in America and an attrocious mis-use of the English language actually being less than 'fine'! However, don't let me put you off from buying the book... Thanks again, and BU being the very top grade? Two more coins for members' grading opinions (if people don't mind?) Shame about all that nasty tarnish ;-) I'd pay £60 for a coin like that any day of the week!

I totally agree. I'd much rather have a coin with even patina than with patchy uneven lustre. Take this 1862 penny (ignore the horrible scan - it looks great in hand; dark glistening virtually prooflike fields and such sharp edges I've sometimes wondered if ...) : it would value less than a BU example which I can kind of understand, but it would even fetch less than one with patchy lustre, which is just stupid. Just how I like a coin to look, and a good enough scan to see the sharpness of hair and fingers! I absolutely could not collect anything different. That's not to say I wouldn't buy different...I just wouldn't look at them and sail away to faraway thoughts and imaginings, as I often do with the coins I love!

Sometimes you just have to accept what's available. This is pretty close to as it is. It's perhaps a little more colourful than in the hand, where it's velvety black. But it's also round, crisp and has the scarcer of the two reverses. Plus to my eye, it's quite attractive, though I can understand it's not to everyone's taste. I like it! Looks like it's been around a while...just as it should do!

I can totally see where you're coming from, and would not necessarily expect all my coins to be untoned, especially opre-20th century specimens, but for more recent examples, such as my pre-1965 US silver and George V silver, which I've so far mostly bought untoned, would prefer them to remain that way. I also agree some toning can be appealing, for example I have an uncirculated 1914 sixpence which has full lustre, but also a tinge of very attractive golden toning (was like this when I bought it), whereas the 1917 3D I mentioned has had some of its lustre now obscured by patchy black toning, which really doesn't look so great IMHO. Totally understood, even a nicely toned coin can look less desirable (to me) if it continues to tone...could quite possibly get patchy too. I guess, if I think about it, I wouldn't want a black geo 6 coin!

I really don't understand the BU collectors. I like collecting coins because of their historical significance, and the romance of times past, therefore I like coins to look their age and toning is that indicator. All that remains for me then, is to seek out the beauty in a coin which, of course, means well struck in the highest grade, and with as much lustre as possible, that has been overtoned in a balanced, and aesthetically pleasing way. This I think is the art and beauty of coins. I bought two duplicate copper half pennies a couple of year's ago...one was a totally unblemished full-lustre, and the other an overtoned coin, where the lustre was just shimmering through the toning, making for a richness in colour that had the impact on me of a stunning sunset. The sad thing is, the toned one was worth less as an investment which, as I mentioned in another thread, adds another dimension to the passion that is coin collecting, and is important to me. It's that aspect of living that we all enjoy, getting a bargain, part of collecting, I think! Anyway, my personal dilemma is, that to buy the very best, I have to buy coins that I don't actually like that much. I have to stick to the lesser valued toned uncirculated. Damn it, why doesn't the whole world value quality toned coins? Then THEY would be the premium prized coins instead!

I was told that coins being kept for any length of time in something leather such as a purse can cause this extreme toning effect. I'm not a 100% certain, but aren't sulphates involved in the tanning of leather?

Can anybody shed any light on the Davies Large Date on 1845 Crowns? Michael on his website discusses the dates with some good images http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/CR%201845%20dates.htm but suggests that the large date seems to be the commoner type, unlike Davies. I've been looking at a couple that I have, and they too have the large date, according to Michael's criteria. So, has Davies got this the wrong way round? How long is your date? Is there a different, even larger date that Davies is referring to? Probably not, given that the 'rarer' type only commands a 10% higher price tag. Any thoughts?