brg5658

Really? You clearly don't follow the Asian and Australian markets then...as collectors in those two realms also place quite a bit of emphasis on reputable TPGs, including PCGS and NGC. This little bit is juvenile at the least, and frankly misleading. I will not reply to this claim directly, other than to say that I hope Mynki understands the statement is a feeble attempt by the poster to dig in his anti-American claws just a bit deeper. Having nearly 6,000 posts on this forum doesn't make someone infallible, so take the comments of azda cum grano salis. Thats twice you've had a dig at me personally. If you have a ******* problem with me the spit it out. I'm not a Fan of American TPGs or a Fan of how the AMERICANS make more of an emphasis on the slab number other than the coin inside. You saying "you won't reply to this claim directly claiming its feeble is a freaking joke also as you did reply to it, but my reply was to the OP and not to you so if you Chose not to reply to it i personally don't give a ****** ****. I also don't follow the Australian or Asian market. Now, if you dislike my dislike of how the Americans collect a slab other than whats inside then please don't ******* comment on my reply. Your comments are massively over-generalized and outright false. Furthermore, you clearly have no experience in the American market, so I don't think you are qualified nor do you have any business making such ill-informed generalizations. I was merely amending your unjustified and uneducated assessment of the American market. I think your use of profanity speaks volumes; if one is truly knowledgeable in their field (i.e., has evidence instead of just stories), then there is no need to be so dramatic and vulgar. Best to stick with what you know -- that apparently being the UK/European market.

Really? You clearly don't follow the Asian and Australian markets then...as collectors in those two realms also place quite a bit of emphasis on reputable TPGs, including PCGS and NGC. This little bit is juvenile at the least, and frankly misleading. I will not reply to this claim directly, other than to say that I hope Mynki understands the statement is a feeble attempt by the poster to dig in his anti-American claws just a bit deeper. Having nearly 6,000 posts on this forum doesn't make someone infallible, so take the comments of azda cum grano salis.

That is completely false. The only restriction on US eBay is that you cannot claim a specific numeric (Sheldon) grade anywhere in the listing (title, description, or item specifics) unless it has been graded by PCGS, NGC, ANACS, or ICG. There is NO restriction on putting a grade like G, VF, XF, UNC, A/UNC, etc. in the title or listing description. Furthermore, if the coin has been graded by ICCS, CGS, etc. there is nothing preventing you from taking a picture of the grade on the holder and displaying that very prominently in the listing, despite it not being among the 4 "approved" TPGs that eBay allows. http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/currstamps.html

We're waiting...

Edward VIII issue, with a hole, and from the Heaton mint...too many "oddities" not to purchase it.

The spelling error was fixed in the next issue. The DH-414 has the error, the DH-415 has exhibition spelled correctly. I think the error makes the token all the more charming.

One what? Advanced collector who we can all envy? LOL

I'm not sure I agree as far as coins are concerned. Unless it's a ghastly AT 'rainbow' coin, most coins have a narrow dynamic range - i.e., they are a single object where the desired effect is a flat even lighting rather than one which has introduced highlights and shadows beyond the minimum required to make out the design. That's exactly why a few 20th Century proofs were produced using 'sandblasted dies' - this was to flatten the tone for photographic purposes. Admittedly as coins, they aren't the prettiest, but for the purpose of showing every last bit of detail (the detail, the whole detail, and nothing but the detail), they did the job. Now, if one is photographing coins as if jewellery, then fine - I'd go along with you 100%. But if recording a historical artefact, then I'd say a narrow dynamic range is the ideal. That's why I say that in my opinion, your middle right shot is better than the bottom right, which is where we began this whole debate. If you want to show only detail, and that's it, then a scanner, light-box, or completely diffused photographic approach will get you that. When I photograph a coin my goal is to show as much of the coin's character as possible, including luster bands, toning, metal flow lines, etc. Showing "frosted" texture surfaces (or matte surfaces) in a photograph is not the same as showing luster. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Alas, it seems clear from your semi-insulting reply that you've already made up your mind. At least your choice of words seems to insinuate that imaging a coin with a photographically optimal wide dynamic range is somehow misleading or untrue to the look of the coin in hand. Cheers.

The higher the angle, the wider the dynamic range of the image (as you can see from the histograms I provided). As the angle decreases, the "flatter" the image looks (i.e., the histogram compresses into a narrow region of indistinguishable hues). Photographically, the optimal image is that produced with the highest angle of light. This doesn't guarantee that the image is optimal to the subjective tastes of each individual. I never said my method was the best or any such thing. All things are subjective, and people should take the bits they find useful, and discard the others. I was only posting this as "some food for thought". There is no magical coin photography/imaging method. I have been "tweaking" for years, and will continue to do so. That's exactly what I was saying. HDR photography is all about COMPRESSING the tonal extremes BECAUSE of the high range, by subduing highlights and bringing out detail in shadow areas (though much of what passes for "HDR" is actually nothing of the sort - it's tone mapping). That's why I said your row 2 shot 50º was what I thought the best for coins, in that it preserved full detail without over-emphasizing any part of it, but also giving a modest indication of lustre which scans entirely lack. But to repeat what I said before, and which you acknowledged - it's all subjective. However, your 'food for thought' is most valuable, and if I was able to photograph coins, I would immediately set to and try your method out. I don't know of any reason why one would want to use HDR techniques or mentality for imaging a coin. That method was developed for photography where one doesn't control the lighting of various parts of the image (e.g., sun here, shadow there, etc). When controlling all parameters of a photo's lighting, the goal is to have as wide a dynamic range as possible in one shot. This ensures that you have the most flexibility for any post-processing or adjustments you wish to make post-hoc.

The higher the angle, the wider the dynamic range of the image (as you can see from the histograms I provided). As the angle decreases, the "flatter" the image looks (i.e., the histogram compresses into a narrow region of indistinguishable hues). Photographically, the optimal image is that produced with the highest angle of light. This doesn't guarantee that the image is optimal to the subjective tastes of each individual. I never said my method was the best or any such thing. All things are subjective, and people should take the bits they find useful, and discard the others. I was only posting this as "some food for thought". There is no magical coin photography/imaging method. I have been "tweaking" for years, and will continue to do so.

The lamps I've been using for about the last 2 years are the IKEA sourced "Jansjo" LED lamps. They require a little bit of diffusion (not a lot), but they have an incredibly small footprint, so you can even get them into tight working distance spaces. Here in the states they are $9.99 each -- looks like they are £10 each on your side of the pond. http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00169659/ This is great Brandon. To date all my photos have been taken in daylight, but that does limit me. I may well give your set up a go using my simple compact camera (with macro mode), but one question comes to mind. Why do you only light the coin from the top/sides, albeit with 2 or 3 sources? Is that simply due to the practicality of being unable to place a source in the space taken by the tripod? If the camera was mounted from above would you also choose to have a light source at 6 o'clock? Regarding the IKEA lamps, do you know what colour temperature they provide? Presumably you could fit your own bulbs anyway. Around the house I've standardised on a warm white (2700K, I believe) but for photos a cooler (higher temperature) may look better? Regarding the positioning of the lamps: I have for some images placed a light at 6 o-clock. I have about 6 inches of space between my copy stand and my bellows, so that is not an issue of space. If I want to light "from below" I usually opt for the equally spaced 4-8-12 lighting positions. In the end, as I emphasize in my write-up, the lighting positions are not set in stone. I vary them about to best illuminate the surface of each unique coin. I am able to see on a "LiveView" screen of my DSLR how the lighting moves look, so I can adjust real-time before I snap the image. The lighting positions are the most variable of the parameters. Regarding the IKEA lamps: they consistently run around 3000-3100K. You can not fit your own bulbs into the lamp. The "bulbs" are not really bulbs -- they are a spot of phosphorescence on an electric plate (LED), and they are completely integrated into the lamp. They are non-replaceable, but as with many LED products, that means they will last for years and years. Given the price that IKEA sells these for, they are constructed with a "consumer" mentality -- meant to be consumed and then discarded. So, they aren't exactly what I would call "environmentally friendly" from that standpoint.

I am not certain what the lumen output is. They are pretty bright given their small footprint, but they are just a single spot of phosphorescence.

The lamps I've been using for about the last 2 years are the IKEA sourced "Jansjo" LED lamps. They require a little bit of diffusion (not a lot), but they have an incredibly small footprint, so you can even get them into tight working distance spaces. Here in the states they are $9.99 each -- looks like they are £10 each on your side of the pond. http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00169659/

It's interseting that the colour on that coin exactly replicate the tempering colours for heating metal.Tempering_colors_in_steel.jpg Bloody hell The heated coin looks like it could clear $200,000 I shall have a chat with my plummer tomorrow. Final hammer: $411,250

The second part of lighting that I just want to touch on is the number of light sources. In all of the images above, I have used lights at the “standard” positions of 10 and 2 (this notation refers to the “clock positions” and is typical among photographers). Two light sources may not always be sufficient to fully light the coin’s surface. The coin I have depicted is about the size of a USA half dollar (~30 mm). You will note that there is a bit of a dark area at the bottom of the coin. In reality, when I am photographing coins larger than about the size of a USA quarter dollar, I generally use three light sources at positions 9-12-3. Some modification of these lighting positions may be necessary for coins with particularly high relief or with designs with devices that may look best if lit from behind or below. Below I show a schematic of the 10-2 and 9-12-13 lighting positions, and the same coin as above lit from a high angle with only 2 lights versus 3 lights. I hope these illustrations have helped to describe how the lighting angle and number of lights can affect the final image quality. I will just emphasize again, there is no substitute for practice. Over the past 4 years, I have taken thousands (20,000+) images and variables like the metal content (silver, gold, brass, copper, etc.), the surface texture (matte, satin, lustrous, mirrored proof), and toning all modify the way I light a coin. Practice, practice, and practice some more. Happy collecting (and photographing)! -Brandon

Photographically, a lower angle of light source manifests as a decrease in contrast between high points and low points on the coin, and the overall image appears flat and usually lifeless. In terms of the levels histogram (pictured below), you can see that as the angle of the light source decreases, the histogram becomes more compact. In other words, the range between the lightest part of your image and the darkest part of your image decreases. As the angle of your light source increases, the range of lightest and darkest part of the image is much wider. ...continued in next post

I posted this thread on another coin forum about 6 months ago, and I thought a few here might also find it helpful/useful. I have been photographing my coins for the past 4.5 or so years, and I have found that coin photography is a way to meld together two hobbies that I love. The first 2 to 2.5 years of the process were essentially experimental. I started with a Point and Shoot small Canon camera, and a couple desk lamps with incandescent bulbs. Early on, I also experimented with a light tent (also sometimes called a light box). I noticed improvement over the first 2 years, but I was still not happy with my final images after months of playing around. About 2 years ago I was fed up, and wanted to figure out how to get professional quality coin images, but didnt really want to purchase a $1500 macro lens or a new camera. I stumbled upon a coin forum with its own Coin Photography sub-forum (this is quite rare among coin forums), and for the first 3-4 months I read every historical thread there related to set-ups, lighting, cameras, copy stands, etc. I finally jumped in and asked some questions, and soon thereafter I had a new way of imaging coins. I purchased a bellows and a couple enlarger lenses (about $90 and $40, respectively) and 3 little lamps from IKEA for $9.99 each (Jansjo lamps). I was seeing big strides in quality, and within 4 months of having this new set-up I was finally at a stage where I was happy with the images I was taking. Ironically, one of the most frustrating and difficult components of coin photography for me (and I think for others) was lighting. I say ironically because this also happened to be the least expensive ingredient of the recipe. In my many months of experimentation, I had been doing a lot of things that seemed intuitive but were actually the opposite of what I should have been doing. While there is no magical advice I can give, and there is no replacement for trial and error (i.e., thousands of practice coin shots), I hope this little bit of advice is at least helpful to a few. Firstly, I want to talk about diffusion of your light source. In essence, I encourage you to minimize diffused light or to avoid diffusion of your light source all together. Related to diffusion of light is the idea of angle of light source as compared to the coin. In the following schematic, I have defined the angle of the lamp with the pink arc on the left. One of the keys to decent coin images is to keep this angle of your light source as high as possible (as close to 90 degrees, and as close to your lens as you can get without throwing reflection on the slab or coin). As the angle of your light source decreases, the more diffuse your light appears on the coin surface. You can see in the following set of images how the angle changes the look of the coin. I have shown the left light source, right light source, and both together. This shows how the two light sources at the standard 10-2 positions work together to light the coins surface. .... continued in next post

What I like about your collection BRG is the consistency of tone and quality...were these all acquired from the same old collection, or have you sourced them individually?One...by one....by one...slowly but surely.

Warwickshire/Kempsons halfpenny, c. 1795 (D&H 218)

From memory (a talk by Rob I think) an edge lettering collar was invented by the French engraver Droz who introduced it to Boulton when he worked at the SOHO mint - that big 1792 2 sols I posted the other day in the Copper Coins thread has the edge inscription "DEPARTMENS DE PARIS. RHONE ET LOIRE. DU GARD. &" - Scanning edges - a project to try! Eeek! I seen to have acquired divinity with this post, a philosophic conundrum for self belief! There are two main method of applying edge lettering. The first method is the Castaing-machine, which consisted of two flat "edge dies", each with half of the final text for the lettered edge. The planchet was rolled between the two dies by hand (or mechanically), thus squeezing the lettering into the edge and upsetting the rims a bit on the planchet. The 2nd method (as mentioned by davidrj) was that invented by Droz (and partially pilfered by Boulton) which consisted of a multi-part edge-collar-die. This contraption was far more complicated than the Castaing machine, as it required the edge collar pieces to retract after the coin had been struck so that the coin could be ejected. Coins struck with a multi-part edge-collar die are able to be distinguished from those created using the Castaing machine because there are almost always "seams" visible on the edge between the multiple sections of the edge collar. Spanish portrait and pillar dollars used the Castaing method. Most if not all Conder tokens (18th Century British Provincial Tokens) were lettered using the Castaing method, as Droz's method was never brought to full fruition (too many moving parts?). Many modern world coins struck for circulation with lettered edges are run through a Schuler Edge Lettering Machine (or equivalent) after they are struck in a smooth collar (i.e., the edge lettering is applied after striking). However, modern proof and specimen coinage struck at lower speeds may employ a Droz-type multi-piece edge collar for lettering -- but this method proved incompatible with the speed at which circulation strike coins were minted.

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. And therein lies the answer to peoples questions of your scan and photography. You are semi Professional or a Professional photographer. Looking forward to your helpful tips I consider myself "semi-professional" -- I do not do coin photography 1) full-time or 2) as a means to support myself financially. I have a completely unrelated day job, and coin collecting and photography are hobbies. By semi-professional I mean that I have spent a great deal of time practicing and tweaking (30,000+ images), and I have imaged coins for customers at their request, not by advertising or pushing myself as a business (as I am not!). For the record, I also don't shoot with some astronomically priced camera and lens. I shoot with a low-end DSLR, an bellows from the 1970s, and a duplicating/enlarging lens. My entire set up cost less than a "good" macro lens that people like Mark Goodman use. Anyway, I am actually quite impressed with the edge scanning images of ChKy, and some of the others here are far better than most scans I have seen. I look forward to more discussion in this thread.

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'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.

I find this topic interesting, but would you guys mind creating a new thread to post all of this discussion. Not only is it off topic, but no one in the future is going to think to look in a "post your copper coins" thread for photography/scanner discussion.