LCA September

[Sword 1,473]

Now these are CGS photos (later graded as CGS 85)

 

[Sword 1,473]

LCA photos of 1888 halfcrown (described as UNC with colourful tone and some very light contact marks)

[Sword 1,473]

Now CGS photos (later graded as CGS 80)

[Nick 329]

Thanks for the examples.  They are certainly quite different, especially the white balance.

Which of the two setups most closely match what the coin looks like in hand?  Or does it vary?

[Sword 1,473]

I would say the CGS photos are closer to the coins at hand.

[Nick 329]

And can you tell me whether there are any hairlines or blemishes that are not apparent in the photos (which is where the criticism originated)?  The 1902 matt proof crowns quite often show die polishing raised hairlines in the fields (as per attached), but I can't see any in your photos.

[Leo 91]

Very interesting Sword. As your coins look flawless, none of the two sets of pictures show any defects because there aren't any! Or are there? For me the CGS photos show a more attractive coin, which is the opposite to how I thought it would be.

[Sword 1,473]

There are no raised hairlines as far as I can tell.

However, I do think the CGS photos show up details better. E.g. for the matt proof crown, the contact mark on the horse's rear shows up much more clearly on the CGS photo. 

For the 1888 halfcrown the CGS photo suggests that the lions' thighs might have received slight rubbing and hence the different toning. This is not evident on the LCA photo.

 

[Paulus 1,975]

My take on this is that the LC and CGS pictures are taken by the same staff using the same equipment and set-up available to the at the time of capturing the images(a mounted high-end Olympus compact using artificial light, when I visited their offices about 2 1/2 years ago).

However, a while back the quality of their pictures improved significantly (I don't know what they changed). The background in Sword's LC pictures suggests the inferior setup was used for these, while the (obviously more recent) CGS pics were taken using their improved setup.

My theory is therefore that the time lag between the LC and CGS pics spanned the period during which they improved their setup/equipment/technique (although I would not say the recent improvements have brought them up to a professional standard).

Here are 2 examples of CGS pics of coppers (both graded CGS 80) using an earlier photographic setup, and a very recent one:

UIN 19254 circa 2011

UIN 39472 May 2016

Sword, can you lend any credence to this theory? When were the LC auctions for your examples, and when were they slabbed roughly, do you know?

Edited September 18, 2016 by Paulus

[Sword 1,473]

Nice coins Paul.

With regard to mine. The 1902 crown was purchased in LCA in 2011 and I had it slabbed before it was posted to me. There was might be a two months gap between the dates of the LCA and CGS photos.

The 1888 was purchased in LCA in 2013 and was also slabbed immediately afterwards. Hence a gap of might be two or three months between the photos.

[Paulus 1,975]

1 minute ago, Sword said:

Nice coins Paul.

With regard to mine. The 1902 crown was purchased in LCA in 2011 and I had it slabbed before it was posted to me. There was might be a two months gap between the dates of the LCA and CGS photos.

The 1888 was purchased in LCA in 2013 and was also slabbed immediately afterwards. Hence a gap of might be two or three months between the photos.

Thanks, I'll see if I can pinpoint when the setup changed

[Sword 1,473]

Here is another example of a coin brought from LCA in 2013 and was immediately slabbed by CGS afterwards. Again the CGS  photo is better. The LCA photo totally failed to show the patchy gold toning. I am not convinced that the CGS setup is the same as LCA. 

This is the LCA photo

[Sword 1,473]

Now the CGS photo which shows the patchy gold toning.

 

[Paulus 1,975]

Hmmm yes, that does kind of disprove my theory a little! Still, I had been led to believe that it's the same setup and people for both ...

[Nick 329]

41 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Hmmm yes, that does kind of disprove my theory a little! Still, I had been led to believe that it's the same setup and people for both ...

It may depend on the light source.  If the light source varies continuously with temperature then the resulting images may depend on how long the light has been switched on.

[Rob 3,152]

35 minutes ago, Nick said:

It may depend on the light source.  If the light source varies continuously with temperature then the resulting images may depend on how long the light has been switched on.

There might be some mileage in this as the auction lots are likely to be done on a conveyor belt, suggesting the lights will be run contiuously and will get hotter, whereas a single coin for slabbing, or even a small consignment, will not result in the lamp(s) reaching as high a temperature as in the former case. i.e. the single shot picture will be cooler.