Scanning / Digital Cameras? and accurate coin descriptions... Public Deposited
Re
-
Article content
- From PowerFlame@aol.com Wed Jul 19 15:37:50 2000
Return-Path: <PowerFlame@aol.com>
Received: (qmail 19322 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2000 22:37:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jul 2000 22:37:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jul 2000 22:37:48 -0000
Received: from PowerFlame@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id a.42.8628638 (4522) for <colonial-coins@egroups.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:37:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <42.8628638.26a787b8@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:37:44 EDT
Subject: Re:Scanning / Digital Cameras? and accurate coin descriptions...
To: colonial-coins@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14
From: PowerFlame@aol.com
Dan,
Nowhere in my eBay description did I say that it was a Uniface strike.
In fact, I specifically said that despite careful examination, I still was
not able to confirm that it was a Uniface strike. However, knowing the past
history and heritage of the coin as well as my own thoughts, I personally do
not feel that I am one to close the window of possibility one way or the
other. I have not sold many coins on eBay, but after having taken the coin
photography course at the ANA Summer Conference, I have been experimenting
more and more with both digital photography as well as 35mm prints. As a
relative newbie to eBay selling, the last thing I want to do is subject
myself to any sort of criticism or controversy. This is why I have placed
several paragraphs of descriptive text in almost lot. This is also why I did
not say that the 4-L was necessarily a uniface, or a brockage, or a slick
reverse - I labeled it a "possible uniface strike", in addition to saying
that there was no way I could personally guarantee it being a uniface. I
believe I have listed all the caveats I can think of. I respect your opinion
as I do everyone else's, and as I can't say that the coin is necessarily one
thing or the other, I feel that I have described the coin in as accurate a
way as I could, and that I have not led to any sort of deception.
Eric L. Cheung
<<But it was difficult for me to concentrate on the image quality too much
because of the description. I get a good chuckle every time I see this
coin, until I think about what is being propagated through the numismatic
community. The first reference to this coin I saw calling it a likely
uniface coin was probably on the Rosa Americana envelope it had been housed
in. This was clearly wishful thinking. A careful observer will clearly
see that there is detail on the reverse; not much, but it clearly is not
the result of, say, two planchets being fed into the press at the same
time. I was surprised to see the imaginative description continued in the
C4 auction catalog. I was less surprised to see it continued in the ANA YN
auction last week because the cataloguers had little reason to doubt the
description that presumably accompanied the donation (or was this a
consignment?). I think it's pushing things a bit to continue this on eBay,
where a photo really does make it look uniface. Just my 2 cents (or is that
1 pence?). I agree it takes a lot of looking to see anything. If I
remember correctly you can see one lower corner (L or R, I can't remember)
of the seated figure. I think a uniface Connecticut would be rare enough
that this coin is worth that careful observation.
Dan>> - 2000-07-19
- 1
