I think this is one of the world's prettiest coins, it's commonality masks it's beauty. This is a garden variety UC gold Eagle.

I think these pictures came out well. I used slices of geodes (agate) as the background.

Thanks, TomD ... you're a true artist with your camera!

What kind of lighting and camera do you use to get such gorgeous pictures?

If you keep this up I'll have to send you my whole collection to be photographed!

Stunning coin and an even better, dare I say it, photo, well done!

Clive.

Camera is a Sony DSLR wearing a Minolta 100mm f2.8 macro lens

Lighting like so---

Do you use anything on the geode to prop the coin up, or is the coin flat against the geode??

In hand and from a scanner the coin looks like pasteboard
I prefer the original St Gaudens in MS 64 or better

St.Guadens are nice, I agree. But that photo isn't any atmatuers wild gamble.

It is flat. As you can see from the picture of the setup, I shoot from pretty close to square on so there is no need to prop the coin. If I were to prop for depth of field reasons, I would prop everything, geode included.

Ageka, you say gold Eagles look and feel like cardboard? I think I would have a serious conversation with my dealer if I were you.

Nope I meant you need to be a foto genius like you with a set up like yours to see any shine to the coin

In real life coin in hand it looks like oxidised gold and on the scanner it looks like cardboard and I guess that is because there really is no contrast colorwise in the coin . The gold maple leaf has no contrast but it is sparkling in hand even with the designed "scratch lines" on it . The scanner hates it also since it sees no contrast .
Same scanner same settings no photoshopping

http://www.coinpeople.com/index.php?act=at...ost&id=3895

Ageka, what's the difference between those two coins besides one being modern bullion?

Also, can someone post some of these 'scratch lines' on a maple leaf?

Nice 08 NM ageka, I'm like you, I have a preference for the original. You also have to remember the differences between gold eagles, Saints and maples, they all have different compositions with the Saint at only .900 fine, the gold eagle at 0.9167 fine and the maple at 0.9999 fine. I just got three maples from the early to mid-1980s and they are pretty, almost like a reverse proof, with matte fields and mirrored bust of the Queen.

I love Maples and have a preference for the earlier ones, primarily because of the earlier version of the Queen. She is pretty cute in the early ones but later morphed into a version of Ronald McDonald. I think the single best Maple to have is last year's (2007), the .99999 version. It was a marketing ploy but it looks like they won't repeat the coin and it may end up worth a significant premium. Below, silver version of cute queen.

Questions still outstanding! I'm really really curious if you can't tell. Living up to my nickname,


George

George,

I thought I answered that but here goes:

GOLD EAGLE: $50 denomination, 1 ounce pure gold net, 1.0909 oz. 0.9167 fine gold, obverse St. Gaudens standing liberty surrounded by 50 stars, reverse family of eagles. Reeded edge.

Saint-Gaudens double eagle: $20 denomination, 0.9675 oz. pure gold, 1.075 oz. 0.900 fine gold, St. Gaudens standing liberty surrounded by 46 stars (1907-1911) or 48 stars 1912-33, reverse eagle flying over rising sun. Lettered edge.

I will try to get photos of the maple leaf this weekend.

Thanks, Jeff. I saw the earlier post, but I figured there was a difference in the strike - difference between the die polishings or differnece between the number of strikes or something that would cause why one looks muted and the other somewhat lusterous.

I've always been told that raw, unadulterated coin surfaces are lusterous because of the many small peaks across the surface that disperse the light in all directions whereas cleaning a coin rounds those peaks so you have a more diffuse luster. I figured the same thing happened with yours but something in the minting process caused it.

Thanks for the reply though.

George, I think you are talking about the flow lines, and there would be a difference in the amount of polishing of dies and the amount of force used between the early 20th century and the 21st. The biggest difference on the modern bullion occurred in 1991 when the relief was lowered, making them much flatter in appearance (and why us Saint collectors abhor them). As for number of strikes, I would have to look that up, I know the earlier high relief and ultra high relief were struck up to a dozen times in some instances. Also, the use of the segmented collar for the lettered edge on Saints can make the edges/rims look somewhat different thant the reeded edge of the modern bullion coins.

I haven't seen this discussed in this forum in a while (if I've ever seen it discussed here) but how do they prepare the dies for circulation coins vs proofs? I think they throw on a bit of etchant or something to bring out the frosting and use special clothes for polishing the fields but there may be more chemicals or abrasives in the process than I remember.

Ok I am on European time so I read all these questions just now

I think the old St Gaudens is so very nice because the 10% copper in it tones and the striking lustre becomes glorious on an MS64 or better after toning
( When it is harshly cleaned it will scan darkly but the coin retones in 5 years time so a loupe is necessary )
Whereas the new Eagle coin probably has badly polished die and counter die and after toning it comes out pasty whichever way you look at it
It probably is an indifferent business strike and it is probably the strike that is responsable for the toning looking pasty.

On the other hand the Maple is a fantastic proof effigy on a proof background ( even if the background is kind of matte becaude of the intentional die scratches which are very close together ) and because of the purity it scratches even by looking at it
So the virtical lines were designed and executed in the proof devices background and they look like scratches which they are not but to the casual buyer these will hide real scratches
Problem is that since it is a proof effigy on a proof device and a scanner sees no contrast and a scanner needs contrast for a good scan
I attach the best scan I was able to make . The virtical lines are designed as such , any other lines may be bagmarks . Especially the leaf side has closely spaced virtical lines.
I bought these at melt from an exchange agent so I was not too picky. It was my friend an american coindealer who assured me the lines were intentional
In hand this coin just looks wonderfully brilliant ( and at melt price I just handle it since there is nothing in it to tone so the acid of my fingers does not affect the coin at all allthough maybe my fingers leave microscopic scratches )

My friend is into South American coins and when they repolish the dies you often see badly repolished dies producing coins with bagmark like lines on the coin which will still go MS67 since no points are substracted for bad die polishing

Thanks for the pic, AG. Why the scratches guys? To give it a matte look? nah.