ariba Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I know this coin personally. In addition to Sale XXI it was also sold at Sale XVIII in 2008 http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?lot=1148&...wlot&sid=15 The coin is not mounted at all but does have scratches to the left of the prortrait. Overall, it is a very decent coin in my mind. What about the possibility of NCS/NGC making a mistake in the label? Clearly they think it is a problem coin, but maybe they printed "MOUNT REMOVED" accidentally. I've seen them make mistakes in denomination (50K labeled as 20K or something like that--don't remember exactly--saw it on ebay a few years ago) & mintmaster (I submitted a few 1916 Osaka minted coins and all came back labeled as 1916 BC) before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 It is nice. Someone just had it toned between Jan 2008 and Jan 2009 I am not so sure. I think the differences in the photos in the 2008 and 2009 sales might be due simply to differing light conditions. Here is an animated GIF file I've made using the different photos to make it easy to compare them. I think you will agree that there is no difference in the PATTERN of the toning, only in the relative brightness of the images, which could easily be the result of how the pictures were taken. Therefore, I think it is likely that the coin has not been tampered with (at least in terms of its toning). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ippocampos Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 what you wrote here does not make any sence; it also shows that you a little bit behind a modern professional restoration process; i do not want to promote this sale anymore but if you reasonably respond - i will give you few arguments on modern toning... I am not promoting the sale either, I only took personal offence when comparing your discussion on this coin with 'most other coins in Sale XXI! that is all. Artificial toning is an obstacle to numismatics.. tampering is criminal however I still like this coin that is all... and as for NGC I have heard that there are discrepancies in grading processes, how many times have I heard of people opening slabs to reslab.. It is, as this thread is proving a purely subjective process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I am not promoting the sale either, I only took personal offence when comparing your discussion on this coin with 'most other coins in Sale XXI! that is all. Artificial toning is an obstacle to numismatics.. tampering is criminal however I still like this coin that is all... and as for NGC I have heard that there are discrepancies in grading processes, how many times have I heard of people opening slabs to reslab.. It is, as this thread is proving a purely subjective process. then if you are not promoting a sale, I am sure you have a catalog of previous firm sale, put them along with XXI's and see the difference in images color, especailly look at toning in XXI for most silver coins; the whole point is that this coin wanted to be sold, so that is why so many ways used in order to sell it or another words simply get red of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 http://www.sixbid.com/nav.php?p=viewlot&am...01&lot=1110 An unexpected turn of events. where is a NGC sleep with a reason to be rejected ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 animated file of this ruble is ready for a cartoon network competition, as a producer, first admitted that someting wrong with some coin imagination, then got some clearance and proved that it is so nice coin, but after all concluded that not sure at all - is it tampered coin or not - no serious numismatic research on this coin done but animated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I am not so sure. I think the differences in the photos in the 2008 and 2009 sales might be due simply to differing light conditions. Here is an animated GIF file I've made using the different photos to make it easy to compare them. I think you will agree that there is no difference in the PATTERN of the toning, only in the relative brightness of the images, which could easily be the result of how the pictures were taken. Therefore, I think it is likely that the coin has not been tampered with (at least in terms of its toning). Thank you, grivna1726, for these very informative photos. I think you have proven a very good point ... as they say, "a picture is worth 1,000 words". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I am not so sure. I think the differences in the photos in the 2008 and 2009 sales might be due simply to differing light conditions. Here is an animated GIF file I've made using the different photos to make it easy to compare them. I think you will agree that there is no difference in the PATTERN of the toning, only in the relative brightness of the images, which could easily be the result of how the pictures were taken. Therefore, I think it is likely that the coin has not been tampered with (at least in terms of its toning). It is possible as well. The bottom line (and my point ) was that the coin is pretty decent and better than the NCS "devil" label says. The coin , IMHO, is better than "F" and was not mounted. Thanks, grivna1726, for nice animation ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Thank you, grivna1726, for these very informative photos. I think you have proven a very good point ... as they say, "a picture is worth 1,000 words". this cartoon photo proves nothing as to hide what was detected and rejected by NGC first, but not disclosed over here, then submitted to NCS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 It is possible as well. The bottom line (and my point ) was that the coin is pretty decent and better than the NCS "devil" label says. The coin , IMHO, is better than "F" and was not mounted. don't you get that there was a NGC rejecting reason first sent to the submiter, before graded by NCS and placed its label? give me few reasons that it was not mounted one side /or both, besides your <<<I know this coin>>>> - I do not know you and your word is just a word, unless few people exam a coin in hands! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 ...give me few reasons that it was not mounted one side /or both, besides your <<<I know this coin>>>> - I do not know you and your word is just a word, unless few people exam a coin in hands! I've owned this coin for several years before putting it for sale in 2008. Do you need more reasons ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I've owned this coin for several years before putting it for sale in 2008. Do you need more reasons ? your owning does not mean anything to me i meant that you could bring up some details and facts on a coin itself you could be one from thousands who never knew what you got Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 your owning does not mean anything to mei meant that you could bring up some details and facts on a coin itself you could be one from thousands who never knew what you got Do not think I have to reply . It is so obvious that one-kuna is not in a good mood this morning. Happy 4th of July , everyone ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 It is possible as well. The bottom line (and my point ) was that the coin is pretty decent and better than the NCS "devil" label says. The coin , IMHO, is better than "F" and was not mounted. Thanks, grivna1726, for nice animation ! Bobh and Loyal Citizen, You are both welcome. Thank you especially to Loyal Citizen for posting the earlier photo, which gives a basis for comparison. After carefully examining both of the pictures, I see no evidence of tampering or mount removal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 After carefully examining both of the pictures, I see no evidence of tampering or mount removal if you cannot see it - that's OK - leave along, it is not your part, leave it for rest, but do not say there is nothing because of myself but there is, you take opposite site whatever it is wrong but against me - go ahead, make sure you get your 2000 points for writing nonsense posts before a summer off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 to be realistic - this coin should be graded as VF-XF but not about XF only who knows that scratches are old one can consider scratches old as ten years another - fifty or a hundred another point is that if this coin costs $350 back to ten years ago, would you buy it let say with these scrathches only ? probably not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 very best way to see the whole deep of these scratches is open auction XVIII catalog not a website image and observe long and pretty deep scratches and 5 o'cklock mount removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I've owned this coin for several years before putting it for sale in 2008. for you it is hard to believe what you have owned, don't get mad at me, reverse your mood to a person who sold you this coin i want you to be realistic and do not follow a nonsense posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I would like to interject the following observation regarding the "toning" issue. 1. Having viewed the unsold lots from the 2009 NY SALE in person, and having well studied the catalog both on-line and in print, I can say unequivocely that the photography for this sale was HORRIBLE and not up to usual catalog standards. The photos are darker, saturated, and the white balance (color accuracy) is all over the map, with coins that are cool grey looking warm golden toned, and vice versa. I personally bid on and won a copper coin that was particularly badly photographed, fortunately it was much better in hand. I would absolutely not evaluate a toning comparison based on these auction photos. No way. Grivna1726's excellent graphic illustrates this. One could easily change digital camera settings or photoshop correction settings to make the two images IDENTICAL. Different camera settings, different lighting, different automatic color correction etc. must be considered here. Only those have handled the coin prior to and after the apparent toning can make this call. and HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!!! GO OUT AND GRILL UP SOME FOOD, HAVE SOME BEER AND GET OFF THE COMPUTER!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 as you here take a look on 5 o'clock when cartoon runs and note a rectangle which is a typical trace from mount removed, plus be aware of the modern jewelers who could moved it out with minimum or no trace of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 above was a confession for sure that his coin was re-toned, i hope you get why; so between two sales the owner of coin agreed that firm can do a toning to help a sale; now it is obvious that ugly toning made before auction was removed after; photography is a proof that silver coins were toned but not copper and that is why images looks so ugly even that was a professional photographer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Has anyone, including Loyal Citizen, handled the actual coin in person, before and after the alleged "toning" ? If this discussion regarding toning is based soley on the substandard photos of the 2009 NY Sale catalog, I rest my case. Can anyone else comment on photos vs. reality for this catalog? Ippocampos? Were your coins accurately represented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Has anyone, including Loyal Citizen, handled the actual coin in person, before and after the alleged "toning" ? If this discussion regarding toning is based soley on the substandard photos of the 2009 NY Sale catalog, I rest my case. Can anyone else comment on photos vs. reality for this catalog? Ippocampos? Were your coins accurately represented? As I have already mentioned, I'd owned this coin before January 2008 Sale. After double-checking the nice compare photos posted earlier by grivna1726, I think that the color of the coin was not changed between 2008 and 2009 sales. Also, I'm absolutely sure that the new owner(after 2008 sale) and/or the auction house would never artificially alter its appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grivna1726 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Also, I'm absolutely sure that the new owner(after 2008 sale) and/or the auction house would never artificially alter its appearance. I believe that any reasonable and fair-minded person would reach the same conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 As I have already mentioned, I'd owned this coin before January 2008 Sale. After double-checking the nice compare photos posted earlier by grivna1726, I think that the color of the coin was not changed between 2008 and 2009 sales. Also, I'm absolutely sure that the new owner(after 2008 sale) and/or the auction house would never artificially alter its appearance. <<<<<Well, I know for sure , this coin was retoned.>>>>>>this your earlier post.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.