PCGS submissions, Grading Opinions

markn · February 04, 2015, 08:10:49 PM

Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='66489' dateline='1423041341'is the compression setting in the camera?

Digital cameras work by putting light through a lens into a charged coupled device which produces a raw digital image. They then process the raw image into some sort of usable digital format like JPG (though a lot of cameras can give you RAW images too). The settings they use to create the JPG images are usually configurable. And one of those settings is compression. Steve's images of that half penny show compression artifacts. I have no idea if if his camera allows it to be tweaked or not. But if he did tweak it I bet he'd get better images.

stevo1962 · February 04, 2015, 08:33:38 PM

I reduced the pixels to see if that makes a difference

robbiegal · February 04, 2015, 08:54:50 PM

yep a bit better
my camera has image sizes 3m - 14 m and on the large sizes the picture is a monster - so then I reduce the pixcels etc. to make it smaller then it gets really crappy

the compression option in my camera is normal or fine - I tis set on normal but I have never adjusted it

so I have found that if I start by reducing the image in the camera it is less hassle to reduce the size etc and I think the picture remains a bit clearer

stevo1962 · February 04, 2015, 09:04:18 PM

Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='66493' dateline='1423045490'yep a bit better
my camera has image sizes 3m - 14 m and on the large sizes the picture is a monster - so then I reduce the pixcels etc. to make it smaller then it gets really crappy

the compression option in my camera is normal or fine - I tis set on normal but I have never adjusted it

so I have found that if I start by reducing the image in the camera it is less hassle to reduce the size etc and I think the picture remains a bit clearer

My camera is on my phone and I set it to the lowest level (2.4m) and
couldn't see any other way to make it smaller apart from externally compressing it

Fordprefect · February 04, 2015, 09:08:42 PM

Steve's "camera" is a Samsung Galaxy phone, not a point & shoot camera.

The image Data Exif info suggests the Original Image as sized at 2049X1152
resized to 512X288 (Squeezed way too much) then resized to 1075X1048.

Way too much resizing going on leaving holes (Artifacts as Mark has stated)

robbiegal · February 04, 2015, 09:40:37 PM

I wuz hoping that you'd come along fordie

yes, when I resize my big pictures right down they become really unclear but sometimes I don't really know how to do the resizing to make them smaller for loading up say on here but, since I have started using the forum gallery & load up there first then paste the link into the post that i'm doing
I have found that I don't have to make the pictures so small

hope I am making sense

Fordprefect · February 04, 2015, 09:47:41 PM

I'll put up a little "Simple Coin Cropping" over yonder.
Getting way of topic for this area. :angel:

robbiegal · February 04, 2015, 09:56:38 PM

cheers - that will be appreciated by the likes of Steve and myself

but I beg to differ about being off topic as the thread is about grading from people's loaded photos and/or pasted links to seller photos and sometimes - well a lot of the time I really can't see the surfaces well enough to comment

markn · February 05, 2015, 07:25:34 AM

Quote from: 'Fordprefect' pid='66495' dateline='1423046322'Steve's "camera" is a Samsung Galaxy phone, not a point & shoot camera.

The image Data Exif info suggests the Original Image as sized at 2049X1152
resized to 512X288 (Squeezed way too much) then resized to 1075X1048.

Way too much resizing going on leaving holes (Artifacts as Mark has stated)

Good sleuthing FP.

stevo1962 · February 11, 2015, 11:30:53 AM

Sent a 1964m chocolate penny to PCGS as a speculator thinking it might make MS65 but unfortunately it fell just short.It must have been close or possibly the carbon streaks held it back

http://www.pcgs.com/Cert/31353934.html

oh my florin · February 11, 2015, 12:28:05 PM

That is a beautiful coin stevo. The chocolate toning (with lustre underneath) and the clarity of the leaves are certainly highlights of the coin.

stevo1962 · February 11, 2015, 01:23:02 PM

Thanks OMF the photos don't do it justice

spraggdean23 · February 11, 2015, 08:47:22 PM

Nice coin stevo. Here is one that I had graded a while ago that I think graded less than I thought it would perhaps due to carbon streaking.

http://www.pcgs.com/Cert/29282887.html

stevo1962 · February 11, 2015, 09:06:40 PM

Quote from: 'spraggdean23' pid='66806' dateline='1423649842'Nice coin stevo. Here is one that I had graded a while ago that I think graded less than I thought it would perhaps due to carbon streaking.

http://www.pcgs.com/Cert/29282887.html

Nice purple toning on that one.They have to be pretty good to
make MS65

trout · February 11, 2015, 09:34:41 PM

QuoteThey're not by definition specimen strikes. For a coin to be a proof or specimen, it must be labeled such by the issuing mint. The Wedding set coins are called Gem Uncirculated by the RAM which makes them Uncirculated business strikes (and thus an MS holder).

That being said PCGS will follow the market and the Aussie market often calls them specimen strikes,

PCGS MAY be considering this submission as SP as they normally call these coins "World Modern" but this time on my list of submissions they are listed as "Modern Issues"

We will find out in a few weeks when they have been graded and I will post the results here :ok: