CRAWTOMATIC

Member
  • Content Count

    482
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

1 Follower

Personal Information

  • Location
    Garland, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

680 profile views
  1. I mean, if the US Mint says coins are stamped and not minted I guess we can stop correcting all the newbies about correct terminology, eh? https://www.usmint.gov/learn/kids/games/coin-stamper?cm_mmc=ExactTarget-_-Campaign-_-20200831LTMCAugust-_-Making+Change&utm_source=Campaign&utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_content=Making+Change&utm_campaign=20200831LTMCAugust&cm_mmca1=Newsletter&cm_mmca2=LessonsThatMakeCents&cm_mmca3=August&cc= By the way, I'm just making fat stacks of coins with this. Got the auto-stamper machine upgrade and solving the coin shortage problem myself, y'all. Review: 2/5 Pretty lame game. But it's got coins.
  2. I thought you stated earlier that any submitter for crossover of a lower tier TPG would be sorely disappointed if they didn't submit it raw? I feel like that statement implies a level of caring that this statement discredits.
  3. If I submit a lower tier 3rd party holdered coin I leave it in the holder and let NGC crack it out. I know it'll be considered raw but since I don't crack out holders every day I leave that bit to somebody more experienced.
  4. No personal opinion on the coin but here's an article by NGC about counterfeit detection of the Pilgrim published in 2016. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/5579/counterfeit-1920-pilgrim-tercentenary-commemorative/
  5. If that's rim damage from 4 o'clock to 6 o'clock on the reverse that'll eliminate a straight grade as well. Hard to tell if it's just a picture cropping issue though.
  6. That would be my presumption as well, that you'd need a specimen map for each date/mint. That approach would apply if you're talking about the ultrasound mapping, photograding, or in hand grading, correct?
  7. Now to really hijack this thread and focus more on the seller. I sell on eBay, others here as well, but I don't juice up images or make claims about the coins I list. I don't need that type of stress in my life. But based on this thread on coin community from September 2019 he had 6,279 positive reviews/stars. So in less than a year he's received positive rating on an additional 6,302 items (currently sits at 12,581 stars). Where he has 46 pages of "As a Buyer feedback" there's 1,099 "As a Seller". https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=354987 There's items in his shop I'd buy but most I'd scroll right past. I can't knock him too bad. He's obviously putting in the work. And is it really his fault a fool and his money are soon parted?
  8. @VKurtB would be happy to know they're on YouTube too You have to wait for the music to really kick in, though.
  9. Good digging. I'm sure eBay would not side with the seller in this case but this is an awfully Red Flag type of policy to have in your listing. WE OFFER A GENEROUS 30 DAY RETURN POLICY. IF YOU CHOOSE TO SEND AN ITEM TO A THIRD PARTY GRADING SERVICE YOU FORFEIT THE RIGHT TO RETURN THE ITEM FOR A REFUND. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH OUR POLICY PLEASE DO NOT PLACE ANY BIDS ON OUR ITEMS!
  10. I like this approach for a new perspective. Instead of focusing on how to take a picture of a coin then program a machine to grade that picture we instead measure & map a coin and base the grade on that result. There's a couple of methods available to measure reflectivity which could be used for PL, DPL designation I presume. What about luster? Is that a lower range of reflectivity? Or a measure of diffused reflectivity? One gate could be needing a specimen coin for each series, year, mintmark on which subsequent coins are compared. This may not always be possible with the early series. As more "specimen" coins are mapped for a series you can identify standard deviations, revise the standard, and measure deviation from the standard. Sub-grading: strike, luster, a Prooflike scale, etc...
  11. Forgive me, but I was only thinking of it's use from the perspective of a TPG to automate their grading process prior to encapsulation. Or to provide that post-grading QA phase like Big Nub referred to. For the record, I've always preferred two-pass blind verification systems in data capture processes - as if y'all cared. But as an application outside of the TPG environment is tempting. Like a tabletop box that could be used to grade a coin whether to sell it raw or determine likelihood of TPG results. I use an HP G4050 scanner at home currently which is about 20x14x5. The lighting is awful for coins but great for high quality photo & stamp renderings (4800x9600 dpi). It's older tech and soooo slow on the highest setting. If a coin grading box was created it'd have to be quicker and deeper to accommodate the multiple light sources - but not nearly as long or wide. Then you'd have the created issue that while you could patent the technology you couldn't guarantee that these same end users decide to use it to slab coins themselves with the grades the coin box comes to. Unless perhaps it's an enterprise application only and there's a user agreement where could they white label it. "Craw's Grading MS-67, powered by Bernard's CoinBOX". I mean, that's a whole other thread I didn't even consider. Dang. Well, I'm off to open a shipment of coins I just got back today so I'll be pondering this. Thanks, man!
  12. The issue with the date is interesting. I feel like you could approach it from 2 angles, 1. the date is simply a design element (device) and should be graded as such, the machine doesn't need to "read" the date, or 2. the date determines the library of imagery to reference and grading parameters to work within, so the date needs to be read by the machine (or input by operator) to start the grading process. If we approached the date as a design element then the grading across a whole series becomes standardized. But I feel like that's not the case in practice, high 90s % feeling. I know the Buffalo Nickel series best and the strike quality across years varies. Some year & mintmark combinations, 1925-S for instance, anecdotally get better grade results while lacking in overall strike depth/crispness. I believe I read a similar take on the Peace dollar series with the 1921 issue. Now, I get that in practice that means we're taking into account the quality of dies used for these YYYY/MM combos. With a worn die the outcome is going to have a lower ceiling. Or maybe it was a mechanical setting that year that lowered the pressure in the press. I get it. But that certainly makes it harder to explain to a novice, or machine, why a MS-63 for one YYYY/MM does not share the same attributes as another YYYY/MM in the same series. Or I could be wrong. Not the first time.
  13. To parrot those at the beginning of the industrial revolution, a computer doesn't get sick. It doesn't take vacation. It can work continuously (save for scheduled update intervals). It doesn't require salary nor benefits. .... Glad to see that you've found joy in this @bernard55! That patent they let expire is an interesting read. I might be busy with that the rest of the afternoon.
  14. Too quick on initial response. Common on zinc cents. Plate bubbling or machine doubling, but no premium.
  15. Oh, really? But you had time to edit the post? If you have a hypothesis to share or correct answer to your riddle to reveal then do so. Otherwise you're just stirring the pot seeking attention. I don't know the series that well but I'll play the game so here's my 3 guesses. 1. Gold is soft. Higher chance for a pre-strike and/or post-strike flaw. 2. Europeans haven't embraced third party grading to the same extent so the coins may be out there raw. (purely anecdotal) 3. If we're looking at the period of 1899-1906 there were 2 world wars on the continent as well as other conflicts. If the best examples didn't leave the continent prior to the wars they faced an uphill battle being fully preserved.