I found the 1969 - S DDO Lincoln cent. LOL, JK but Seriously Need help photo grading. 0

[Marquez-Collector]

I couldn't help myself with the DDO Question

But in all seriousness, I am trying to get better at the hobby and one thing would be to get better at grading so I can go out and buy real collection worthy coins. If I'm to spend serious coin on a nice collectible, I would like to know what I am buying. I guess i am in the crossroads between focusing on errors and just buying awesome looking coins. 

With that, I will start with cents as I favor them like I do Jefferson nickels. Anyway. I am going to say that this 1969 - S Lincoln cent could grade ast AU - 58 if not an MS60 perhaps? 

I think there is enough damage to the count to make it an MS60 and could grade as low as AU 50. so maybe a solid AU50 to be on the safe side. 

What do you all think? 

P.S. I can post better pictures later today. 

[VKurtB]

"Need help photo grading."

 

You, me, and literally every other person on the planet. Grading by photos is a "fool's errand". Pictures aren't good enough. The coin must be seen in the hand and tilted under a standardized light. Ever wonder why the companies don't offer opinions either online and won't offer grades at show? Lack of the right viewing conditions. That said, based on what I can see here, which is not enough, I'd be at maybe MS63, perhaps 64, depending on how bad those obverse dings look under a proper light. It could even go to 62, if they look worse under that light.

[Coinbuf]

Grading coins from on-line photos is like voodoo, no science and a lot of guesswork.   That's because camera angle, type and position of lighting can be manipulated to hide flaws and luster breaks.  The coin you have posted doesn't show any luster breaks that I can see in the pic, however there are a number of severe hits and bag marks in the prime focal areas which limit the commercial grade to a max of MS62 imo.  And I would personally grade it as MS60, a very acceptable coin for an album but not a coin that I would consider submitting for grading.

[Marquez-Collector]

2 hours ago, VKurtB said:

standardized light

Ok, So i can do this with incandescent light bulbs at home? I might not want to as far as to looking at it in a dark room under a lamp yet, but perhaps in the future. any wattage type? 

 

41 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

luster breaks

When you say luster breaks, do you mean like a water stain or whatever type of stain?  

I thank you both @VKurtB and @Coinbuf for your input. I understand that photograding is very challenging and I appreciate it. Personally, I think the coins look better in had than in the pictures I post. Perhaps I should post videos doing the cartwheel thing.

Thanks again. 

[VKurtB]

So far, the standard light for numismatics is a bulb that one political end of the spectrum is trying to make illegal - the 100W traditional incandescent bulb. In a simple moveable fixture of the type used at coin shows. Try to find them at retail. It ain't easy. And no, LED's are NOT equivalent for the purpose.

A luster break is an interruption of the "flow lines" while the coin is being tilted.

Not to you, Duke, you understand this, but many here do not. There IS a right way and a wrong way to do this hobby. You need to learn the standards, and FOLLOW them, if you want to make this anything more than a momentary fling. "Do your own thing" does NOT apply here. Standards are in place and professionals and serious collectors use them. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to adopt them.

Edited January 8, 2020 by VKurtB

[Rummy13]

29 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

So far, the standard light for numismatics is a bulb that one political end of the spectrum is trying to make illegal - the 100W traditional incandescent bulb. In a simple moveable fixture of the type used at coin shows. Try to find them at retail. It ain't easy. And no, LED's are NOT equivalent for the purpose.

A luster break is an interruption of the "flow lines" while the coin is being tilted.

Not to you, Duke, you understand this, but many here do not. There IS a right way and a wrong way to do this hobby. You need to learn the standards, and FOLLOW them, if you want to make this anything more than a momentary fling. "Do your own thing" does NOT apply here. Standards are in place and professionals and serious collectors use them. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to adopt them.

A few of us are trying to learn "the standards" and make a nice coin collection. They are not so easy to understand some of them. With all the dang fake coins and people that just want to make money its not so easy. I have a lot of circulated coins along with proof sets and mint sets. I still find it hard to tell how to grade some of the coins I find. good, vg or fine and vf or Eu and BU. Even reading and looking at books it is just hard to tell some thing apart.

[Six Mile Rick]

I agree with Kurt on the grade 64 red (or lower). Incandescent light and rolling is very important in searching for submission quality. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Six Mile Rick

[bsshog40]

It's all good advice above, so I can't really add to it. If I were to guess with your pics, I'm in the MS60-61 grade. 

[VKurtB]

13 hours ago, bsshog40 said:

It's all good advice above, so I can't really add to it. If I were to guess with your pics, I'm in the MS60-61 grade. 

That's a wee bit harsh, IMO. 60 and 61 are now reserved for some truly hogged up coins that still qualify as Mint State. It wasn't that way 25 years ago.

Edited January 9, 2020 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

16 hours ago, Rummy13 said:

A few of us are trying to learn "the standards" and make a nice coin collection. They are not so easy to understand some of them. With all the dang fake coins and people that just want to make money its not so easy. I have a lot of circulated coins along with proof sets and mint sets. I still find it hard to tell how to grade some of the coins I find. good, vg or fine and vf or Eu and BU. Even reading and looking at books it is just hard to tell some thing apart.

Yes, that's the thing about this hobby; there is an awful lot to learn, more than you can imagine. I've been at it 57 years and I'm still learning. I'm going to a show in New York soon specifically to learn more.

[Marquez-Collector]

Video on the cartwheel method. Please tell me if I am doing this correctly. (Obverse)

https://youtu.be/mZTAXoUEJLE

 

and this is one is of the Reverse

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Dukemnm

[VKurtB]

Not bad, try to make the lighter part of the reflection "roll all the way around" the coin. It takes a little practice. I used to be good at it before my stroke ruined my right hand small muscle manual dexterity. My signature now is a hot mess.

[Crawtomatic]

20 hours ago, VKurtB said:

the 100W traditional incandescent bulb. ..... And no, LED's are NOT equivalent for the purpose.

For the record, I've seen other discussions to the contrary.  Yes, the 100W incandescent is the standard.  But that's most likely predicated on it being the best option available for a great deal of the 20th century.  Perhaps oil lamps were preferred over candles which were preferred over the light from a hearth at some point but we progress.

From a physics perspective, light (being both a wave & a particle) cares not the source it came from once it exists.  Perhaps the quality of light output on early generation LED bulbs was insufficient and gave rise to the "LEDs are not equivalent" statement.  I'm thinking if you could match the wavelength and lumens output of the 100W incandescent on an LED bulb we wouldn't notice a difference.  Perhaps there's even room for improvement and we'll discover there's a better range of producible light that could/should be the standard.  Incandescent lighting is just a controlled combustion event in an oxygen-less environment.  It's cheap & simple which also tends to lend itself to becoming a "standard".

btw, I prefer spermaceti whale oil in my lamps.  None of that cheap lard oil the pleebs use to look at their corroded farthings. 

[Marquez-Collector]

24 minutes ago, CRAWTOMATIC said:

btw, I prefer spermaceti whale oil in my lamps.  None of that cheap lard oil the pleebs use to look at their corroded farthings. 

25 minutes ago, CRAWTOMATIC said:

  I'm thinking if you could match the wavelength and lumens output of the 100W incandescent on an LED bulb we wouldn't notice a difference

would we have to match color? it could be easy to match the lumens output from LED lighting, but it will still be whiter than regular incandescent light. Which I think is more to a yellowish tone.

 

[Marquez-Collector]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

Not bad, try to make the lighter part of the reflection "roll all the way around" the coin. It takes a little practice. I used to be good at it before my stroke ruined my right hand small muscle manual dexterity. My signature now is a hot mess.

Thanks, 

Maybe I can try latex gloves instead of cotton, they are too slippery. 

 

[Crawtomatic]

7 minutes ago, Dukemnm said:

but it will still be whiter than regular incandescent light

Not necessarily.  There's literally thousands of options available in LED lighting currently across all lumens and color temperature ranges.  https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/led-light-bulbs/

I wasn't intending to champion for LED lighting, per se.  Only stating that it's worth reconsidering every so often and not discounting it outright.  The technology is still improving, whereas, incandescent has peaked (I think?).  If a suitable LED option doesn't exist then all it takes is for somebody to create it specific to numismatics if they so choose.  Calling back to my cheap & simple lends itself to a standard comment, I feel that's the key.  A scalable solution that could be readily accessed & replaced.