Preliminary edited shots that have not been circle cropped-
Below please find three sets of images that show what a coin might look like cropped onto a solid black background, solid white background and placed onto a white background with a shadow. Each set of three images uses the identical central image that has not been manipulated to look different from background-to-background. It is my opinion that a black background makes most coins appear darker near the rims while a white background makes the edges far too sharp and makes coins look like they are cut-outs. However, the shadow around a coin on a white background gives the piece a softer edge and makes it look more like it is floating in air or that it has depth. I prefer the white background with shadow.
Following are my thoughts about the coins and possible upgrade potential. Please keep the below in mind-
1) We are looking at NGC-graded coins using the NGC grading system, but my more recent expertise is with PCGS. Therefore, I am interpreting how I believe NGC would grade these at this point in time.
2) My experience with NGC submissions from years ago is that NGC is approximately one-third point more generous than PCGS on toned, MS Roosevelt dimes and Washington quarters and that PCGS is approximately one-third point more generous on these coins than I am.
3) Some coins were shot through holders that retained scuff marks. Most photographers will either ignore scuff marks completely and assign the responsibility to remove them to their clients, or they will apply an abrasive to the holder and buff the marks out. However, I do not trust the long-term stability of the coin's surface if an abrasive is used, even if the abrasive supposedly contains no volatile organic compounds. The reason for this is that the plastic shell that forms the holder is not gas tight and will, over time, allow gas exchange from outside the slab to inside the slab. If one coats the slab with these compounds then the compounds are worked into the pores of the plastic and their outgas products will come into contact, eventually, with the coin. I do not want to hasten the degradation of a wonderful coin, so I do not use abrasives on slabs.
1946; This coin is too muted and the cheek is a bit too busy in terms of tick marks. Do not regrade (DNR).
1946-D; Obverse print, too dark and tick marks on lower torch. DNR.
1946-S; Really clean, but I think it needs more luster to upgrade. DNR.
1947; DNR.
1947-D; Great color, clean, very good luster. Nicer than an MS67. Regrade.
1947-S; Same as 1947-D. Regrade.
1948; Accurate at MS67, especially with prominent tick on jawline, but has real possibilities for MS67+. Regrade.
1948-D; Bit blotchy. DNR.
1948-S; What do they require with all-white coins? I simply don't know.
1949; Muted. DNR.
1949-D; Great color and skin; too bad about the hit on the torch. An MS67+ is a possibility. Regrade.
1949-S; Negative eye appeal. DNR.
1950; Too muted with soft luster. DNR.
1950-D; Same as 1948-S.
1951; Same as 1948-S.
1951-D; Great coin that I think falls just short of the 1949-D group, but I would still include it in a group. Regrade.
1951-S; Muddy reverse. DNR.
1952-D; DNR.
1952-S; Not enough pop. DNR.
1953-D; Reverse has negative eye appeal. DNR.
1953-S; Same as 1953-D. DNR.
1955-D; Not enough pop. DNR.
1958-D; Typical look for issue with great color and muted luster, the key is the muted luster. Still possible MS67+. Regrade.
1960-D; Reverse is lacking. DNR.
1961-D; Obverse print with reduced luster. DNR.
1962; Great color and luster. Regrade.
I would group the potential regrade coins into three categories-
Regrade; 1947-D, 1947-S.
Regrade (less confident, but still do it); 1948, 1949-D, 1950-S, 1962.
Regrade (add to larger submission); 1951-D, 1958-D.
1) We are looking at NGC-graded coins using the NGC grading system, but my more recent expertise is with PCGS. Therefore, I am interpreting how I believe NGC would grade these at this point in time.
2) My experience with NGC submissions from years ago is that NGC is approximately one-third point more generous than PCGS on toned, MS Roosevelt dimes and Washington quarters and that PCGS is approximately one-third point more generous on these coins than I am.
3) Some coins were shot through holders that retained scuff marks. Most photographers will either ignore scuff marks completely and assign the responsibility to remove them to their clients, or they will apply an abrasive to the holder and buff the marks out. However, I do not trust the long-term stability of the coin's surface if an abrasive is used, even if the abrasive supposedly contains no volatile organic compounds. The reason for this is that the plastic shell that forms the holder is not gas tight and will, over time, allow gas exchange from outside the slab to inside the slab. If one coats the slab with these compounds then the compounds are worked into the pores of the plastic and their outgas products will come into contact, eventually, with the coin. I do not want to hasten the degradation of a wonderful coin, so I do not use abrasives on slabs.
1946; This coin is too muted and the cheek is a bit too busy in terms of tick marks. Do not regrade (DNR).
1946-D; Obverse print, too dark and tick marks on lower torch. DNR.
1946-S; Really clean, but I think it needs more luster to upgrade. DNR.
1947; DNR.
1947-D; Great color, clean, very good luster. Nicer than an MS67. Regrade.
1947-S; Same as 1947-D. Regrade.
1948; Accurate at MS67, especially with prominent tick on jawline, but has real possibilities for MS67+. Regrade.
1948-D; Bit blotchy. DNR.
1948-S; What do they require with all-white coins? I simply don't know.
1949; Muted. DNR.
1949-D; Great color and skin; too bad about the hit on the torch. An MS67+ is a possibility. Regrade.
1949-S; Negative eye appeal. DNR.
1950; Too muted with soft luster. DNR.
1950-D; Same as 1948-S.
1951; Same as 1948-S.
1951-D; Great coin that I think falls just short of the 1949-D group, but I would still include it in a group. Regrade.
1951-S; Muddy reverse. DNR.
1952-D; DNR.
1952-S; Not enough pop. DNR.
1953-D; Reverse has negative eye appeal. DNR.
1953-S; Same as 1953-D. DNR.
1955-D; Not enough pop. DNR.
1958-D; Typical look for issue with great color and muted luster, the key is the muted luster. Still possible MS67+. Regrade.
1960-D; Reverse is lacking. DNR.
1961-D; Obverse print with reduced luster. DNR.
1962; Great color and luster. Regrade.
I would group the potential regrade coins into three categories-
Regrade; 1947-D, 1947-S.
Regrade (less confident, but still do it); 1948, 1949-D, 1950-S, 1962.
Regrade (add to larger submission); 1951-D, 1958-D.
Cropped and stitched shots-
Below are the coins sent to me at the end of October or early November. I shot the proof Roosevelt dimes on four occasions and thought three sets of the images were different enough to use them. Therefore, I have produced three sets of images for each proof Roosevelt. They were difficult coins to shoot given their small size, brilliant proof surfaces, cameo devices, unique toning and the fact that they were nestled into thick NGC slabs. I will post the non-proof coins first along with the merged images and then will break up the proof Roosevelt dimes according to the type of lighting I used for each group.
