Charliemouse

33 minutes ago, iacabu said:

I do love seeing these extreme close ups, great thread.

What magnification are these taken at? 

Difficult to be precise.  The closest this lens focuses is about 12mm, which gives a stated magnification of 700x.  I take these figures with a bit of a pinch of salt though, and it obviously depends what monitor you view it on.

A more useful measure is what distance the image covers on the subject.  The image of George's head is about 1.5mm x 1mm.

49 minutes ago, Spyder said:

Any chance of doing a Gillick and some earlier Victoria though George V to see how things have gone down hill 

Here's a couple of Gillicks.  First year and last year.  Sadly, only bullion.

1958 Bullion Full Sovereign

1968 Bullion Full Sovereign

Amazingly, I think there is more definition in these faces than in the 2015 proof above.  Of course the finish is not as good with bullion, but it makes you wonder.

35 minutes ago, NGMD said:

Do you have any close up shots of alternatives mints? Be good to see their process on magnified details.

Which do you mean?  The previous two were Perth and Canada.  They are the only proof coins I have with the Pistrucci design, to compare George's head like with like.

I am happy to photograph anything I've got with the microscope, but I don't have proofs going further back than the 1980's.

2 minutes ago, James32 said:

Die has been laser etched? Or a dwarf with a teeny weeny hammer did it.

It's always the leprechauns.  🤣

1 hour ago, DdraigAur said:

Very interesting topic. Would those neat striations on the Canadian coin indicate the die was somehow CNC/machine finished?

I have no idea.  Hopefully someone with more coin minting knowledge can answer.

In the meantime, here are some more pics.  Including some missing 'frosting'.

For scale, those digits are approximately 1.5mm tall.  That makes the 'striations' about 50 microns wide.

2 minutes ago, ZRPMs said:

It makes you wonder if the dies are being produced with less quality as part of an overall cost cutting exercise or are we loosing a craft to mechanism. You'd think with todays tech you could almost increase the quality of the detail. Look at the Great Engravers series. The originals were made with far better detail. 

It's a valid point.  I do not have any old proof sovereigns, so I cannot go further back.

But I can compare modern proof coins from other mints, even if it isn't like-for-like.

1 hour ago, ZRPMs said:

And that's progress right there for you. I think the detail gets better the further back you go.

Agreed.  The frosting gets more 'frosty' as time moves forward (and more holes), but the definition of the face and detail gets worse.

What is especially noticeable is that, with the 1984, I could not keep the whole face in focus because the relief was so much higher.  The later coins, especially the 2015, are flatter and easily focused.

44 minutes ago, Petra said:

But are they defects? Will you ever get a coin at that magnification without any marks? With the normal naked eye these are normal everyday coins…. no ‘defects’. Naked eye see issues … fine, send back. Just enjoy your coin!🤔😮😁😁

I think we are now arguing semantics (not where I wanted this thread to go, but there).

They are defects only in that they are imperfections, not intended or part of the design, but artefacts of manufacture.  Of course no coin is going to be perfect, so by that definition all coins have defects.

Other possible definitions of 'defect':

1. It can be seen unaided.
2. It can be seen with a certain magnification (such as graders do).
3. You can see it and care about it.

All of these definitions are subjective, as different people have different eyesight, skills and standards.

That's why I put the word 'defect' in quotes.

1984

1986

2015

35 minutes ago, Spyder said:

Looking at any coin through a microscope will show up defects, there is no perfect coin at that magnification. 

Exactly my point.

I am just interested in what these 'defects' are and how they happen.

Just now, Petra said:

🤔that’s great, buy the 69s and get em out their slabs🤔😮😁

I do buy 69s because I can get real bargains.  But when you grade something new and it comes back 69, it's marginal whether it was worth the time and money.  The market only seems to want 70s.

59 minutes ago, Petra said:

🤔👍actually great pictures, very interesting! I think if I had something to look this closely at coins it would make me paranoid 🤔😁

Sadly, the world we live in now is one where visible perfection isn't good enough. It has to be perfect at 5x to get that precious 70 grade. The step down in value to 69 is ridiculous.

1 hour ago, Petra said:

So putting things in to perspective, how big are those holes in the frosting 😮🤔🤔

Take the image of the Panther's jaw, picture 4.  The entire image is about 1.5mm wide by 1mm tall.  The frosting hole is just visible to the naked eye if you look for it.

In contrast, the Yale's tongue in image 5 is about 1mm long, so that image is about 5x3mm.  You can tell it is zoomed out as the frosting appears finer.

To be clear, I am not complaining about these.  Plenty of other threads for that.  None are visible without very close inspection.

I am more interested in sharing the images and learning.

3 hours ago, paulmerton said:

I'd be interested if you see this sort of thing on many of the modern proofs - This was on a 2022 Platinum Jubilee proof sovereign and you can see where the upper die has shifted slightly between each of the 3 strikes, giving it a multi struck effect. The obverse doesn't show this effect at all.

I doubt it's notable enough to be called an error but it's one of my "special" coins regardless as it was struck halfway through 2023, making it quite possibly the last one ever struck!

I'm certain I have seen it.  Will find some interesting examples, and probably create a new thread to discuss.

Such detailed description.

Such a lovely coin.

That, sir, is a belter.

On 11/02/2024 at 12:36, James32 said:

Better not be a goat with wings.

I wish you'd shut up sometimes.  Seems like they followed your suggestion.  🤣

There is no doubt that's an ugly dragon.  There are many other dragons, even this year, that are far more attractive than that.

But it is in keeping with the design of the symbols outside Hampton Court Palace.  There very little modern design aesthetic here - very 'crude'.

Need I remind you of the Tudor Yale, that looks like it fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

16 minutes ago, AOB said:

I’m last person to chat about proof coins etc, as only started last year getting bits and pieces - I think the lettering on the edge is cool on the 2oz & 5oz Silver..

I secured 2oz, I think the 5oz is bit rich for me tbf - I’m looking at the 2oz as a gamble.. oh and the gold is for the likes of @James32 😂😂

In principle I like to go for the larger one.  They are lower mintages, but ultimately (long term) that means value.  But they are harder to shift, and a bigger risk up front.  The GE's have been very hit-or-miss, so risk is a strong consideration.  Bet the 5oz is lovely in hand though.

1 hour ago, James32 said:

Big thanks to @arshimo2012 @kneehow2018 and @Webster

I hope you pay your postie's medical bills.

59 minutes ago, Silverlocks said:

Oooo. That's luverly.  Maklouf portrait.

The relief really does stand out on those photos.  What have you got reflecting in the background?

 

Just my standard 3 light setup.  It's all white light at 5000K, so the colour is coming from the coin.

I just play with the angles until it looks pretty.  😊

21 minutes ago, Petra said:

🤔mmm… great looking coin! Any more in slabs can we see the whole thing so we know what it is/grade etc. ? 🤔🤔

I don't usually photograph the whole thing, mainly because you lose a load of detail with the wasted space, but also I don't want to show the serial unless I'm selling it.

Although, I forgot to title the last two photos.  Will fix.