Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2006 US Mint silver coin

2006 US Silver Proof

Reason: I saw this picture (I cannot remember which article I came from, unfortunately) and I just love the detail of the photo, not to mention the lack of compression artifacts and virtually no noise. All it needs is a little rotation correction and it should be good to go.
Articles this image appears in: American Silver Eagle, Silver as an investment, US coin sizes
Creator: United States Mint
Nominator: Ataricom

Support — Ataricom 01:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that this would make a great featured picture. --¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. False lighting, laughable contrast... looks more like concept art than an actual coin --⁪froth^{T C} 03:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Contrast cranked to the hilt ≠ featured picture quality. And does the coin really say "Ingod Wetrust"? ~ trialsanderrors 08:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fake lighting, doesn't look natural. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the reason it looks unnatural is because the blank background areas of the coin have been cut out and replaced with that wavy gradient. Just to make it look neater, I suppose... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'd like to see a version without the fake-looking transition between the light and dark areas of the coin. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For the same reasons Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/United_States_Quarter and Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/South_Dakota_State_Quarter failed. Chicago god 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor support; is it me, or do I think that the extremely high detail makes it look a little...unnatural? -- Alt iris Exeunt 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The coin looks a bit too thick. Ilikefood 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Severe Oppose - I rather have naturally toned coins than Computer enhanced coinage. Posting an example (The Half Dollar pic) to prove my point. Theres no substitute to natural tonage done by mother nature and father time. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YSupport Proof coins do look different. How about Jan. 2nd's POTD? ilikeFood, the coin is actually is thick. Reywas92^Talk_{Sign Here} 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This Trade Dollar is a Proof coin (see pic) and is completely natural and somewhat enhances the beatuy of the coin. While better examples exist, it illustrates the point that such beauty can be had if your willing to be patient. The US Mint's "doctored" proofs are too unnatural looking and aren't really an accurate representation of their real life counterparts. I mean, can you say, with 100% certainty, that the US Mint will give you a coin just like in the picture? Not really. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments at Lincoln cent. ~ trialsanderrors 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YSupport Looks good to me. I like the contrast too. Makes me want to have one in my hand.Mactographer 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]