I can't believe you would use the argument about it being "truer" to the original color with regard to the background, but not mention that awful black stuff around the edges (as if that's somehow "truer" to the original).  I'm also curious as to what method you used to compare the sharpness, since I merely compared them side by side, and saw that in crispness, they're identical.  Again, yours is larger, but that's because I deliberately used a smaller image because the Fair Use Rationale requires that such images be no larger than (IIRC) 300px.  Yours is labeled 300px in the Fair Use Rational Template ts image page, but that label is incorrect, because right below the image it says that it's 400 x 600-something. We're lucky some other editor or bot hasn't come and tagged it as inappropriate because of that.  That's why I used a 300px image, so I wonder if that's what you're basing this on.  Anyway, I photoshopped your version to remove the blackness at the edges, and the green smudginess from the lower half of the image, to make it more "gold".  I also credited you on th e page to which I uploaded this newest version. I hope that's a good compromise. Thing is, since it's a modification of your image, it's still more than 300px, so let's hope we don't get tagged for it.  If we do, we'll have to put an Image Reduction Request tag on it.