How accurate coin photography can add 2K to a coin's value
shylock
Posts: 4,288 ✭✭✭
Sold by Heritage just recently, 1864 Copper Nickel PCGS MS 66 for $11,500.
More accuartely imaged by Anaconda/Poorguy, 1864 Copper Nickel PCGS MS 66 asking $13,500.
Poorguy nailed it, whoever consigned it to Heritage must be scratching their head.
Heritage vs. Anaconda images.
More accuartely imaged by Anaconda/Poorguy, 1864 Copper Nickel PCGS MS 66 asking $13,500.
Poorguy nailed it, whoever consigned it to Heritage must be scratching their head.
Heritage vs. Anaconda images.
Paul <> altered surfaces <> CoinGallery.org
0
Comments
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
if it aint gold , my wallet dont get that wide tho
Only those who viewed it in person can say for sure. I think it's somewhere in between the two photos.
<< <i>The devil's advocate of this post asks: which is the true look of this coin?
Only those who viewed it in person can say for sure. I think it's somewhere in between the two photos. >>
Here's a resized image of my original raw image that I took to crop out the obverse. Anyone who saw this coin in-hand will agree that it's a stunner!
The color of the label is right considering the harsh lighting angle you used.
You now officially nailed this image in my eyes. Adrian should give you a raise.
<< <i>I'm scratching my head and wondering why anyone with a coin with ANY attractive coloring would bother with having Heritage sell it for them. Their images might as well be black and white. >>
For the same reason the full-page ad guys in Coin World have been around as long as they have and can afford those ads, Littleton thrives, and the TV coin shows exist. There are a lot of people buying coins who have no clue.
Only those who viewed it in person can say for sure. I think it's somewhere in between the two photos.
Hey, they did a great job. The above words are the simple truth. We all try hard, some do it better, some like me, not good at all. No one I've met, heard about, or even expect to meet is foolish eneough to claim perfection.
Can you imagine the moral obligation, the stress of trying to acheive that impossible goal of the "perfect" reproduction. Takes guts and talent to even get close. jmo. jws
It usually takes me one shot of the obverse and one shot of the reverse.
I'm obsessive and can't sleep right at night if I settle for an image that looks "ok". There are several on our site that still keep me up at night because I was so busy and had to settle with just "ok".
Dang your good.
Insomania; welcome to my world.
Photo is very nice but I am more than sure that many dealers and collectors viewed the coin in person not just by photo. So, I guess I am confused by how a new photograph makes it worth more? sounds like dealer markup to me which is absolutely fine but it;s still the same coin that I am sure was viewed many times in person.
There are a few very tiny specks in both photos, same coin for sure
to the right of one on the reverse
tucked in the space between the headdress at about 2;oclock
and a very faint cheek mark more prominent in the first photo than the second
No argument from me on the above. Heck, it's probably true.
Bob Dylan said it, so don't blame me. The Times They Are A Changing. At least I think he sang it. Could be wrong.
It's my opinion that those who can accurately depict a coin and do, will win. The brave new world is here. jmo. jws
<< <i>It is true that the second picture depicts the coin in "more favorable light". It is also true that the coin was seen by many eyes in the auction review process. In the offsight bidding world it only takes 2 bidders to drive the price of a coin up. Few would argue that the second picture made a nice coin look terrific. In this way pictoral marketing means a lot. This coin was worth $13000 on that day to that auction winner. It would be interesting to know if the winners on both occassions saw the coin in person or only the image. >>
We bought the coin at the auction. When we viewed lots, this coin stood out as exceptional and we compared it to the image provided which didn't even HINT that the coin had such incredible eye appeal. Maybe that kept some from bidding, maybe it didn't.
It is true that the second picture depicts the coin in "more favorable light".
You make it sound like it doesn't look like our image in-hand, which I don't like one bit. The coin is accurately represented in our image and I believe I provided enough proof to that effect. How Heritage images their coin is their perogative. I feel that their image of the coin is very inaccurate and that ours is not just a "more favorable light" just because it looks better. It is actually how the coin looks.
at a price that had some potential, and imaging it for resale in a complimentary way.
This is what successful coin dealers do for a living. The only difference between this coin and the coins we all have
purchased from coin dealers is, we never have a post that linked the coin dealer's original purchase. Newsflash: coin dealers
markup coins!
Obviously this coin was viewed in person by many who saw what it really looked like. One dealer pulled the trigger on it.
Perhaps in the back of his mind was "I have a photographer who can nail this coin"?
Anyway, this was only meant to be an educational look at how the retail coin market works. My apologizes to Brandon
and Adrian if it hurt your coin listing in any way. (Which I doubt it did).
<< <i>
<< <i>The devil's advocate of this post asks: which is the true look of this coin?
Only those who viewed it in person can say for sure. I think it's somewhere in between the two photos. >>
Here's a resized image of my original raw image that I took to crop out the obverse. Anyone who saw this coin in-hand will agree that it's a stunner!
W0w I would love to see this in person. These are the two hardest colors to get on a coin and keep.
Just a truly fantastic looking coin.
Check my ebay BIN or Make Offers!!
Get a clue.
AL