Options
Trueview Photos for every coin. Lets take a poll and discuss it.
tombr
Posts: 863 ✭✭
I was thinking how great it would be to have EVERY coin graded by PCGS include a "Trueview Image". Let see what it might take to see this happen.
I have had several coins Trueviewed and I think PCGS does a marvelous job. I would think the quality of the images would not be an issue here. Think what this could for the industry. A visual record of everything graded. What would we the customers be willing to give in return for this service? Should the grading fees remain the same or increase, and by what amount? If you have ever tried to take a picture of your coins, you know how frustrating it can be at times. Coin photography is truly a talent. I now open the floodgates and let the debate begin.
I have had several coins Trueviewed and I think PCGS does a marvelous job. I would think the quality of the images would not be an issue here. Think what this could for the industry. A visual record of everything graded. What would we the customers be willing to give in return for this service? Should the grading fees remain the same or increase, and by what amount? If you have ever tried to take a picture of your coins, you know how frustrating it can be at times. Coin photography is truly a talent. I now open the floodgates and let the debate begin.
0
Comments
would be great to have for research purposes and to prevent fraud, just not exactly sure the best way to implement it.
in any event, there should be a place to request trueview on the submission form because I just sent in my first order and didn't see it anywhere! so I really don't know how much it currently costs or if it's only available on certain coins or upon special request. I just know that I really like the photos when they get posted here
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>I believe pcgs only has one photographer. >>
Phil would quit!!!!!
I can't find myself deciding on what to vote for right now, but would rather express my opinions to this idea. I think it would make great use of coin identification (mainly for coins prior to 1900, with some exceptions for coins post that date), but I think it lacks practicality at this point. I've never had any of my coins tru-viewed, but as I understand it there is only one person who currently photographs the coins. At this rate and under this new idea the submission orders would be backed up way too long. There would need to be at least two more photographers of equal talent to capture the same essence in the coins. After this is implemented I imagine that orders could run fairly smoothly.
I noted that coins prior to 1900 would be easiest to identify because these are coins withdrawn from general circulation, are fewer in number than those post-1900, and have more easily identifiable markers on the coin surface. I don't see many modern coins, such as ASE's, post-64's, and high-grade 68's, 69's and 70's benefitting from this service since most of these coins look generally the same (to some degree or another).
Now regarding price, I would think that this would be the greatest issue submitters would face. This would tack on, likely, an additional $5-7 (maybe more) charge for each service submission. For the lower cost submission tiers I would think the tru-view would be of a nuisance since the coin being submitted might not be worth the effort. On the other hand, I feel that this service would benefit for coins valued at or above $1000 (a substancial amount of money to many collectors). I guess having coins below the $1000 mark would have an optional tru-view service fee attached if the customer would want it included or not.
It would be cool if PCGS could create some sort of "Tru-View Package Deal". Where you submit your order (say 10 or more coins), and you want all your coins Tru-Viewed. Instead of paying the standard flat rate, the customer might save 10%, or 20%, from the original cost, since this is like a small bulk order of images.
Anyway, just some initial thoughts.
<< <i>No they should use a scanner to do every coin and leave trueview as it is. >>
It should come with Truview included.
By raising the price of grading, you cut out a major portion of the crackout game, and it will ultimately result in more respectably graded coins in the marketplace.
<< <i>PCGS handles way too many pieces to TrueView them all. NGC's idea isn't going to give you a stunning image of the coin... just an image. Could PCGS follow suit? Sure, but not with the exceptional work that Phil does. They'd just have a camera be one more stop before the mail room, and it would be click-click-click all day, just to get any representation of the coins in the holders. Good photos require attention for each piece, and PCGS is too big to do that on the scale you suggest. >>
I understand your point, however I think you are are taking a contrarian view of the subject. Sure, NGC just "gives you an image" but why should PCGS care what NGC does? That is a reactionary approach. PCGS needs to take a proactive approach and make NGC react to what they do. While the idea of a Trueview for every coin will require alot of work the proof is in the results. I for one would gladly pay for a quality photo over a free average one. If the world was all about price, Mercedes-Benz would not sell a single car!
The cost of 'processing' each coin would go up astronomically IMO. I bet not even 5% of the coins graded are curently being Trueviewed.
PCGS would have to hire many more photographers, equipment, workflow etc.
I just hope that those who want Trueviews can continue to get them.
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS handles way too many pieces to TrueView them all. NGC's idea isn't going to give you a stunning image of the coin... just an image. Could PCGS follow suit? Sure, but not with the exceptional work that Phil does. They'd just have a camera be one more stop before the mail room, and it would be click-click-click all day, just to get any representation of the coins in the holders. Good photos require attention for each piece, and PCGS is too big to do that on the scale you suggest. >>
I understand your point, however I think you are are taking a contrarian view of the subject. Sure, NGC just "gives you an image" but why should PCGS care what NGC does? That is a reactionary approach. PCGS needs to take a proactive approach and make NGC react to what they do. While the idea of a Trueview for every coin will require alot of work the proof is in the results. I for one would gladly pay for a quality photo over a free average one. If the world was all about price, Mercedes-Benz would not sell a single car! >>
OK, so go ahead and "gladly pay" for a quality photo. Just don't make everyone else do the same,
thus increasing our cost and turnaround time.
OK, so go ahead and "gladly pay" for a quality photo. Just don't make everyone else do the same,
thus increasing our cost and turnaround time. >>
Very good. I've never been too concerned about turnaround time. I'm patient. Cost is indeed a factor, but it does no good to watch pennies while dollars walk out the door. A superb photo will increase the sale price if the coin can not be held in hand. We've all seen lousy photos on Ebay and some have complained about the images on Heritage and Teletrade. Thanks for your input, and lets keep the debate going.
<< <i>
<< <i>OK, so go ahead and "gladly pay" for a quality photo. Just don't make everyone else do the same,
thus increasing our cost and turnaround time. >>
Very good. I've never been too concerned about turnaround time. I'm patient. Cost is indeed a factor, but it does no good to watch pennies while dollars walk out the door. A superb photo will increase the sale price if the coin can not be held in hand. We've all seen lousy photos on Ebay and some have complained about the images on Heritage and Teletrade. Thanks for your input, and lets keep the debate going. >>
OK, I'll grant you that it would be nice as a buyer to always have a certain baseline quality for images.
However, if I, as a seller, prefer to use a private photographer (or even myself), I don't want to have
to pay twice. Also, while I'm also patient about turnarounds, I certainly prefer shorter to longer.
IMO, while Trueview does a nice job, it is not the ne plus ultra of coin photography.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>OK, so go ahead and "gladly pay" for a quality photo. Just don't make everyone else do the same,
thus increasing our cost and turnaround time. >>
Very good. I've never been too concerned about turnaround time. I'm patient. Cost is indeed a factor, but it does no good to watch pennies while dollars walk out the door. A superb photo will increase the sale price if the coin can not be held in hand. We've all seen lousy photos on Ebay and some have complained about the images on Heritage and Teletrade. Thanks for your input, and lets keep the debate going. >>
OK, I'll grant you that it would be nice as a buyer to always have a certain baseline quality for images.
However, if I, as a seller, prefer to use a private photographer (or even myself), I don't want to have
to pay twice. Also, while I'm also patient about turnarounds, I certainly prefer shorter to longer.
IMO, while Trueview does a nice job, it is not the ne plus ultra of coin photography. >>
Touche-----I prefer shorter to longer too.
Lets look at two examples. The first is a Trueview and the second is mine. I would have been hard pressed to duplicate the Trueview of my 1870 pattern dollar for the 10 dollar fee. The photo of the Barber Half is good ( I think), but I would not have paid 10 dollars for it.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
<< <i>If they did it for every coin, it would be assembly-line quality, giving you pictures like Heritage or NGC photo proofs. Suitable for verifying the coin in slab is legit, but hardly something you'd want as a good photo. I can see them doing this for higher value coins, but I don't think they would want to do it for economy coins at no charge, and I doubt people would want to pay for it to be done automatically. Since I take my own photos, I wouldn't want to pay extra for what I'd consider an inferior product. >>
John----I think you are missing my point. Certainly people will not pay for an inferior product, but they will for a superior product.
<< <i>I understand your point, however I think you are are taking a contrarian view of the subject. Sure, NGC just "gives you an image" but why should PCGS care what NGC does? That is a reactionary approach. PCGS needs to take a proactive approach and make NGC react to what they do. While the idea of a Trueview for every coin will require alot of work the proof is in the results. I for one would gladly pay for a quality photo over a free average one. If the world was all about price, Mercedes-Benz would not sell a single car! >>
If YOU will pay for it, then that is why YOU can pay for it. You don't understand my point. NGC gives an image to prove the coin you see in-hand or online is the same one they graded. TrueView is so you can show it off. The images serve two completely different purposes, and for the level of business EITHER company does, it would be a massive investment to make TrueView quality images mandatory on all submissions. Plus, dealers who don't sell online won't want to pay extra for what is effectively slower service.
<< <i>Very good. I've never been too concerned about turnaround time. I'm patient. Cost is indeed a factor, but it does no good to watch pennies while dollars walk out the door. A superb photo will increase the sale price if the coin can not be held in hand. We've all seen lousy photos on Ebay and some have complained about the images on Heritage and Teletrade. Thanks for your input, and lets keep the debate going. >>
People who submit to resell can't be patient. Their livelihood is based on turnaround time. Photographs are an investment. Some people will put in $X and reap the benefits. Others won't, and their items will sell for less.
<< <i>Lets look at two examples. The first is a Trueview and the second is mine. I would have been hard pressed to duplicate the Trueview of my 1870 pattern dollar for the 10 dollar fee. The photo of the Barber Half is good ( I think), but I would not have paid 10 dollars for it.
Now you're comparing apples and oranges. Your argument is that because YOU cannot take a photo as good as TrueView, then EVERYONE should be required to pay for TrueView. That's illogical. It just means that when you want to purchase an image, you can go to TrueView. Others will go to me, or Mark Goodman, or Brandon Kelley, or Russ. This is a free market, and it makes no sense for a company to require a service only some want, when many others can supply it.
I didn't need TrueView to take this image for me, so why should I have had to pay if I sent the coin in?
<< <i>
<< <i>If they did it for every coin, it would be assembly-line quality, giving you pictures like Heritage or NGC photo proofs. Suitable for verifying the coin in slab is legit, but hardly something you'd want as a good photo. I can see them doing this for higher value coins, but I don't think they would want to do it for economy coins at no charge, and I doubt people would want to pay for it to be done automatically. Since I take my own photos, I wouldn't want to pay extra for what I'd consider an inferior product. >>
John----I think you are missing my point. Certainly people will not pay for an inferior product, but they will for a superior product. >>
Of course they will, but if PCGS were to photograph every coin that came through, there would be two options:
1) all fees would go up enough to cover costs of TrueView plus profit
2) or they would take mediocre pictures quickly at minimal, but not zero, cost
There are many people who want neither.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
In hindsight, I suppose my prior point was illogical.
<< <i> >>
OK, so go ahead and "gladly pay" for a quality photo. Just don't make everyone else do the same,
thus increasing our cost and turnaround time. >>
Very good. I've never been too concerned about turnaround time. I'm patient. Cost is indeed a factor, but it does no good to watch pennies while dollars walk out the door. A superb photo will increase the sale price if the coin can not be held in hand. We've all seen lousy photos on Ebay and some have complained about the images on Heritage and Teletrade. Thanks for your input, and lets keep the debate going. >>
PCGS shouldn't really be concerned with MY resale ability based on their image. They should be concerned with accurately grading my coin for me. When I go to sell, the venue of sale and pictures are up to me.
commoncents123, JrGMan2004, Coll3ctor (2), Dabigkahuna, BAJJERFAN, Boom, GRANDAM, newsman, cohodk, kklambo, seateddime, ajia, mirabela, Weather11am, keepdachange, gsa1fan, cone10
-------------------------