Disappointing TRUEVIEW Image
retirednow
Posts: 546 ✭✭✭✭✭
Did you ever have a piece that you think the TRUEVIEW image failed to capture the coin character?
I just received one of the SIMPSON Pieces and its TrueView sure does not to me ... especially the reverse!
The Photo is my In-hand image plus the Heritage slab image.
What do you all think?
I wonder if PCGS can go back into the file to edit the TRUEVIEW color balances on the image?
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
0
Comments
Hi.
Not sure why this particular coin was shot this way. Sometimes we get it wrong - we shoot over a thousand coins a day, so it's bound to happen. Luckily in this case there are alternate images on file. I've swapped out the old images, and perhaps they'll be more to your liking.
Thanks
Phil
Radiant Collection: Numismatics and Exonumia of the Atomic Age.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/3232
Wow .. you guys are great ... thanks for the swap
Gee .. I guess I could have ask you 1st before I posted this question but love th result
Thanks again
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
Great post and response! Lovely "true" trueview! The first one was awful! haha
Phil is Top Notch and his Service is above reproach!!!
Kudos to Phil and staff...
Great customer service!
@PCGSPhoto
Do you have another picture of this one?
I had it re-holdered and it looks like they took a picture of it when it was in old style gasket holder. (non-prong)
The rim is obscured.
My Saint Set
Looks like this coin was sent back to PCGS for regrade service. We don't re-photograph coins for regrade submissions by and large. Unfortunately the system told us that an image for this coin already existed, so taking a new image was not necessary, despite the image online being one that was shot through an older holder.
Radiant Collection: Numismatics and Exonumia of the Atomic Age.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/3232
@PCGSPhoto.
Do you have alternate images of this one? In hand I think the obverse has a stronger contrast from golden rims to pastel toning in central portions, and the pastels are more vivid in hand. Image doesn't really capture the luster that got the coin to 65+ either. Any help is appreciated!
Buffalo Nickel Digital Album
Toned Buffalo Date SetDigital Album
@ad4400 There is a more contrasty obverse shot, but I'm not sure if the centers are as vivid to your liking, unfortunately.
*This image seems to be coming out a bit low-definition in this post and a bit more desaturated due to the forum software.
Radiant Collection: Numismatics and Exonumia of the Atomic Age.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/3232
This would be good info to know before getting a reholder. I dont know if this is posted somewhere on the submission order part of the webpage, but it should be. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
I have paid for a reholder in order to get a different trueview. (No change, I called customer service and was told there were no other photos.)
Anyway are there any other pics of this one, darker than actual and lack luster?
Thanks,
Sandman
Bst transactions with: dimeman, oih82w8, mercurydimeguy, dunerlaw, Lakesammman, 2ltdjorn, MattTheRiley, dpvilla, drddm, CommemKing, Relaxn, Yorkshireman, Cucamongacoin, jtlee321, greencopper, coin22lover, coinfolio, lindedad, spummybum, Leeroybrown, flackthat, BryceM, Surfinxhi, VanHalen, astrorat, robkool, Wingsrule, PennyGuy, al410, Ilikecolor, Southcounty, Namvet69, Commemdude, oreville, Leebone, Rob41281, clarkbar04, cactusjack55, Collectorcoins, sniocsu, coin finder
@PCGSPhoto Phil, What is your typical corrective action if you have a PCGS Gold Shield holder coin but there is no associated photograph?
How does something like that happen in the first place? Holder inaccurately classified as Standard? The Heritage Auction picture proves otherwise.
Thank you!
PCGS # 35617836
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
If it has a gold shield label, but says Standard on cert verification the most likely reason is that the gold shield label was added in error.
There’s a possibility the certificate number was simply mistranscribed when entered into the system. That’s the most common reason there may not be a TrueView. If that’s not the case and an image was for some reason not taken you would need to contact Customer Service to have the coin sent back as a Mechanical Error.
Phil
Radiant Collection: Numismatics and Exonumia of the Atomic Age.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/3232
Hi Phil! Your team does a great job with the photos. Can you share the setup you use?
I.e, where the camer is located relative to the coin. Is it straight on or is it at a slight angle?
Where are the lights positioned relative to the coin?
Do you use a constant light source or are they flashes!
How many lights are there?
Does your camera have a ring flash?
Do you use a Macro lens and if so what specs does it have?
Do you ever shoot in raw or is it all jpeg?
How many photos do you think you have in storage? If you shoot 1,000 a day that can be a bunch. How are they stored and backed up?
How do you get the fields in a gold or silver proof to turn black in the photo?
Anything you can shared would be appreciated….
Phil, Thanks for your answer on the label vs. image conundrum / label snafu possibility.
I have a question on another coin. For some reason, my Seated Half came out orange as seen in the attached picture. With my macro set-up, I decided to take a comparative picture to show you that the half dollar does not have orange toning - currently can be taken as misleading to the viewer per the TrueView. I am figuring you may have inadvertently had the settings established for a gold coin image capture as a reason for the coloration? Thanks!
Here is your True View:
Here is my Nikon D7500 in macro set-up (I believe IMHO this might more accurately depict the more natural state of the coin):
I would like to know that if I sent the coin in for a re-image, do you think I would get a different, possibly more accurate to color (my opinion), photograph?
Much Appreciated and Thanks again!, Tim
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
There is an alternate image for that on file, TIm. I'll update it.
Sorry Herb, I cannot reveal out setup.
Radiant Collection: Numismatics and Exonumia of the Atomic Age.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/3232
The updated image looks very nice. It’s a look I’d prefer.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Phil, Much better! thank you so much. I didn't know you had back-up images. - Tim
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
Well I am back - and unfortunately with 2 odd Trueviews this time - but these are annoying ones
I understand these TV were done overseas but really I hope it could be corrected as now I have these 2 TV's that show the coin in the slab and the reverse image is not rotated so it they appear upside down - try turning the computer screen upside down to view.
and this one a 20 Cent pattern J-1407 where the orientation of the reverse is most important to appreciate the piece uniqueness.
Plus these images are small and the coin details can not be appreciated as in a TRUEVIEW image.
Unfortunately the customer service response was nothing can be done but to mail them back.
Wish some photo editing can be done in the photolab. ... Oh well.
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
>
My understanding is these overseas slabs (mine is #80744253) would need to be resubmitted for new TV images... which incurs and additional cost to get the images you are seeking. @PCGSPhoto Herb, is that true?
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
Thanks for comment and that is what I think the cust serv agent said ... an option I will not do.
One would think they have access to jpeg files and just fix it ... heck I could do that and send it back to them for reposting as a TV
.
I found that the J384 hand an pre shield TV photo and loaded that up as a 2nd photo and I created my own side by side of the 1407 as well.
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
The slab photos are not TrueViews per Phil @PCGSPhoto.
Also, it's not really possible to convert them with the same quality as the scans just don't have the resolution to begin with.
I guess their overseas operations are still using old Kodak cameras
I had just presumed that since these 2 pieces are in a new PCGS Secured Holder that the images were TV ... I guess I was wrong.
Oh well - will do without, however I would suggest PCGS HQ set a standard for their overseas operations to at lease rotate the reverse images ... this is still very annoying to look at photos when they are upside down.
Thank you for checking with Phil
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
Interesting conversations here.
Glad that PCGS was able to help many of you out.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
I can't believe in the grand scheme of things that it would be hugely expensive to duplicate the U.S. True View technology and processes? This would be a good future plan for PCGS.
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
The biggest part may be hiring the photographers in the right regions.
It could be interesting if HQ based photographers could do the photography remotely via "photograph-by-wire".
personally I would not think that it would be that big of a deal ... maybe "TRUEVIEW" is a special patented ( or a trade secret) process but I believe a nice HD digital camera and the right fixture is all that is needed .. maybe they could call it "TRUEVIEW LIGHT" to get a high definition photos. The facts are the images in these None trueview images above are not bad but they are just presented in the most annoying fashion ... again UPSIDE DOWN reverse images and a slab that takes up 80% of the image space ... gee - give us collectors a break please.
But as you noted, If overseas has the same issue as here in the US with hiring now, it just may be a resource/skill issue.
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
@retirednow For me, I just can't zoom in and see the coin fully is my issue. I look for RPD's and RPM's unrecognized by our host (therefore it won't be on the label). I can never zoom in and see what is needed compared to U.S.-based TrueView images.
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
@PCGSPhoto, why are Trueviews darkened and/or with the color enhanced relative to the coin in hand? Fortunately, I could increase the Trueview light levels and reduce the color to approximate how the coin looks in-hand. Here is an example. The first photo is the original Trueview found on the coin's certification page. The second is the Trueview edited to look more like the coin in-hand. If I were to sell this coin, I would use the second edited photo because frankly, I would be misrepresenting its appearance with the original TV.
I have a few TV- related questions:
@Barberian The unfortunate reality is that we can't spend a whole lot of time on each coin. Our goal is to shoot them as quickly as we can, and there can be inaccuracies that occur given the wide variety and volume of coins we shoot each and every day. There is a possibility we can edit a coin after the fact, but it can take a bit longer as that falls outside our automated processes.
@Casabrown The domed coins are very prone to damage, and very difficult to photograph. That's why only stock images are provided for Apollo and Basketball HoF coins.
We will soon have open positions for image processors that will allow us to get images online in a more timely manner.
Radiant Collection: Numismatics and Exonumia of the Atomic Age.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/3232
No worries. I initially was disappointed but I was able to brighten up the Trueviews on my own so that they look much more like the coins in hand as shown above and with the Lincoln below. I'm very happy with the pictures now.
The Trueview looks like the coin appears under indirect room lighting. The second picture is what the coin looks like under brighter, direct lighting right on the coin. That was what I was hoping for and was able to bring that out by increasing the light level digitally.
Then there are coins that I realize now simply don't photograph well and need to be seen in hand or in a video to capture the coin's luster and patina. This Pan Pac has dark, crusty toning, particularly on the reverse, that is fully captured by the camera but its perceptibility to my eye is reduced when one examines the coin in hand and sees the luster under a light golden patina in the central fields and devices. The difficulty in capturing the luster on this coin and the likelihood that people don't care for crusty dark toning on Pan Pac halves is probably why I was able to purchase this MS63 coin for a G4 price.
The first picture is the original Trueview and the second is a lighter version. While the first is too dark in my opinion, neither capture the velvety luster on this coin. It has to be seen in hand.
I appreciate the response from PCGS:
_@Casabrown The domed coins are very prone to damage, and very difficult to photograph. That's why only stock images are provided for Apollo and Basketball HoF coins.
We will soon have open positions for image processors that will allow us to get images online in a more timely manner. _
However, it does not explain why PCGS was able to provide TV for baseball HoF and not Apollo and Basketball HoF, especially since all three series have concave/convex designs.
I'm not a great photographer, but this is the trueview on the PCGS site.
It's not terrible, but if there is an alternate image that is kinder? It's my best find and you have to decode to know it's one of 11 known.
Great post. The OP coin looks so much better in the new TVs
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
I'm seeing a lot more information here in this thread than I've gotten from Customer Service. So, am I to understand that PCGS now has grading services overseas also, that the foreign collectors aren't actually sending their submissions here to the States anymore? I had never heard that detail before. That partially explains why so many of my recent foreign coin's "True Views" have sucked so bad. Customer service was pretty much "well ~you~ didn't pay for the submission, so why should ~you~ care?" -- pretty disappointing. Problem is, it's a Gold Shield. And from all my submissions over the years, Gold Shield has always included True View. So foreign submissions are getting substandard versions of Gold Shield now. That doesn't leave much confidence in the Gold Shield emblem. If the overseas' photography sucks so bad, what faith are we to have in their grading capabilities? (should I start sending all my NGC MS70s overseas instead to get a better chance at a successful crossover???)
When we buy a Gold Shield coin, that badge is supposed to carry a promise of quality, reliability, and trust. When Gold Shields start rolling out with substandard imagery, that trust is compromised. ALL my submissions get Gold Shield, I pay extra because I ~want~ the legitimate True View. That concept SHOULD be considered a relatively universal standard, at least among modern Gold Shield slabs (I don't know when the practice of including True View by default actually started, but it's been automatic for as long as I've been a member)
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/36679399
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/42194309
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/44003136
All modern Gold Shield slabs, two of them new enough to have NFC, with imagery quality even worse than the mobile app. And imagery that the registry digital album wouldn't even recognize, for the last one. Not a good look for brand confidence.
I, too, have been discouraged by the level of quality assurance during the submission process and more than 75% of my submissions have been returned to me with one or more coins having not received the service directed in the submission.
Recently, I have asked to speak with a manager/supervisor to understand why this frequency of errors. My request has gone unanswered.
Casabrown
They are taking many weeks and months beyond return shipping dates to accomplish image editing. It may be a time-period thing where you have to be patient as they are trying to catch-up.
Edit: I am only speaking to True View image editing... one portion of perhaps a number of things.
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
I appreciate your comments. The errors I have experienced include but not limited to True View imaging such that I have had to return the coins for correction. Thus, this is the reason I have concerns about the PCGS QA process.
Thanks
Yeah, they are bursting at the seems right now. I am sure it is internally exposing some weakness for parts of their submission processing, methods, and approaches. You learn a lot about your own processes when you are busting at the seams like that.
All the best for you and your positive eventual outcomes.
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
..."
At least your coins within the TV photos have a Rev image in the correct orientation for viewing ... my US coins with 180 deg rotation are upside down .. very pathethic to release upside down images. I hope they correct it for others,
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
The title to this thread should add " - but alternate image turned out great"
That was my case... an alternate image was used to greatly improve things. I also appreciate Herb. (@PCGSPhoto Herb). He has been helpful in this thread and has helped to answer constructive criticism. I also appreciate those that are putting their issues here in this thread with a positive demeanor. When we share, we all learn.
What a great hobby.
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
I love the TrueView service but unfortunately I have now had three negative experiences. The colours are distorted. They look beige in these pictures. The pictures can also be seen in the Pop Report. This is not a nice image for my coins. I had already written to the support team about the pictures, but somehow nothing happened. I have added the pictures. You can get an impression for yourselves.
The challenge the PCGS photography staff has is they don't know what the collector wants to achieve with their photos. For example, I wanted them to highlight the color on my Lincoln commemorative with a "glamour shot" like one sees for proof coins and not how it looks under diffuse lighting, which only shows a hint of the color that it has under direct light outside of a holder. For another coin, I didn't want a glamour shot. I wanted the photo to look as close to how the coin looks in hand. Perhaps adding a checklist of goals for the picture would be helpful here, i.e., a colorful glamour shot vs a more true representation of color and contrast.
Hi,
I’m brand new here and appreciate any input or guidance anyone may offer. I’m writing because I have noticed a decline in the past 6-8 months of the quality of the TrueView images I receive. I submit about 20 coins a month and in my last order all the images looked off. One coin in particular I am completely baffled by is a Morgan dollar that has a charcoal black obverse and blue reverse. The TrueView depicts the coin as an untoned obverse, and a faded blue reverse. I just don’t understand how a charcoal black can photograph as it did. I contacted customer service and explained my issue, and sent photos as well. The response was very underwhelming, I was told “Im sorry you’re unhappy with your images, and if I want I can send the coin in for reholder for $18, plus shipping, return shipping and handling”.
I’m including my pics, and the TrueView image, I would really appreciate any opinions or input you folks may have.
Thank you
My 1st comment is that your photos show 2 obverse pic's and they not good images to compare.
What appears to me, is a mix bag of the imaging software settings that PCGS uses. Sometimes the coins TV's look just like the coin as "coin in hand" , but my experience had been darker coins ( Including mine) they adjust settings to ascent the coin details and not how the coin may actually look in hand. I notice similar results on more rainbow tone coins, that the TV may exaggerate toning making the rainbow effect more dramatic. Other time just perfect.
One way to see the differences is look at recent Heritage auctions on line ... many times now, Heritage maybe using the PCGS photos combined with their in house coin slab images. You can see the general & dramatic differences. I always default to the Heritage Slab images as they appear to me be more representative of the coin in hand - but I look at the crop images to see the details
In any case, I do like your PCGS photo
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
Hi retirednow,
Thanks for posting, I appreciate your input.
I do appreciate the different nuances of the TV photography, 99% of my collection are toned Morgan’s. Mostly rainbow, but I also have a collection of all slate black Morgan obverses, all are TV and this is the only time I have had the TV come back like this. All of the other TV depict a black obverse with no loss of detail.
I apologize for my poor quality pics I posted, and for the lack of the reverse, but my main point in providing two obverse pics was just to show that it wasn’t a question of viewing angle.
Overall it’s not a huge deal, it’s an ms63, so it’s not worth sending it back and paying again, I will just not display the TV to anyone.
Thanks gain.
All of my 2021 Morgan and Peace $s are shiny as can be, but a couple came back with dark shadowy TVs. I guess its just how the lighting is or if it picks up something (like the camera or something) during the shoot. With so many TVs, I guess its take the shot and ... nnnnnnnnnn...NEXT!
This 1 was the darkest (and its shiny silver in hand). Oh well. Not sending it back in, just live with it.
But it really looks more like this -
This Trueview looks nothing like the coin in hand and yes that is how the coin looks at the cert page when you look it up. Judging by the label generation maybe it's an early attempt at Trueview? I guess it could have also been photo'd through the slab at a later date as well.