FWIW to the OP... @2windy2fish ... I wouldn't be too enthralled with the glamor-shot TV's either... especially the Capped Bust Half. It looks like the lighting either washed out the images or was too soft and the details of the coin suffered. Regardless, I've been mostly happy with the TV'd coins I have but I've not recently submitted anything (in the last year or so) and the TV'd coins I bought already slabbed were done years ago. Given these recent results, I may be waiting for the photographic staff to get on top of their learning curve... For comparison... here are a few of my older TV'd coins:
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
Lermish. My suggestion is for anyone having a problem with a TV to actually contact Customer Service and discuss the situation. We have read all the speculation here about what Customer Service might do if presented with truly problem TV’s. What we have not read here are the details of what happened next once someone actually spoke to Customer Service about their issues.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
Lermish. My suggestion is for anyone having a problem with a TV to actually contact Customer Service and discuss the situation. We have read all the speculation here about what Customer Service might do if presented with truly problem TV’s. What we have not read here are the details of what happened next once someone actually spoke to Customer Service about their issues.
Wondercoin
It's irrelevant how customer service handles it. The source of the problem needs to be addressed and rectified, and I don't see why us posting on a PCGS board is any less formal than calling customer service and speaking to a low level employee who has to relay the message up the chain. If PCGS offers some type of arrangement where the coins can be re shot at no expense to the submitter, that's all well and good and I appreciate that, but my concern lies more with implementing a solution. I don't want to have to deal with customer service every time I submit coins, I just want to see improvement to where the job is done right the first time like it used to be.
@wondercoin said:
Lermish. My suggestion is for anyone having a problem with a TV to actually contact Customer Service and discuss the situation. We have read all the speculation here about what Customer Service might do if presented with truly problem TV’s. What we have not read here are the details of what happened next once someone actually spoke to Customer Service about their issues.
Wondercoin
It's irrelevant how customer service handles it. The source of the problem needs to be addressed and rectified, and I don't see why us posting on a PCGS board is any less formal than calling customer service and speaking to a low level employee who has to relay the message up the chain. If PCGS offers some type of arrangement where the coins can be re shot at no expense to the submitter, that's all well and good and I appreciate that, but my concern lies more with implementing a solution. I don't want to have to deal with customer service every time I submit coins, I just want to see improvement to where the job is done right the first time like it used to be.
@wondercoin said:
Lermish. My suggestion is for anyone having a problem with a TV to actually contact Customer Service and discuss the situation. We have read all the speculation here about what Customer Service might do if presented with truly problem TV’s. What we have not read here are the details of what happened next once someone actually spoke to Customer Service about their issues.
Wondercoin
It's irrelevant how customer service handles it. The source of the problem needs to be addressed and rectified, and I don't see why us posting on a PCGS board is any less formal than calling customer service and speaking to a low level employee who has to relay the message up the chain. If PCGS offers some type of arrangement where the coins can be re shot at no expense to the submitter, that's all well and good and I appreciate that, but my concern lies more with implementing a solution. I don't want to have to deal with customer service every time I submit coins, I just want to see improvement to where the job is done right the first time like it used to be.
PCGS will do nothing if no one contacts customer service with complaints and all they see (if they see it) is this thread.
@wondercoin said:
Lermish. My suggestion is for anyone having a problem with a TV to actually contact Customer Service and discuss the situation. We have read all the speculation here about what Customer Service might do if presented with truly problem TV’s. What we have not read here are the details of what happened next once someone actually spoke to Customer Service about their issues.
Wondercoin
It's irrelevant how customer service handles it. The source of the problem needs to be addressed and rectified, and I don't see why us posting on a PCGS board is any less formal than calling customer service and speaking to a low level employee who has to relay the message up the chain. If PCGS offers some type of arrangement where the coins can be re shot at no expense to the submitter, that's all well and good and I appreciate that, but my concern lies more with implementing a solution. I don't want to have to deal with customer service every time I submit coins, I just want to see improvement to where the job is done right the first time like it used to be.
PCGS will do nothing if no one contacts customer service with complaints and all they see (if they see it) is this thread.
They see this thread, but yes a deluge of calls to customer service about the chitty photos would go a long way.
If they are not reading this thread, then they really do not care.
@wondercoin said:
Lermish. My suggestion is for anyone having a problem with a TV to actually contact Customer Service and discuss the situation. We have read all the speculation here about what Customer Service might do if presented with truly problem TV’s. What we have not read here are the details of what happened next once someone actually spoke to Customer Service about their issues.
Wondercoin
It's irrelevant how customer service handles it. The source of the problem needs to be addressed and rectified, and I don't see why us posting on a PCGS board is any less formal than calling customer service and speaking to a low level employee who has to relay the message up the chain. If PCGS offers some type of arrangement where the coins can be re shot at no expense to the submitter, that's all well and good and I appreciate that, but my concern lies more with implementing a solution. I don't want to have to deal with customer service every time I submit coins, I just want to see improvement to where the job is done right the first time like it used to be.
PCGS will do nothing if no one contacts customer service with complaints and all they see (if they see it) is this thread.
Of course. I have also sent an email to CS and am awaiting a reply, and would encourage others to do the same. That said, Id be really surprised if no one at PCGS monitors this board at all, and if they chose to ignore dozens of complaints on their own message board simply because it wasn't directed at CS, I think that would be very foolish. I'd like to give them more credit than that.
I'm saddened be the apparent decline in quality of the imaging. Those older Trueview glamour shots were truly appealing and impressive. Consider: this is a very high stress, high production job. What would be required to bring back the former quality levels?
@wondercoin said:
Lermish. My suggestion is for anyone having a problem with a TV to actually contact Customer Service and discuss the situation. We have read all the speculation here about what Customer Service might do if presented with truly problem TV’s. What we have not read here are the details of what happened next once someone actually spoke to Customer Service about their issues.
Wondercoin
It's irrelevant how customer service handles it. The source of the problem needs to be addressed and rectified, and I don't see why us posting on a PCGS board is any less formal than calling customer service and speaking to a low level employee who has to relay the message up the chain. If PCGS offers some type of arrangement where the coins can be re shot at no expense to the submitter, that's all well and good and I appreciate that, but my concern lies more with implementing a solution. I don't want to have to deal with customer service every time I submit coins, I just want to see improvement to where the job is done right the first time like it used to be.
PCGS will do nothing if no one contacts customer service with complaints and all they see (if they see it) is this thread.
Of course. I have also sent an email to CS and am awaiting a reply, and would encourage others to do the same. That said, Id be really surprised if no one at PCGS monitors this board at all, and if they chose to ignore dozens of complaints on their own message board simply because it wasn't directed at CS, I think that would be very foolish. I'd like to give them more credit than that.
100% agreed...but just in case (as the title of this thread is a little optimistic)
Here are the TV and slab shots of a richly toned, superb gem (MS67) quarter. Some may not like the darker toning as I do, but the TV certainly does not do this coin justice, to put it quite mildly.
I acquired a few PCGS+CAC toned coins recently that aren’t needed for my registry sets, and that do not currently have TVs. I was going to reholder them,, but I’ll likely send them to CACG and/or a friendly forum photographer instead.
Here are 4 of my recent upgrades. The new Trueviews are abysmal. This is steeply going to affect business and very quickly if they can't turn this around. I rely on competent photography because I ONLY collect toned coins. This is not the standard that PCGS innovated and seemingly perfected at one time.
In some ways the NGC comprehensive imaging is better, but knowing the grade and that they are not up to snuff, and if I wanted the coin, it would not be a deal breaker for me.
Does that concept extend to include the use of lighting to create shadows in connection with some of the classic and great jazz photographs taken during the same time frame?
I would consider adding some images of Cab Calloway and Count Basie to illustrate my point but copyright infringements could be problematic.
And while the question may not fall within the numismatic spectrum, it does fall square within the criticism directed at TV which seems harsh.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Does that concept extend to include the use of lighting to create shadows in connection with some of the classic and great jazz photographs taken during the same time frame?
I would consider adding some images of Cab Calloway and Count Basie to illustrate my point but copyright infringements could be problematic.
And while the question may not fall within the numismatic spectrum, it does fall square within the criticism directed at TV which seems harsh.
As someone that has done a great deal of photography of jazz musicians specifically, I would answer this an emphatic ‘no’.
Oftentimes, when shooting jazz musicians live, and wanting to be as inconspicuous as possible, we would be shooting by natural light and not utilizing electronic flash. Most of the time, the natural lighting was very hard (harsh) and we were at the mercy of the stage lighting crew- at least I was, that being the informal nature of most of my shoots. To add to the challenges, many of the musicians were black, and the background was very dark.
Occasionally, when hired professionally, and able to shoot during the rehearsals, there would be much more control over the lighting.
“Frankenstein lighting” was NEVER anything I aspired to achieve though it sometimes presented itself as the spot lighting on the musicians was often evolving during a performance and beyond our control.
The masters of jazz musician photography would often utilize rather hard lighting to simulate nightclub lighting and it might sometimes appear to be lit from below, but they would very seldom actually utilize true Frankenstein lighting by design.
Check out the works of Francis Wolff, and Chuck Stewart for some great example.
There are other greats but these two were some of the finest In my humble opinion.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
Thanks for the quality response. I am familiar with the work of both Wolff and Stewart. Both were able to capture Jazz at critical junctures in the progression of be-bop and cool.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@wondercoin said:
Lermish. My suggestion is for anyone having a problem with a TV to actually contact Customer Service and discuss the situation. We have read all the speculation here about what Customer Service might do if presented with truly problem TV’s. What we have not read here are the details of what happened next once someone actually spoke to Customer Service about their issues.
Wondercoin
It's irrelevant how customer service handles it. The source of the problem needs to be addressed and rectified, and I don't see why us posting on a PCGS board is any less formal than calling customer service and speaking to a low level employee who has to relay the message up the chain. If PCGS offers some type of arrangement where the coins can be re shot at no expense to the submitter, that's all well and good and I appreciate that, but my concern lies more with implementing a solution. I don't want to have to deal with customer service every time I submit coins, I just want to see improvement to where the job is done right the first time like it used to be.
PCGS will do nothing if no one contacts customer service with complaints and all they see (if they see it) is this thread.
Of course. I have also sent an email to CS and am awaiting a reply, and would encourage others to do the same. That said, Id be really surprised if no one at PCGS monitors this board at all, and if they chose to ignore dozens of complaints on their own message board simply because it wasn't directed at CS, I think that would be very foolish. I'd like to give them more credit than that.
Just a follow up on this, I contacted customer service two weeks ago explaining my displeasure with the TV results of my submissions. I received a response one week ago, and have been going back and forth for the past week. The initial customer service response was:
"Hello Daniel,
Thank you for your patience. Here are the alternatives that we can provide for you:
Also, our photography department would like for future reference, if you can provide notes on any requests on future images taken by us so this does not happen again. Lastly, if another bad picture does happen, we will need for you to provide reason why you feel the photos are bad. Please let me know your decision when you can."
I found it interesting that they asked for "notes on any requests on future images so this does not happen again", whatever that means. I don't know why they would depend on customer's suggestions in order to do their job properly. I responded that they could proceed with swapping the images, even though the "new ones" are still poor and over lit, they show the color a bit better than the originals. I got some help from @FlyingAl in describing why exactly the images are terrible, and sent them that, along with a link to this thread and one other where countless members opined about their displeasure with the new true views. They did not address the other order with the 1795 $10 TV, so I also mentioned that one needed to be swapped back to the previous image, which I explained was far better than the new one and sent both of them as a visual representation.
The second response from CS was:
"Hello Daniel,
Thank you for your confirmation to have the images from order 23754513 swapped. Also, sincere apologies for your experience. This information has been shared with the photography team. Lastly, I have reached out again about order 23754282 images and will get back to you once I get an update on this. If you have any other questions, please let me know."
So at the very least, they are now aware that there are many complaints with recent TV quality (if they weren't already), and the technical reasoning thoroughly articulated and passed on to the photo team. As I suspected, CS offered nothing more than a "sorry" and an offer to switch out the crappy images for other equally crappy images.
As a collector focusing on PL/DMPL Morgans, I prefer my digital album to have TV's of coins that show the white and dark contrast of these beautiful coins. But now and then in the past PCGS has occasionally chosen to use photos that do not show this contrast. These are typically coins whose mirrors aren't that great but still, I want uniformity in photo styles for my album. After reading this thread a while I ago I emailed photography@pcgs.com and asked them if they had the customary "high contrast" photos for the coins in question and they said they did have them and they swapped them out for me.
Still, in general like others have said, some of the recent photos aren't great but I'm not sure I could provide a technical description why, just my pedestrian observation that they aren't "accurate."
@DeplorableDan
Thank you for your legwork here.
I edited the title of the post to more clearly reflect everyone’s feelings on the topic, clearly my experience with a set of photos does not indicate that the problem has been solved.
Sadly, not improving I don't think. Just got this TV:
Compared to some from coinfacts that IMO look great from the previous era:
I think I'm going to complain. Just because if we don't complain, I'm not sure if things will get better. The thing is, I'm not sure what terms to use and how to say what's wrong with my TV. All I know is the bottom one is properly lit and you can see every detail, whereas on mine you can't.
I'm waiting for a Cesar, a managers/supervisor in CS to call me back about a different issue, so I'll bring this up with him when he calls.
I really like having true views of my coins. Someone once showed me the area to where you can change the background of the coins. However, I have not figured out how to add a coin to that site so that I can change the background of mine. If someone can explain that process I would Truly appreciate the help. Thanks.
@MtW124 said:
I really like having true views of my coins. Someone once showed me the area to where you can change the background of the coins. However, I have not figured out how to add a coin to that site so that I can change the background of mine. If someone can explain that process I would Truly appreciate the help. Thanks.
.
I am not sure what the question is but here are two possibilities.
If asking about how to get the TV page to show a particular coin, then just change the numbers on the end to the cert number. Below is the link to the above cent and note the 41741339 on the end.
If you have typed in the cert number on the end and it is not displaying the TV but rather something like Forbidden error..., then that TV may not be available on this page. It could show up under the cert verification page but not on the TV page. I have wondered if these are Not paid for TV (perhaps TV taken as a reference type thing or just because) and therefore not publicly available on the TV page. Or it could be a loading error. Either way to get those, if possible, would need to contact pcgs photography or CS as far as I know.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
Well, I cannot locate an area on the site that popped up to change the number. Here is what I am seeing.
Edit: I just tried on my P.C. and there is not a place to input a new pcgs number there either. I know I’m doing something wrong but just haven’t figured it out yet. Thanks for responding though.
There is no place on the webpage to change it. You change the webpage address.
Your phone shot is showing:
.
The address above is showing as only images.pcgs.com
I don't know why as I don't know your phone or settings.
That coin has a webpage address of:
.
On your phone if you click on the images.pcgs.com the entire address might come up (it does on mine) but again don't know your phone or settings. (You can also try the link in prior post to the cent.)
Then change the numbers (those are cert numbers) in the webpage address to the cert numbers of the coin of interest.
Then hit enter.
You do a similar thing on the laptop - click and change the webpage address. For the cent it looks like this.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
Got my Trueviews today. They show poor contrast and oversaturated color, particularly yellow, orange, and red. I have to dial down saturation by -30 to get it to resemble the coin in hand. They sure like to add color that isn't there. I had to edit most of the photos to post here, but they will always be associated with the coin in the CU system.
I just received an order back with multiple toned Peace dollars. This grouping represents some of the worst Trueviews in my collection. I am greatly disappointed.
@split37 said:
I just received an order back with multiple toned Peace dollars. This grouping represents some of the worst Trueviews in my collection. I am greatly disappointed.
These are really good considering the quality we've gotten used to seeing.
@split37 said:
I just received an order back with multiple toned Peace dollars. This grouping represents some of the worst Trueviews in my collection. I am greatly disappointed.
These are really good considering the quality we've gotten used to seeing.
You would think, but these coins show far better than these Trueviews suggest. This impacts value for resale and dashes confidence in a once esteemed product which I relied on to put together a bespoke collection. Once you start messing with people's money, that's when the rubber meets the road. I foresee many people looking for alternatives, myself included.
@split37 said:
I just received an order back with multiple toned Peace dollars. This grouping represents some of the worst Trueviews in my collection. I am greatly disappointed.
These are really good considering the quality we've gotten used to seeing.
How can you tell if you have not seen the actual coins?
The last few submissions I have seen, they have their lights too bright like the following coin.
I was going to show a proof Jefferson That I got back last month. The first True View that was shown was bad compared to the coin, but sometime in the last couple weeks it got changed to a good one, that is very representative of the coin.
@split37 said:
I just received an order back with multiple toned Peace dollars. This grouping represents some of the worst Trueviews in my collection. I am greatly disappointed.
These are really good considering the quality we've gotten used to seeing.
How can you tell if you have not seen the actual coins?
The last few submissions I have seen, they have their lights too bright like the following coin.
I was going to show a proof Jefferson That I got back last month. The first True View that was shown was bad compared to the coin, but sometime in the last couple weeks it got changed to a good one, that is very representative of the coin.
They’re not horrendously overexposed and the color actually shows depth in those TVs I mentioned.
My PCGS Membership was up for renewal last week, and I let it lapse, primarily because my confidence in the TrueView product has declined precipitously. I have a handful of coins that need reholdering, but I figured it’s better to sit on the sidelines and hope the product improves than to tie my coins to a bad photograph in perpetuity.
I will, however, be sending some coins to @FlyingAl in the meantime as I have much confidence in his work. I’m also thankful to folks like @DeplorableDan that have taken the time to provide specific feedback to CS. Let’s hope that they can right the ship here so that we can all maximize the digital enjoyment of our collections.
@davewesen said:
I was going to show a proof Jefferson That I got back last month. The first True View that was shown was bad compared to the coin, but sometime in the last couple weeks it got changed to a good one, that is very representative of the coin.
Interesting that you say that and perhaps this is an update. In my last Modern Value submission of which some of the TVs are posted above, I just noticed that ** ALL** coins were photographed, not just the few I paid for TVs. Of course, none of those pictures are great but they are acceptable for the purpose they serve, especially if we're not really paying for nice pictures.
I wonder if it's new PCGS standard procedure to photograph ALL coins for security/verification purposes. I wonder if my real Trueviews are still coming? I will keep checking and post if my pictures get updated.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
My PCGS Membership was up for renewal last week, and I let it lapse, primarily because my confidence in the TrueView product has declined precipitously. I have a handful of coins that need reholdering, but I figured it’s better to sit on the sidelines and hope the product improves than to tie my coins to a bad photograph in perpetuity.
I will, however, be sending some coins to @FlyingAl in the meantime as I have much confidence in his work. I’m also thankful to folks like @DeplorableDan that have taken the time to provide specific feedback to CS. Let’s hope that they can right the ship here so that we can all maximize the digital enjoyment of our collections.
Mine lapsed in January and I did not renew for the same reason.
I think bringing Phil back or someone else as a consultant and trainer would be of great value.
One of the reasons, maybe even the most important reason for submitting to PCGS are the TV photos and the ability to enter them into the online album. I buy coins for their eye appeal and if the photos do not capture the eye appeal of a coin then what is the point of the TV? and what is the point of submitting to PCGS besides the grade on a slab?
I think if enough people write in to the CEO and explain their unhappiness with the TV photos something will be done to correct the problem. If not many complain they may not see a reason to change.
@Beatty said:
I think bringing Phil back or someone else as a consultant and trainer would be of great value.
I find it hard to believe that Phil did not perform some training or knowledge transfer while he was there. It's unfathomable how photo quality could fall so far so quickly.
@Beatty said:
I think bringing Phil back or someone else as a consultant and trainer would be of great value.
I find it hard to believe that Phil did not perform some training or knowledge transfer while he was there. It's unfathomable how photo quality could fall so far so quickly.
He said he trained someone to lead the department when he knew he was leaving, That person left right before Phil.
@Beatty said:
I think bringing Phil back or someone else as a consultant and trainer would be of great value.
I find it hard to believe that Phil did not perform some training or knowledge transfer while he was there. It's unfathomable how photo quality could fall so far so quickly.
He said he trained someone to lead the department when he knew he was leaving, That person left right before Phil.
Right, but Phil didn't take 100% of the photos, right? There was a team I presume? Certainly they didn't work that whole time in vacuums with no sharing of techniques and processes?
But we don't know how the department was organized and the process that was in place as far as who did what and how it was all done. Obviously something in the process changed. Phil left but how would that affect the process? So something is amiss here. We really don't know the role Phil played. Others may have taken the pics but Phil may have been the one that finalized the photos in some way.
Comments
FWIW to the OP... @2windy2fish ... I wouldn't be too enthralled with the glamor-shot TV's either... especially the Capped Bust Half. It looks like the lighting either washed out the images or was too soft and the details of the coin suffered. Regardless, I've been mostly happy with the TV'd coins I have but I've not recently submitted anything (in the last year or so) and the TV'd coins I bought already slabbed were done years ago. Given these recent results, I may be waiting for the photographic staff to get on top of their learning curve... For comparison... here are a few of my older TV'd coins:
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Lermish. My suggestion is for anyone having a problem with a TV to actually contact Customer Service and discuss the situation. We have read all the speculation here about what Customer Service might do if presented with truly problem TV’s. What we have not read here are the details of what happened next once someone actually spoke to Customer Service about their issues.
Wondercoin
It's irrelevant how customer service handles it. The source of the problem needs to be addressed and rectified, and I don't see why us posting on a PCGS board is any less formal than calling customer service and speaking to a low level employee who has to relay the message up the chain. If PCGS offers some type of arrangement where the coins can be re shot at no expense to the submitter, that's all well and good and I appreciate that, but my concern lies more with implementing a solution. I don't want to have to deal with customer service every time I submit coins, I just want to see improvement to where the job is done right the first time like it used to be.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Totally Agree.
The problem is PCGS is not paying up for talent.
TV's is like a giant promotion for PCGS. It use to be a great promotion, and now it has turned into the opposite.
They need to pay more than market rate for a great photographer.
What they are showing the world now is they don't care about what is super important.
PCGS will do nothing if no one contacts customer service with complaints and all they see (if they see it) is this thread.
They see this thread, but yes a deluge of calls to customer service about the chitty photos would go a long way.
If they are not reading this thread, then they really do not care.
Pay up PCGS
Of course. I have also sent an email to CS and am awaiting a reply, and would encourage others to do the same. That said, Id be really surprised if no one at PCGS monitors this board at all, and if they chose to ignore dozens of complaints on their own message board simply because it wasn't directed at CS, I think that would be very foolish. I'd like to give them more credit than that.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
This photo is amazingly horrible.
We in the photography industry call this " Frankenstein Lightning " where a portrait is lit from below like in the old horror flicks.
I'm saddened be the apparent decline in quality of the imaging. Those older Trueview glamour shots were truly appealing and impressive. Consider: this is a very high stress, high production job. What would be required to bring back the former quality levels?
100% agreed...but just in case (as the title of this thread is a little optimistic)
@HeatherBoyd @PCGS_SocialMedia @PCGSPhoto
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Here are the TV and slab shots of a richly toned, superb gem (MS67) quarter. Some may not like the darker toning as I do, but the TV certainly does not do this coin justice, to put it quite mildly.
I acquired a few PCGS+CAC toned coins recently that aren’t needed for my registry sets, and that do not currently have TVs. I was going to reholder them,, but I’ll likely send them to CACG and/or a friendly forum photographer instead.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Here are 4 of my recent upgrades. The new Trueviews are abysmal. This is steeply going to affect business and very quickly if they can't turn this around. I rely on competent photography because I ONLY collect toned coins. This is not the standard that PCGS innovated and seemingly perfected at one time.
Can definitely see a difference. That last set of photos from @split37 looks like they illuminated by a 50 megaton nuclear bomb blast.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Here's an older TV example of the same 34-D Peace dollar as above -
Another example to demonstrate the differences. This is the same coin.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
In some ways the NGC comprehensive imaging is better, but knowing the grade and that they are not up to snuff, and if I wanted the coin, it would not be a deal breaker for me.
TV is doing just fine...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
And something for the modern crowd- this is one not encountered often in this state of preservation captured by TV
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Frankenstein Lighting...
Does that concept extend to include the use of lighting to create shadows in connection with some of the classic and great jazz photographs taken during the same time frame?
I would consider adding some images of Cab Calloway and Count Basie to illustrate my point but copyright infringements could be problematic.
And while the question may not fall within the numismatic spectrum, it does fall square within the criticism directed at TV which seems harsh.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
the last group I got was lit to bright and drowned out light toning
You should get better photos unencapsulated and easier too.
As someone that has done a great deal of photography of jazz musicians specifically, I would answer this an emphatic ‘no’.
Oftentimes, when shooting jazz musicians live, and wanting to be as inconspicuous as possible, we would be shooting by natural light and not utilizing electronic flash. Most of the time, the natural lighting was very hard (harsh) and we were at the mercy of the stage lighting crew- at least I was, that being the informal nature of most of my shoots. To add to the challenges, many of the musicians were black, and the background was very dark.
Occasionally, when hired professionally, and able to shoot during the rehearsals, there would be much more control over the lighting.
“Frankenstein lighting” was NEVER anything I aspired to achieve though it sometimes presented itself as the spot lighting on the musicians was often evolving during a performance and beyond our control.
The masters of jazz musician photography would often utilize rather hard lighting to simulate nightclub lighting and it might sometimes appear to be lit from below, but they would very seldom actually utilize true Frankenstein lighting by design.
Check out the works of Francis Wolff, and Chuck Stewart for some great example.
There are other greats but these two were some of the finest In my humble opinion.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
related but different, how much would a top flight photog get paid and how does that compare to the cost of living?
@nwcoast
Thanks for the quality response. I am familiar with the work of both Wolff and Stewart. Both were able to capture Jazz at critical junctures in the progression of be-bop and cool.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Just a follow up on this, I contacted customer service two weeks ago explaining my displeasure with the TV results of my submissions. I received a response one week ago, and have been going back and forth for the past week. The initial customer service response was:
"Hello Daniel,
Thank you for your patience. Here are the alternatives that we can provide for you:
Also, our photography department would like for future reference, if you can provide notes on any requests on future images taken by us so this does not happen again. Lastly, if another bad picture does happen, we will need for you to provide reason why you feel the photos are bad. Please let me know your decision when you can."
I found it interesting that they asked for "notes on any requests on future images so this does not happen again", whatever that means. I don't know why they would depend on customer's suggestions in order to do their job properly. I responded that they could proceed with swapping the images, even though the "new ones" are still poor and over lit, they show the color a bit better than the originals. I got some help from @FlyingAl in describing why exactly the images are terrible, and sent them that, along with a link to this thread and one other where countless members opined about their displeasure with the new true views. They did not address the other order with the 1795 $10 TV, so I also mentioned that one needed to be swapped back to the previous image, which I explained was far better than the new one and sent both of them as a visual representation.
The second response from CS was:
"Hello Daniel,
Thank you for your confirmation to have the images from order 23754513 swapped. Also, sincere apologies for your experience. This information has been shared with the photography team. Lastly, I have reached out again about order 23754282 images and will get back to you once I get an update on this. If you have any other questions, please let me know."
So at the very least, they are now aware that there are many complaints with recent TV quality (if they weren't already), and the technical reasoning thoroughly articulated and passed on to the photo team. As I suspected, CS offered nothing more than a "sorry" and an offer to switch out the crappy images for other equally crappy images.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
As a collector focusing on PL/DMPL Morgans, I prefer my digital album to have TV's of coins that show the white and dark contrast of these beautiful coins. But now and then in the past PCGS has occasionally chosen to use photos that do not show this contrast. These are typically coins whose mirrors aren't that great but still, I want uniformity in photo styles for my album. After reading this thread a while I ago I emailed photography@pcgs.com and asked them if they had the customary "high contrast" photos for the coins in question and they said they did have them and they swapped them out for me.
Still, in general like others have said, some of the recent photos aren't great but I'm not sure I could provide a technical description why, just my pedestrian observation that they aren't "accurate."
@DeplorableDan
Thank you for your legwork here.
I edited the title of the post to more clearly reflect everyone’s feelings on the topic, clearly my experience with a set of photos does not indicate that the problem has been solved.
Sadly, not improving I don't think. Just got this TV:
Compared to some from coinfacts that IMO look great from the previous era:
I think I'm going to complain. Just because if we don't complain, I'm not sure if things will get better. The thing is, I'm not sure what terms to use and how to say what's wrong with my TV. All I know is the bottom one is properly lit and you can see every detail, whereas on mine you can't.
I'm waiting for a Cesar, a managers/supervisor in CS to call me back about a different issue, so I'll bring this up with him when he calls.
Just awful...
Compared to:
I really like having true views of my coins. Someone once showed me the area to where you can change the background of the coins. However, I have not figured out how to add a coin to that site so that I can change the background of mine. If someone can explain that process I would Truly appreciate the help. Thanks.
.
I am not sure what the question is but here are two possibilities.
If asking about how to get the TV page to show a particular coin, then just change the numbers on the end to the cert number. Below is the link to the above cent and note the 41741339 on the end.
https://images.pcgs.com/trueview/41741339
If you have typed in the cert number on the end and it is not displaying the TV but rather something like Forbidden error..., then that TV may not be available on this page. It could show up under the cert verification page but not on the TV page. I have wondered if these are Not paid for TV (perhaps TV taken as a reference type thing or just because) and therefore not publicly available on the TV page. Or it could be a loading error. Either way to get those, if possible, would need to contact pcgs photography or CS as far as I know.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
Well, I cannot locate an area on the site that popped up to change the number. Here is what I am seeing.
Edit: I just tried on my P.C. and there is not a place to input a new pcgs number there either. I know I’m doing something wrong but just haven’t figured it out yet. Thanks for responding though.
There is no place on the webpage to change it. You change the webpage address.
Your phone shot is showing:
.
The address above is showing as only images.pcgs.com
I don't know why as I don't know your phone or settings.
That coin has a webpage address of:
.
On your phone if you click on the images.pcgs.com the entire address might come up (it does on mine) but again don't know your phone or settings. (You can also try the link in prior post to the cent.)
Then change the numbers (those are cert numbers) in the webpage address to the cert numbers of the coin of interest.
Then hit enter.
You do a similar thing on the laptop - click and change the webpage address. For the cent it looks like this.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
Got my Trueviews today. They show poor contrast and oversaturated color, particularly yellow, orange, and red. I have to dial down saturation by -30 to get it to resemble the coin in hand. They sure like to add color that isn't there. I had to edit most of the photos to post here, but they will always be associated with the coin in the CU system.
"Pumpkin pie"
Reality
Thanks with the help. Just as you said. I can change the cert number at the top on the link. I was able to do that.
I just received an order back with multiple toned Peace dollars. This grouping represents some of the worst Trueviews in my collection. I am greatly disappointed.
These are really good considering the quality we've gotten used to seeing.
Coin Photographer.
You would think, but these coins show far better than these Trueviews suggest. This impacts value for resale and dashes confidence in a once esteemed product which I relied on to put together a bespoke collection. Once you start messing with people's money, that's when the rubber meets the road. I foresee many people looking for alternatives, myself included.
How can you tell if you have not seen the actual coins?
The last few submissions I have seen, they have their lights too bright like the following coin.
I was going to show a proof Jefferson That I got back last month. The first True View that was shown was bad compared to the coin, but sometime in the last couple weeks it got changed to a good one, that is very representative of the coin.
They’re not horrendously overexposed and the color actually shows depth in those TVs I mentioned.
Coin Photographer.
My PCGS Membership was up for renewal last week, and I let it lapse, primarily because my confidence in the TrueView product has declined precipitously. I have a handful of coins that need reholdering, but I figured it’s better to sit on the sidelines and hope the product improves than to tie my coins to a bad photograph in perpetuity.
I will, however, be sending some coins to @FlyingAl in the meantime as I have much confidence in his work. I’m also thankful to folks like @DeplorableDan that have taken the time to provide specific feedback to CS. Let’s hope that they can right the ship here so that we can all maximize the digital enjoyment of our collections.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Interesting that you say that and perhaps this is an update. In my last Modern Value submission of which some of the TVs are posted above, I just noticed that ** ALL** coins were photographed, not just the few I paid for TVs. Of course, none of those pictures are great but they are acceptable for the purpose they serve, especially if we're not really paying for nice pictures.
I wonder if it's new PCGS standard procedure to photograph ALL coins for security/verification purposes. I wonder if my real Trueviews are still coming? I will keep checking and post if my pictures get updated.
Mine lapsed in January and I did not renew for the same reason.
I think bringing Phil back or someone else as a consultant and trainer would be of great value.
One of the reasons, maybe even the most important reason for submitting to PCGS are the TV photos and the ability to enter them into the online album. I buy coins for their eye appeal and if the photos do not capture the eye appeal of a coin then what is the point of the TV? and what is the point of submitting to PCGS besides the grade on a slab?
I think if enough people write in to the CEO and explain their unhappiness with the TV photos something will be done to correct the problem. If not many complain they may not see a reason to change.
I find it hard to believe that Phil did not perform some training or knowledge transfer while he was there. It's unfathomable how photo quality could fall so far so quickly.
He said he trained someone to lead the department when he knew he was leaving, That person left right before Phil.
Right, but Phil didn't take 100% of the photos, right? There was a team I presume? Certainly they didn't work that whole time in vacuums with no sharing of techniques and processes?
oops, was told what I posted is not correct
But we don't know how the department was organized and the process that was in place as far as who did what and how it was all done. Obviously something in the process changed. Phil left but how would that affect the process? So something is amiss here. We really don't know the role Phil played. Others may have taken the pics but Phil may have been the one that finalized the photos in some way.