A marvel of numismatic photography

PeakRarities

I submitted 6 walkers for various services at Central States about a month ago. One was reconsideration, and that coin is still in its old holder as it did not upgrade. The other 5 are in new gold shield holders.

I hadn’t even checked the TVs until now, but @FlyingAl asked me about these coins and I figured that I’d see how they came out. Well, 1 of them has no TV at all, so I guess they forgot about that one. Here are the other 4:

I’ll take my own photos of these coins tonight or tomorrow and update the thread so you all can see what they really look like, I certainly didn’t buy them because they were ugly.

For those of you that will say “buT hAvE yOu cOnTaCted cUstOmEr seRviCe?” - NO, and I don’t intend to. My time is too valuable to have to go back and forth customer service every time a TV is awful or missing entirely…which also happens to be every time that I have a coin graded. If anyone at PCGS want to help me with the missing one, the cert is 50381039.

I have now given up on the TV service, I plan to rely on my own pictures moving forward. If you want something done right..:you know the rest.

braddick

Luster bombs.
Nice!

lermish

I'm very curious... Those certainly don't look like the worst TVs I've seen. What is your primary concern with them?

Jacques_Loungecoque

Dan, I’m very sorry to see your disappointment. All these recent TV related posts are so putting me off the service. I have a decent sized modern sub pending. I was going to upgrade and pay for the gold shield, but I’m having serious doubts about the cost.

I really dig the NFC and the pic’s, and that’s all I care about from the GS service. If the pics are falling short, I can no longer justify the extra ~$100 for the NFCs and fancier inserts. Plus, they’ll probably get returned sooner. I’ve been patiently waiting for the TV’s to get fixed, but it’s time for me to $&%# or get off the pot!

As far as I’m concerned PCGS is the gold standard, (no pun intended), and this doesn’t shake my confidence in their grading. I would though like to see the TV issue formally addressed, with some kinda eta on when we can expect consistent quality. If CS has previously and formally addressed the issue plz accept my apologies - I haven’t seen it.

Dan - I think you’re right and I may just resort to doing my own photos. I’m decent with room for improvement, arguably already as good as the pics you’ve posted.

braddick

@lermish said:
I'm very curious... Those certainly don't look like the worst TVs I've seen. What is your primary concern with them?

I had to re-read the thread (slowly this time) to see the OP is actually complaining about the Trueviews. I think they look terrific and now look forward to DD's own photos.

Inlander

I have come to the same conclusion myself. I miss the old TrueViews. It's time to get back into numismatic photography.

BustHalfBrian

Even more reason now to invest in a good coin photography setup at home. It pays for itself quickly and you are in control of the quality of the photos produced. With some education on macro photography and a little practice, you can take excellent photos of your coin collection from your own home.

PeakRarities

@lermish - IMO TVs should do 2 things. 1. Accurately represent the coin, and 2. Make someone want to buy that coin. I don't think these images do either of those things. One should be able to reasonably ascertain, to a degree, what a coin will look like based on the TV. When i sent the cert numbers to Alex, he was like "uhh I have no idea what these look like, please take better pictures".

42-p TV: Whats with the lighting and contrast? Why did they shoot this one like a proof? The luster shows well but 80% of the fields are black

MY images:

42-S TV: This one is not awful, you be the judge

My images:

43-d TV- Too dark, and take a look at how they cropped the coin. Where are the rims 😐?

My images:

45-p TV- Why so YELLOW?

My images:

In summary, there is 0 consistency between any of the true views, and these are all the same type of coin presumably shot consecutively. Why is there so much variance between the finished product? Many are too dark or too yellow, and the crop job on the 43-d is laughable. Admittedly, the PCGS team has better lighting than I do, and they're able to make the luster pop. As a 2 day novice of coin photography, I would expect them to be better than me in ALL aspects though, not just one.

lermish

Your pics are extremely nice, beginner or not.

Thanks for the breakdown, makes a lot of sense for each one (and easier to have you spoon feed the analysis rather than zooming in and out on my phone 😅)

PeakRarities

Heres the 44-d that didnt upgrade via recon. It doesn't have a TV, but its too pretty of a coin not to share lol.

Mr_Spud

I wonder if they are trying to somehow automate some of their photography and editing and haven’t yet worked out some of the bugs? 🤔

The_Dinosaur_Man

It looks like they have the camera set to Auto for a few too many attributes in the TrueViews. Manual is always the way to go.

Connecticoin

Until they fix this I think we should be able to opt out of Trueview on Regular submissions and get charged $35 a coin.

I am seriously thinking of sending my next regular submission under the economy tier and just paying the $10 service adjustment (ok maybe just for coins worth less than $800 or so).

airplanenut

@braddick said:

@lermish said:
I'm very curious... Those certainly don't look like the worst TVs I've seen. What is your primary concern with them?

I had to re-read the thread (slowly this time) to see the OP is actually complaining about the Trueviews. I think they look terrific and now look forward to DD's own photos.

I’ll disagree here. I think the lighting is horrible, leaving giant dark areas devoid of detail. Lighting like this looks to have been set without any regard for the coin being photographed, and moving the lights just a bit could have made for a far more appealing photo. Big, lustrous coins like these should be about as easy as you can get for photography. Results like this are dreadful.

Manifest_Destiny

Trueviews have become embarrassing for both me and PCGS.. Here's one from my latest reholder sub.

braddick

@airplanenut said:

@braddick said:

@lermish said:
I'm very curious... Those certainly don't look like the worst TVs I've seen. What is your primary concern with them?

I had to re-read the thread (slowly this time) to see the OP is actually complaining about the Trueviews. I think they look terrific and now look forward to DD's own photos.

I’ll disagree here. I think the lighting is horrible, leaving giant dark areas devoid of detail. Lighting like this looks to have been set without any regard for the coin being photographed, and moving the lights just a bit could have made for a far more appealing photo. Big, lustrous coins like these should be about as easy as you can get for photography. Results like this are dreadful.

Having looked now at DD's photos compared to the Trueviews, I also will disagree with myself.

alaura22

@DeplorableDan said:
Heres the 44-d that didnt upgrade via recon. It doesn't have a TV, but its too pretty of a coin not to share lol.

First off Dan, this aint GOLD
The coins you posted are amazing, makes me miss my set I sold in 07. I loved my Walkers

FlyingAl

These are really really bad TVs. I looked at them trying to get an idea of what the coin looked like and just said "nope".

Connecticoin

@Manifest_Destiny said:
Trueviews have become embarrassing for both me and PCGS.. Here's one from my latest reholder sub.

That one is actually decent, certainly one of the better post-Phil photos.

DCW

Cookie cutter photos

tcollects

I wonder what they did to the camera to make everything yellow

bigjpst

@Connecticoin said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
Trueviews have become embarrassing for both me and PCGS.. Here's one from my latest reholder sub.

That one is actually decent, certainly one of the better post-Phil photos.

Except it’s blurry

Slade01

@Manifest_Destiny agreed, the TV is way too yellow, it makes the coin far less attractive than your shot. They also must have dialed down the luster level -- so all in all the TV is dull and yellow compared to reality.

ElmerFusterpuck

@bigjpst said:

@Connecticoin said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
Trueviews have become embarrassing for both me and PCGS.. Here's one from my latest reholder sub.

That one is actually decent, certainly one of the better post-Phil photos.

Except it’s blurry

That's because that image appears to be a copy and paste from a phone. Even the numbers are blurry.

This is an eye-opening topic. The True Views are problematic, but they are good for one thing - showing off the luster. It's like we need a combination of photos or a high quality video.

lkenefic

Wow... thanks for sharing! That's a bit of work! I got turned onto TVs about 5 years ago before I got my own photography set up. I'm still learning but my images are at least more consistent than the current TVs being produced.

I agree that the TVs should do the two things the OP mentioned: 1- accurately depict the coin, and 2- make someone want to buy it... but sometimes those are two competing interests. I've seen a number of TV images that looked more like "glamour shots" and show the coin much more favorably. I suppose it comes down to which side of the sale you're on... if I'm buying, I want the coin accurately depicted.

spacehayduke

@tcollects said:
I wonder what they did to the camera to make everything yellow

White balance off..........

Manifest_Destiny

@Slade01 said:
@Manifest_Destiny agreed, the TV is way too yellow, it makes the coin far less attractive than your shot. They also must have dialed down the luster level -- so all in all the TV is dull and yellow compared to reality.

That's my main complaint with TVs lately - waaaaay too yellow. So, the head photography guy leaves and all of the sudden the people taking picture forget how to take them. I don't get it.

Here's a couple of really bad ones. PCGS should be embarrassed.

PeakRarities

@Mr_Spud said:
I wonder if they are trying to somehow automate some of their photography and editing and haven’t yet worked out some of the bugs? 🤔

Bingo. After seeing the @dcw post below, that makes the most sense.

@DCW said:
Cookie cutter photos

Connecticoin

The crop job on the 43-D is especially egregious.

@DeplorableDan has PCGS responded to any correspondence you have had with them regarding these atrocious photos?

PeakRarities

@Connecticoin said:
The crop job on the 43-D is especially egregious.

@DeplorableDan has PCGS responded to any correspondence you have had with them regarding these atrocious photos?

I won’t be contacting them, I don’t have the patience for it anymore. The last time this happened, I sent them an email that quickly turned into a week of corresponding back and forth so I could thoroughly explain everything. In the end, the alternate images they had available were just as bad as the originals, they didn’t offer credit or vouchers so it was a waste of my time. Not worth the trouble for me, YMMV.

Edit: And with @FlyingAl’s assistance, I composed a long email pointing out the mistakes they made with the photos, and how they could improve them. Evidently, that fell on deaf ears.

Barberian

("Barberian, be nice to Trueview for once!")

They make drab coins more colorful.

Seller's photos

Scans

Trueview

Tetromibi

I've been gone for a while. What happened to the pcgs photo guy (phil?)

Barberian

@Tetromibi said:
I've been gone for a while. What happened to the pcgs photo guy (phil?)

He's with Great Collections now.

Barberian

@Barberian said:
("Barberian, be nice to Trueview for once!")

Edited:

Niceness wins the day!

tcollects

@Barberian said:

@Tetromibi said:
I've been gone for a while. What happened to the pcgs photo guy (phil?)

He's with Great Collections now.

he still haunts PCGS in the form of an overexposed yellow ghost

Saam

These terrible TrueView examples make me wonder if my errors they're grading will be as bad.

messydesk

@DCW said:
Cookie cutter photos

Mass-production assembly line photos. There's no reason the same lighting setup can't be used for those 4 coins, but the one chosen was clearly the wrong setup. You're getting what you pay for when you pay PCGS $5/coin for a photo. They have their purpose in documenting what the coin looked like when it went into the holder, but they're too often not good for showing someone what your coin looks like.

One of the things I tell people learning how to take decent pictures is that the histogram is your friend. It tells you at a glance if there is data lost in the shadows or highlights.

The odd cropping was probably an automation issue.