@ProofCollection said:
I was not envisioning redoing 1000's of pictures. My vision is that if they got 5-10 complaints per month (probably on average 10 coins per complaint) and redid those photos it would or should register in their metrics and they would do something about it. Otherwise if we say and do nothing management assumes their customers are all happy. Again, I think there's details in what I said that are being glossed over. If you can provide OBJECTIVE criticism about real identifiable _defects _in the pictures, I think PCGS will make it right. If you just tell them your photos suck and you don't like them, then I wouldn't expect anything.
And therein lies the problem. Other than "the photos aren't as good as we know they can be," what are the definable characteristics of OP's photos that we can complain about that any experienced photographer would immediately identify as a defect? focus? exposure? Lighting? Balance? f-stop? I only barely know these terms and I don't know how to apply or judge them correctly.
But even under your scenario you are assuming that PCGS would agree that the photos are substandard and capitulate to the request to have those 5-10 coins reimaged, that comes at a cost. I do think that PCGS would agree to substitute any other images they have on file, but that again will likely not address the quality of the photos issue.
I think it's going to take something bigger than a trickle of complaints; another poster mentioned the impact from lower revenues as submitters do not choose gold shield/TV service. But even then, I'm not sure how many submitters would need to change their submissions to be noticed. I mean this is not a new problem and even the people here that have been unsatisfied with the TV's are still submitting under gold shield/TV tiers.
At the end of the day it's not a concern for me as I don't submit to PCGS, I just feel sorry for the folks that are spending the money on a product that is as poor as the TV product currently is.
It has affected my buying habits as well, there was a coin that I was going to buy, but the true view was awful and it actually was just enough to keep me from wanting the coin…
Also, I had a coin in my collection that has a bad trueview from this new era, and every time I looked at the cert, I just shook my head and actually just the other day that was one of the coins I used towards the trade of my new three dollar gold piece, it’s made me get rid of a coin and it’s kept me from buying some…
I would rather have an old holder that doesn’t even have a trueview because like others have mentioned above, that follows the coin around!
This definitely needs addressed!
I certainly have no desire to send anything to PCGS currently and the trueviews were part of the deal before. I really looked forward to seeing those great pictures that Phil would do.
I think we’re forgetting the problem that you’re forced to have a substandard image past a certain value point with GoldShield. There’s no “opt-out” for that.
If I send in a coin in a Gold Shield holder with a request for reholder in a normal holder, will the TrueView follow? Or will it be deleted? Anyone know before I spend time trying to contact PCGS?
@Inlander said:
If I send in a coin in a Gold Shield holder with a request for reholder in a normal holder, will the TrueView follow? Or will it be deleted? Anyone know before I spend time trying to contact PCGS?
I did exactly that, and the photo does stay with the coin.
@Connecticoin said:
Just a thought - maybe Phil can go consult with PCGS on an hourly basis (at a generous rate/hr.) to direct their current photog staff on what they need to do to fix this. Some tips on how to consistently tweak the exposure and white balance from coin to coin could do it. GC is a client of, not a competitor to, PCGS so I would think they could make this happen (if the parties involved were willing).
I think the issue is a bit deeper than that. From what I’ve seen, it appears that PCGS is trying to make this an automated process with as little human involvement as possible. That logic is at odds with what it takes to take quality coin photos, and if I had to guess I’d say there’s budget restraints implemented by the powers that be.
Are the “whale” dealers and collectors going to be ok with this? Would @tradedollarnut want his (when he owned them) 1885 Trade Dollar or 1794 SP66 Dollar going to Trueview now? For the “express” and up tier alone I would think they would need quality photos to stay competitive. Maybe that is being done already, I have not looked through any recent “rarity” Trueviews.
I don't know if I'd call myself a "whale" but I've submitted several 6 figure coins that resulted in awful truviews, and to answer your question, NO. I was not ok with it. I crossed my slug over from NGC which carries a 1% fee, that single coin cost me around $1300 to cross over and I got a worthless true view. Like you say, you'd think they could at least TRY for coins submitted under Express, Walkthrough, or Rarities, at shows nonetheless.
Then I would think skimping on quality photos would be penny-wise and pound foolish. Plus there is more competition in TPG grading now.
Do you guys remember when PCGS posted the job offering for senior photographer and the salary was absurdly low for California? This is probably the result of that.
@air4mdc said:
Looks like they need someone familiar with Adobe. Pictures are good, just need better image editing.
A lot of their back end processes are automated. So if you put crap in, you get crap out.
They need to spend some money and hire an experienced, top-flight coin photographer.
Maybe they haven't hired anyone as a photographer as of yet and just gave the camera to the stockroom boy/girl and said, "Here, take some pictures!" As a macro photographer myself, I know it's not rocket science. Something surely is not right here. Anyone that knows PCGS, knows that these TVs are nowhere near the quality they used to be. Surely PCGS knows, "maybe they don't care. "
There was a day where the coin in hand is all that mattered. However, most collectors' coins are secured, and the digital collection is what is used to view/sell/buy a coin. So that quality picture is what counts.
I guess we can partly solve this problem for a little hassle and a few extra bucks by sending coins to one of the great professional coin photographers we have in this forum, then submit them to PCGS and don't order a TV until things improve? maybe also send them to be photographed after slabbing? probably end up with the most marketable set of pics that way imho
@air4mdc said:
Looks like they need someone familiar with Adobe. Pictures are good, just need better image editing.
A lot of their back end processes are automated. So if you put crap in, you get crap out.
They need to spend some money and hire an experienced, top-flight coin photographer.
Maybe they haven't hired anyone as a photographer as of yet and just gave the camera to the stockroom boy/girl and said, "Here, take some pictures!" As a macro photographer myself, I know it's not rocket science. Something surely is not right here. Anyone that knows PCGS, knows that these TVs are nowhere near the quality they used to be. Surely PCGS knows, "maybe they don't care. "
There was a day where the coin in hand is all that mattered. However, most collectors' coins are secured, and the digital collection is what is used to view/sell/buy a coin. So that quality picture is what counts.
No, they definitely have staff photographers. They just pay way less than I'd imagine their competition in SoCal does and thus, they can't get anybody good. That model worked when they had Phil and I assume paid him well enough to train people to take decent pictures, but without him there to train them up, that model falls apart.
@Coinscratch said:
I don’t know the circumstances surrounding Phil’s move to GC but for us it made more sense for him to move to CAC.
While I can't speak for Phil, I doubt he wanted to move from SoCal, and GC is right down the street so...
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@tcollects said:
I guess we can partly solve this problem for a little hassle and a few extra bucks by sending coins to one of the great professional coin photographers we have in this forum, then submit them to PCGS and don't order a TV until things improve? maybe also send them to be photographed after slabbing? probably end up with the most marketable set of pics that way imho
Agreed, and I can even take decent photos myself (although good Trueviews saved me time and, I used to use them to calibrate my white balance). However, for regular service and above, I don't think there is an option to opt out of Trueviews. One way I may go for now is to submit coins valued at $300 to $800 or so under the economy tier and then just pay the $10 service adjustment for exceeding $300.
Another issue that someone brought up on this thread is that even if you can take or get good photos of your coins, the crappy Trueviews in the PCGS database could (and have, according to some) affect the resale value of the coins.
@ProofCollection said:
I would argue that us customers need to start rejecting the substandard product. The problem I (and probably most collectors) would have is giving an objective, undisputable objection to the photos to customer service other than "the pictures suck" that can't be dismissed as a matter of personal preference. I think if we can do that, PCGS will re-take the photos for free.
I would bet that PCGS will not re-take photos for free.
Even if you can identify object technical shortcomings with the photos? And it might not even take that if you can send your TV to them along side a comparable coin TV that looks excellent so that it's obvious. It really helps if you can "speak photographer" but unfortunately I cannot.
I know PCGS CS can be tight sometimes but I've also had several experiences with them trying hard to make me happy. I think you can get it done with the right approach, but that will only happen if someone tries.
When I did complain about some of my TVs a few months ago, they actually swapped out the photos with a second set they had taken which were much better. So there's that possibility too.
That's really strange that they would have another set that was better than what they posted. That actually doesn't help with their problem. If they aren't taking the time to put up the better images whose doing quality control?
As I was reading this I am thinking-
Why don't they put the people doing photography through a professional class that they need to pass?
This is not work for an amateur photographer like me. This is supposed to be professional. I don't expect that everyone will be as talented as Phil with all of his years of experience. I know that if I took a course on photography that my ability to take good images should improve dramatically. Just my thoughts.
Another things is with all the good equipment they must have the photographer should know how to use it. It's apparent they do not.
Nobody like to be in the position to complain but we are paying for the TV's and they matter to use.
I've got a coin in for grading now and it will be gold shield. I'm curious to see how it turns out.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo
@willy said:
This is a recent purchase from The Penny Lady. The coin looks nothing like the Truview I am assuming it is a newer photo.
That is just horrid.
Yikes! To pick up on another poster's comments... and to play Devil's advocate for a second...
I've been looking at a lot of 55DDO's over the past year and the TV makes that one look washed out... almost cleaned! If I'm basing a purchasing decision on the TV, I'd likely pass... that said, how many times have we bought the coin based on the TV "glamour shot" and be mildly surprised (negatively so) when the coin in-hand doesn't look nearly that good. How many of those coins were sent back?
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
@willy said:
This is a recent purchase from The Penny Lady. The coin looks nothing like the Truview I am assuming it is a newer photo.
That is just horrid.
Yikes! To pick up on another poster's comments... and to play Devil's advocate for a second...
I've been looking at a lot of 55DDO's over the past year and the TV makes that one look washed out... almost cleaned! If I'm basing a purchasing decision on the TV, I'd likely pass... that said, how many times have we bought the coin based on the TV "glamour shot" and be mildly surprised (negatively so) when the coin in-hand doesn't look nearly that good. How many of those coins were sent back?
IMHO, the pic should look professionally done and accurately show the good and bad. Edited: that 55DD pic wasn't as bad as initially thought, just same old overexposure and white balance issues. With the negative impact there must be on on prices for bad-TV'd coins, you can almost imagine the big auction houses sending in their crack teams of photographers, rappelling from helicopters down to the PCGS roof like the A-Team, their one mission to fix the white balance.
My 55DD is a AU58+ CAC approved it is a nice coin. I bought it based on a quick photo that Charmy had and because of the CAC sticker. Almost did not buy it because of the Truview.
I am going to bring the coin to PCGS at the ANA show and see if they will do a new Truview as I do not want the one they did in the database.
@willy said:
This is a recent purchase from The Penny Lady. The coin looks nothing like the Truview I am assuming it is a newer photo.
That is just horrid.
Yikes! To pick up on another poster's comments... and to play Devil's advocate for a second...
I've been looking at a lot of 55DDO's over the past year and the TV makes that one look washed out... almost cleaned! If I'm basing a purchasing decision on the TV, I'd likely pass... that said, how many times have we bought the coin based on the TV "glamour shot" and be mildly surprised (negatively so) when the coin in-hand doesn't look nearly that good. How many of those coins were sent back?
IMHO, the pic should look professionally done and accurately show the good and bad. That 55DD can't possibly look like that, it's an unusually bad pic even today, it almost looks like something or someone got confused by the doubled die? With the negative impact there must be on on prices for bad-TV'd coins, you can almost imagine the big auction houses sending in their crack teams of photographers, rappelling from helicopters down to the PCGS roof like the A-Team, their one mission to fix the white balance.
Even a cell phone can take better pictures these days. Maybe not as clear, but they would look more realistic!!!
@logger7 said:
They could get a bunch of gifted photographer members here, set up some FEMA trailers for housing and get their operation straightened out.
Please not FEMA, we like these people. Go with the high-end ones used for B & above movie stars on remote set locations.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
We have lots of really good coin photographers here on the forum. Too bad PCGS can't just hire them out on demand and send them the coins for True Views, haha! Those photos posted here look like coins viewed through beige ectoplasm.
@willy said:
This is a recent purchase from The Penny Lady. The coin looks nothing like the Truview I am assuming it is a newer photo.
That is just horrid.
Yikes! To pick up on another poster's comments... and to play Devil's advocate for a second...
I've been looking at a lot of 55DDO's over the past year and the TV makes that one look washed out... almost cleaned! If I'm basing a purchasing decision on the TV, I'd likely pass... that said, how many times have we bought the coin based on the TV "glamour shot" and be mildly surprised (negatively so) when the coin in-hand doesn't look nearly that good. How many of those coins were sent back?
IMHO, the pic should look professionally done and accurately show the good and bad. That 55DD can't possibly look like that, it's an unusually bad pic even today, it almost looks like something or someone got confused by the doubled die? With the negative impact there must be on on prices for bad-TV'd coins, you can almost imagine the big auction houses sending in their crack teams of photographers, rappelling from helicopters down to the PCGS roof like the A-Team, their one mission to fix the white balance.
Exactly so! The TV should accurately reflect the "coin in hand" . The original purpose of TPGs was to offer a guarantee that a professional numismatist has evaluated the coin so that coins could be bought "sight unseen" . I saw the TV as a legit backup to seeing the coin in-hand... no better, no worse.
As to the current situation... and to carry on with the analogy... I'm sure they'd rather see the A-Team show up and fix thing than see John Wick the Collector show up...
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
@ProofCollection said:
I would argue that us customers need to start rejecting the substandard product. The problem I (and probably most collectors) would have is giving an objective, undisputable objection to the photos to customer service other than "the pictures suck" that can't be dismissed as a matter of personal preference. I think if we can do that, PCGS will re-take the photos for free.
I would bet that PCGS will not re-take photos for free.
Even if you can identify object technical shortcomings with the photos? And it might not even take that if you can send your TV to them along side a comparable coin TV that looks excellent so that it's obvious. It really helps if you can "speak photographer" but unfortunately I cannot.
I know PCGS CS can be tight sometimes but I've also had several experiences with them trying hard to make me happy. I think you can get it done with the right approach, but that will only happen if someone tries.
When I did complain about some of my TVs a few months ago, they actually swapped out the photos with a second set they had taken which were much better. So there's that possibility too.
That's really strange that they would have another set that was better than what they posted. That actually doesn't help with their problem. If they aren't taking the time to put up the better images whose doing quality control?
As I was reading this I am thinking-
Why don't they put the people doing photography through a professional class that they need to pass?
This is not work for an amateur photographer like me. This is supposed to be professional. I don't expect that everyone will be as talented as Phil with all of his years of experience. I know that if I took a course on photography that my ability to take good images should improve dramatically. Just my thoughts.
Another things is with all the good equipment they must have the photographer should know how to use it. It's apparent they do not.
Nobody like to be in the position to complain but we are paying for the TV's and they matter to use.
I've got a coin in for grading now and it will be gold shield. I'm curious to see how it turns out.
When they take multiple sets, the pictures were very different so I can see that someone at PCGS thought I'd like the version they chose. It's hard to explain but one version emphasized how shiny the coin was and the other emphasized surface condition. The surface of these coins was not that great so I can see why they thought the other one looked better, but I'd rather have the "truer" version where you can see every nick and mark.
Here is another example of the “yellowing” of the gold Trueviews. Someone just made a 67+ 1904 $5 Lib, so it is now Pop 2. The first photo is the “new” 67+, and the second is the other 67+. So as @DeplorableDan mentioned, this problem is emerging across the board, at all service levels.
Speaking to your comments earlier, when I went back and forth with customer service about the order with my $50 slug (a $1600 submission between 3 coins), I was not offered vouchers, nor was it offered to reshoot the coins at their expense. As another poster mentioned, with coins like this, logistics and risk come into play every time I have to get them somewhere. I didn't explicitly ask them to give me vouchers or reshoot the coins, but I voiced my displeasure and told them how I felt about the situation and their response was more or less "we're sorry to hear that". Also, I provided a write-up supplied by @flyingal that described EXACTLY what was wrong with the photos with explicit detail, and what they'd need to do to correct them. If you'd like, I'll send it to you in a pm, but supposedly that information was passed along to the photo team at the time.
Granted, I am just one customer and as you say they're unlikely to make changes on behalf of one disgruntled customer. If they got bombarded with dozens of very specific complaints then perhaps they'd realize the severity of the problem, but that's a tall ask from the community when most people simply don't have the time or energy to deal with that.
@logger7 said:
They could get a bunch of gifted photographer members here, set up some FEMA trailers for housing and get their operation straightened out.
Please not FEMA, we like these people. Go with the high-end ones used for B & above movie stars on remote set locations.
I agree and all kinds of perks would be nice for them as well like a certain amount of free grading.
Speaking to your comments earlier, when I went back and forth with customer service about the order with my $50 slug (a $1600 submission between 3 coins), I was not offered vouchers, nor was it offered to reshoot the coins at their expense. As another poster mentioned, with coins like this, logistics and risk come into play every time I have to get them somewhere. I didn't explicitly ask them to give me vouchers or reshoot the coins, but I voiced my displeasure and told them how I felt about the situation and their response was more or less "we're sorry to hear that". Also, I provided a write-up supplied by @flyingal that described EXACTLY what was wrong with the photos with explicit detail, and what they'd need to do to correct them. If you'd like, I'll send it to you in a pm, but supposedly that information was passed along to the photo team at the time.
Granted, I am just one customer and as you say they're unlikely to make changes on behalf of one disgruntled customer. If they got bombarded with dozens of very specific complaints then perhaps they'd realize the severity of the problem, but that's a tall ask from the community when most people simply don't have the time or energy to deal with that.
Thanks Dan, it was worth a try and I had faith in PCGS so I was optimistic that they would response more favorably.
The thing I do know for sure is that if we say and do nothing about this, we cannot expect anything to change.
I wish PCGS would have a volunteer customer advocate that they would meet with once a quarter to get feedback from customers.
@Connecticoin said:
I had hopes that these would be better than some recent photos discussed here, but overall, they are disappointing. The cent photos are ok but the luster on the 55DD does not show well. The buffalo nickels appear over-exposed, and the 37-D 3 leg is too yellow. The gold coins look ok but the color looks “off”. The obverse of the PL Morgan does indeed have a lot of yellow but this is “too yellow”. Overall it appears they still have exposure and white balance issues.
Let’s take a look at just one photo, the 1931-S Buffalo.
As an amateur photographer, this is my version of the same issue, but of course not the same coin.’
Since this is a GIF, there are serious constraints on how many unique colors appear in the image, as well as downsizing both the obverse and reverse to 800x800 pixels. Nonetheless, you can see how the changes to the lighting angle in the animation affect the portrait.
I find the trueview to be out of focus, but that may be from copying from the original and pasting to this thread. The animation is composed of nine images. Each one of them has better lighting, better representation of luster, and better color than the Trueview.
I can, of course, see that the OP’s coin is a better grade, but based on the photos I would stay with my $25 coin than the one shown in the Trueview.
I almost never buy coins based on TVs only. In the old days they were glamour shots which made the coin look much better. Today we have the opposite problem. They make the coin look worse.
@skier07 said:
I almost never buy coins based on TVs only. In the old days they were glamour shots which made the coin look much better. Today we have the opposite problem. They make the coin look worse.
Much worse. Even unrecognizable. I have to admit that this coin has some issues, but Trueview makes that abundantly apparent with their "glamour shot" here. It's almost amusing.
@willy said:
This is a recent purchase from The Penny Lady. The coin looks nothing like the Truview I am assuming it is a newer photo.
That is just horrid.
Yikes! To pick up on another poster's comments... and to play Devil's advocate for a second...
I've been looking at a lot of 55DDO's over the past year and the TV makes that one look washed out... almost cleaned! If I'm basing a purchasing decision on the TV, I'd likely pass... that said, how many times have we bought the coin based on the TV "glamour shot" and be mildly surprised (negatively so) when the coin in-hand doesn't look nearly that good. How many of those coins were sent back?
IMHO, the pic should look professionally done and accurately show the good and bad. That 55DD can't possibly look like that, it's an unusually bad pic even today, it almost looks like something or someone got confused by the doubled die? With the negative impact there must be on on prices for bad-TV'd coins, you can almost imagine the big auction houses sending in their crack teams of photographers, rappelling from helicopters down to the PCGS roof like the A-Team, their one mission to fix the white balance.
That is the thumbnail for the trueview blown up to full size since that's what the forum does to small photos now(mods, please fix this "feature"!!). Here is the medium. I can't speak to the colors but at least it looks like detail is captured decently.
@willy said:
This is a recent purchase from The Penny Lady. The coin looks nothing like the Truview I am assuming it is a newer photo.
That is just horrid.
Yikes! To pick up on another poster's comments... and to play Devil's advocate for a second...
I've been looking at a lot of 55DDO's over the past year and the TV makes that one look washed out... almost cleaned! If I'm basing a purchasing decision on the TV, I'd likely pass... that said, how many times have we bought the coin based on the TV "glamour shot" and be mildly surprised (negatively so) when the coin in-hand doesn't look nearly that good. How many of those coins were sent back?
Interesting idea if PCGS is purposely taking photos of coins in the most negative way possible so that when you see the coin in hand you’re pleasantly surprised?
@skier07 said:
I almost never buy coins based on TVs only. In the old days they were glamour shots which made the coin look much better. Today we have the opposite problem. They make the coin look worse.
At this point it's safe to say buying a coin based on a TV, at least anything recent, is a terrible mistake.
Interesting idea if PCGS is purposely taking photos of coins in the most negative way possible so that when you see the coin in hand you’re pleasantly surprised?
The old under promise and over deliver strategy!
Seriously though, I used to look at a TV and assume I was getting a likeness that was shot under the very best lighting and most ideal conditions. Therefore, I should be ever so slightly underwhelmed or at parity.
Now I don’t have a clue what might show up at the door.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
@willy said:
This is a recent purchase from The Penny Lady. The coin looks nothing like the Truview I am assuming it is a newer photo.
That is just horrid.
Yikes! To pick up on another poster's comments... and to play Devil's advocate for a second...
I've been looking at a lot of 55DDO's over the past year and the TV makes that one look washed out... almost cleaned! If I'm basing a purchasing decision on the TV, I'd likely pass... that said, how many times have we bought the coin based on the TV "glamour shot" and be mildly surprised (negatively so) when the coin in-hand doesn't look nearly that good. How many of those coins were sent back?
Interesting idea if PCGS is purposely taking photos of coins in the most negative way possible so that when you see the coin in hand you’re pleasantly surprised?
lol... gosh, and I thought I was cynical!
Seriously though... I'd be more than mildly relieved to know that my (now) coin-in-hand looks better than when I pulled the trigger.
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
Ok, so I just received my "Economy Special Issues" submission, which included Trueviews. Following below for each coin is first, the Trueview, and then my images. While my images are not perfect, I think anyone familiar with the Feutchwanger Cent knows the metal is German Silver, and it is not tinted baby crap yellow. White balance is Photography 101, and I find it incredible to believe that PCGS deems photos like this (and numerous others posted and discussed) acceptable. Will the 2025 PCGS Calendar be full of yellow-tinted photos? This is a serious problem that is hurting the PCGS brand. I have been a loyal PCGS customer for 20 years, but this cannot continue for me to remain loyal.
@Connecticoin said:
While my images are not perfect, I think anyone familiar with the Feutchwanger Cent knows the metal is German Silver, and it is not tinted baby crap yellow. White balance is Photography 101, and I find it incredible to believe that PCGS deems photos like this (and numerous others posted and discussed) acceptable. Will the 2025 PCGS Calendar be full of yellow-tinted photos?
That’s what I find so baffling. By no means am I an expert photographer, but the “yellowing” issue is so widespread and consistent that I assume it’d be relatively simple to adjust and correct it across the board.
There are multiple issues with the new generation PCGS images and it is truly stunning that they have not determined in-house that these issues are worth fixing.
@TomB said:
There are multiple issues with the new generation PCGS images and it is truly stunning that they have not determined in-house that these issues are worth fixing.
It seems like coins are an afterthought to the parent company these days. Cards are driving the boat right now.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
To keep this thread from falling farther down, let's keep this discussion going... I know I will not be sending in my coins until this is resolved. As a small time collector and buy/sell for fun guy, I count on accurate tru-view photo's both for documentation and for re-sale on some coins. I'm a point & shoot amateur with a cannon rebel and even I can get my white balance figured out.
Not to overly pile on here but yes, those tvs are completely unacceptable and especially when you consider the amount of online sales that rely heavily on the images. I guess baseball cards are easy to shoot.
Comments
Looks like they need someone familiar with Adobe. Pictures are good, just need better image editing.
But even under your scenario you are assuming that PCGS would agree that the photos are substandard and capitulate to the request to have those 5-10 coins reimaged, that comes at a cost. I do think that PCGS would agree to substitute any other images they have on file, but that again will likely not address the quality of the photos issue.
I think it's going to take something bigger than a trickle of complaints; another poster mentioned the impact from lower revenues as submitters do not choose gold shield/TV service. But even then, I'm not sure how many submitters would need to change their submissions to be noticed. I mean this is not a new problem and even the people here that have been unsatisfied with the TV's are still submitting under gold shield/TV tiers.
At the end of the day it's not a concern for me as I don't submit to PCGS, I just feel sorry for the folks that are spending the money on a product that is as poor as the TV product currently is.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
It has affected my buying habits as well, there was a coin that I was going to buy, but the true view was awful and it actually was just enough to keep me from wanting the coin…
Also, I had a coin in my collection that has a bad trueview from this new era, and every time I looked at the cert, I just shook my head and actually just the other day that was one of the coins I used towards the trade of my new three dollar gold piece, it’s made me get rid of a coin and it’s kept me from buying some…
I would rather have an old holder that doesn’t even have a trueview because like others have mentioned above, that follows the coin around!
This definitely needs addressed!
I certainly have no desire to send anything to PCGS currently and the trueviews were part of the deal before. I really looked forward to seeing those great pictures that Phil would do.
My YouTube Channel
I think we’re forgetting the problem that you’re forced to have a substandard image past a certain value point with GoldShield. There’s no “opt-out” for that.
Coin Photographer.
If I send in a coin in a Gold Shield holder with a request for reholder in a normal holder, will the TrueView follow? Or will it be deleted? Anyone know before I spend time trying to contact PCGS?
TBD
I did exactly that, and the photo does stay with the coin.
Then I would think skimping on quality photos would be penny-wise and pound foolish. Plus there is more competition in TPG grading now.
That is just horrid.
Tom loves Connecticut too much 😁
A lot of their back end processes are automated. So if you put crap in, you get crap out.
They need to spend some money and hire an experienced, top-flight coin photographer.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Do you guys remember when PCGS posted the job offering for senior photographer and the salary was absurdly low for California? This is probably the result of that.
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer, see my portfolio here: (http://www.donahuenumismatics.com/).
Maybe they haven't hired anyone as a photographer as of yet and just gave the camera to the stockroom boy/girl and said, "Here, take some pictures!" As a macro photographer myself, I know it's not rocket science. Something surely is not right here. Anyone that knows PCGS, knows that these TVs are nowhere near the quality they used to be. Surely PCGS knows, "maybe they don't care. "
There was a day where the coin in hand is all that mattered. However, most collectors' coins are secured, and the digital collection is what is used to view/sell/buy a coin. So that quality picture is what counts.
I bet you wouldn’t have said that if your username were “Californiacoin” instead of “Connecticutcoin”.
😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don’t know the circumstances surrounding Phil’s move to GC but for us it made more sense for him to move to CAC.
I guess we can partly solve this problem for a little hassle and a few extra bucks by sending coins to one of the great professional coin photographers we have in this forum, then submit them to PCGS and don't order a TV until things improve? maybe also send them to be photographed after slabbing? probably end up with the most marketable set of pics that way imho
No, they definitely have staff photographers. They just pay way less than I'd imagine their competition in SoCal does and thus, they can't get anybody good. That model worked when they had Phil and I assume paid him well enough to train people to take decent pictures, but without him there to train them up, that model falls apart.
While I can't speak for Phil, I doubt he wanted to move from SoCal, and GC is right down the street so...
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
No, selfishly for us, we needed him to stay with PCGS.
Agreed, and I can even take decent photos myself (although good Trueviews saved me time and, I used to use them to calibrate my white balance). However, for regular service and above, I don't think there is an option to opt out of Trueviews. One way I may go for now is to submit coins valued at $300 to $800 or so under the economy tier and then just pay the $10 service adjustment for exceeding $300.
Another issue that someone brought up on this thread is that even if you can take or get good photos of your coins, the crappy Trueviews in the PCGS database could (and have, according to some) affect the resale value of the coins.
That's really strange that they would have another set that was better than what they posted. That actually doesn't help with their problem. If they aren't taking the time to put up the better images whose doing quality control?
As I was reading this I am thinking-
Why don't they put the people doing photography through a professional class that they need to pass?
This is not work for an amateur photographer like me. This is supposed to be professional. I don't expect that everyone will be as talented as Phil with all of his years of experience. I know that if I took a course on photography that my ability to take good images should improve dramatically. Just my thoughts.
Another things is with all the good equipment they must have the photographer should know how to use it. It's apparent they do not.
Nobody like to be in the position to complain but we are paying for the TV's and they matter to use.
I've got a coin in for grading now and it will be gold shield. I'm curious to see how it turns out.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo
I had a 6 coin submission using Gold Shield and all the TrueViews looked washed out.
Very disappointed.
It probably made a lot more sense for Phil to move to GC. He can practically walk from PCGS to GC.
Yikes! To pick up on another poster's comments... and to play Devil's advocate for a second...
I've been looking at a lot of 55DDO's over the past year and the TV makes that one look washed out... almost cleaned! If I'm basing a purchasing decision on the TV, I'd likely pass... that said, how many times have we bought the coin based on the TV "glamour shot" and be mildly surprised (negatively so) when the coin in-hand doesn't look nearly that good. How many of those coins were sent back?
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.
IMHO, the pic should look professionally done and accurately show the good and bad. Edited: that 55DD pic wasn't as bad as initially thought, just same old overexposure and white balance issues. With the negative impact there must be on on prices for bad-TV'd coins, you can almost imagine the big auction houses sending in their crack teams of photographers, rappelling from helicopters down to the PCGS roof like the A-Team, their one mission to fix the white balance.
My 55DD is a AU58+ CAC approved it is a nice coin. I bought it based on a quick photo that Charmy had and because of the CAC sticker. Almost did not buy it because of the Truview.
I am going to bring the coin to PCGS at the ANA show and see if they will do a new Truview as I do not want the one they did in the database.
Even a cell phone can take better pictures these days. Maybe not as clear, but they would look more realistic!!!
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
Please not FEMA, we like these people. Go with the high-end ones used for B & above movie stars on remote set locations.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
We have lots of really good coin photographers here on the forum. Too bad PCGS can't just hire them out on demand and send them the coins for True Views, haha! Those photos posted here look like coins viewed through beige ectoplasm.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Exactly so! The TV should accurately reflect the "coin in hand" . The original purpose of TPGs was to offer a guarantee that a professional numismatist has evaluated the coin so that coins could be bought "sight unseen" . I saw the TV as a legit backup to seeing the coin in-hand... no better, no worse.
As to the current situation... and to carry on with the analogy... I'm sure they'd rather see the A-Team show up and fix thing than see John Wick the Collector show up...
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.
When they take multiple sets, the pictures were very different so I can see that someone at PCGS thought I'd like the version they chose. It's hard to explain but one version emphasized how shiny the coin was and the other emphasized surface condition. The surface of these coins was not that great so I can see why they thought the other one looked better, but I'd rather have the "truer" version where you can see every nick and mark.
Here is another example of the “yellowing” of the gold Trueviews. Someone just made a 67+ 1904 $5 Lib, so it is now Pop 2. The first photo is the “new” 67+, and the second is the other 67+. So as @DeplorableDan mentioned, this problem is emerging across the board, at all service levels.
And btw, @ProofCollection-
Speaking to your comments earlier, when I went back and forth with customer service about the order with my $50 slug (a $1600 submission between 3 coins), I was not offered vouchers, nor was it offered to reshoot the coins at their expense. As another poster mentioned, with coins like this, logistics and risk come into play every time I have to get them somewhere. I didn't explicitly ask them to give me vouchers or reshoot the coins, but I voiced my displeasure and told them how I felt about the situation and their response was more or less "we're sorry to hear that". Also, I provided a write-up supplied by @flyingal that described EXACTLY what was wrong with the photos with explicit detail, and what they'd need to do to correct them. If you'd like, I'll send it to you in a pm, but supposedly that information was passed along to the photo team at the time.
Granted, I am just one customer and as you say they're unlikely to make changes on behalf of one disgruntled customer. If they got bombarded with dozens of very specific complaints then perhaps they'd realize the severity of the problem, but that's a tall ask from the community when most people simply don't have the time or energy to deal with that.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I agree and all kinds of perks would be nice for them as well like a certain amount of free grading.
Thanks Dan, it was worth a try and I had faith in PCGS so I was optimistic that they would response more favorably.
The thing I do know for sure is that if we say and do nothing about this, we cannot expect anything to change.
I wish PCGS would have a volunteer customer advocate that they would meet with once a quarter to get feedback from customers.
Let’s take a look at just one photo, the 1931-S Buffalo.
https://us.v-cdn.net/cdn-cgi/image/fit=scale-down,width=1600/https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/editor/cq/jrogkuu0foey.jpeg
As an amateur photographer, this is my version of the same issue, but of course not the same coin.’
Since this is a GIF, there are serious constraints on how many unique colors appear in the image, as well as downsizing both the obverse and reverse to 800x800 pixels. Nonetheless, you can see how the changes to the lighting angle in the animation affect the portrait.
I find the trueview to be out of focus, but that may be from copying from the original and pasting to this thread. The animation is composed of nine images. Each one of them has better lighting, better representation of luster, and better color than the Trueview.
I can, of course, see that the OP’s coin is a better grade, but based on the photos I would stay with my $25 coin than the one shown in the Trueview.
No point in doing so if they don't wish to be responsive.
Jacob Bogardus, Director Customer Experience & Operations
https://linkedin.com/in/jacobbogardus/
.
I almost never buy coins based on TVs only. In the old days they were glamour shots which made the coin look much better. Today we have the opposite problem. They make the coin look worse.
Much worse. Even unrecognizable. I have to admit that this coin has some issues, but Trueview makes that abundantly apparent with their "glamour shot" here. It's almost amusing.
That is the thumbnail for the trueview blown up to full size since that's what the forum does to small photos now(mods, please fix this "feature"!!). Here is the medium. I can't speak to the colors but at least it looks like detail is captured decently.
Collector, occasional seller
Interesting idea if PCGS is purposely taking photos of coins in the most negative way possible so that when you see the coin in hand you’re pleasantly surprised?
At this point it's safe to say buying a coin based on a TV, at least anything recent, is a terrible mistake.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
The old under promise and over deliver strategy!
Seriously though, I used to look at a TV and assume I was getting a likeness that was shot under the very best lighting and most ideal conditions. Therefore, I should be ever so slightly underwhelmed or at parity.
Now I don’t have a clue what might show up at the door.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
lol... gosh, and I thought I was cynical!
Seriously though... I'd be more than mildly relieved to know that my (now) coin-in-hand looks better than when I pulled the trigger.
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.
Ok, so I just received my "Economy Special Issues" submission, which included Trueviews. Following below for each coin is first, the Trueview, and then my images. While my images are not perfect, I think anyone familiar with the Feutchwanger Cent knows the metal is German Silver, and it is not tinted baby crap yellow. White balance is Photography 101, and I find it incredible to believe that PCGS deems photos like this (and numerous others posted and discussed) acceptable. Will the 2025 PCGS Calendar be full of yellow-tinted photos? This is a serious problem that is hurting the PCGS brand. I have been a loyal PCGS customer for 20 years, but this cannot continue for me to remain loyal.
That’s what I find so baffling. By no means am I an expert photographer, but the “yellowing” issue is so widespread and consistent that I assume it’d be relatively simple to adjust and correct it across the board.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
There are multiple issues with the new generation PCGS images and it is truly stunning that they have not determined in-house that these issues are worth fixing.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
It seems like coins are an afterthought to the parent company these days. Cards are driving the boat right now.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
To keep this thread from falling farther down, let's keep this discussion going... I know I will not be sending in my coins until this is resolved. As a small time collector and buy/sell for fun guy, I count on accurate tru-view photo's both for documentation and for re-sale on some coins. I'm a point & shoot amateur with a cannon rebel and even I can get my white balance figured out.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
For once I'm ahead of the curve
Not to overly pile on here but yes, those tvs are completely unacceptable and especially when you consider the amount of online sales that rely heavily on the images. I guess baseball cards are easy to shoot.