@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.
Yeah until a crash after another card bubble. Ms. Sabin and her management need to step up and fix this! From what I can tell this started with cert numbers starting with “46” or “47” and has gotten progressively worse. Seriously, are these photos going to adorn the cover of “PCGS Market Report” and future PCGS coin calendars?
@tcollects said:
are pics ATS any better? if you'd still need to get professional pics, then better to get pics, submit, and scuttle the bad TVs if necessary, right?
Well, now they are. The ATS photos are not good IMO, but at least the white balance is not off. The new competitor might have decent ones but I have not really evaluated them yet. I would rather stay with PCGS, I still like their holder better, and I would rather participate in the PCGS registry than start in a new one.
Regarding your second point, yeah I can take decent photos to use instead of TVs, but, as others mentioned, the horrible new TVs are indefinitely linked to the coin in the cert lookup
@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.
Yeah until a crash after another card bubble. Ms. Sabin and her management need to step up and fix this! From what I can tell this started with cert numbers starting with “46” or “47” and has gotten progressively worse. Seriously, are these photos going to adorn the cover of “PCGS Market Report” and future PCGS coin calendars?
Trueviews have been erratic a lot longer than that. Go back to "43." The top photo is reality, the bottom is Trueview.
This was my first submission of (4) coins and featured some of my best finds that I wanted documented as well as a beautifully toned Lincoln. The grades were accurate. The Trueviews were dark and depressing and are now associated with these neat coins forever. Fortunately, I was able to edit them back to a view close to reality.
They sure turned the lights off on this beautiful Lincoln.
Do Trueview personnel compare their photos against the actual coin? These photos suggest they don't. I can show a lot more coins that are either grossly underexposed, overexposed, color saturation juiced to "11," or the coins turned orange. Gray and brown coins are now bright orange. Dark coins become a kaleidoscope of color. The TVs are very misleading and therefore, useless.
I haven’t sent coins in to PCGS for a while, but this thread about the current state of the Trueviews is very discouraging.
Problem #1 is that not having reliable pix hinders buy and sell decisions on coins.
The second problem for collectors is that Registry Sets, as showcases for our coins, count on excellent coins being depicted via excellent photos
Third, (and maybe most importantly), most of us don’t keep our numismatic treasures at home. We enjoy and share our coins via accurate and, yes, flattering Trueviews. Take that access away, and the hobby kind of ‘loses its lustre’, you might say.
Someone here rightly said that coin photography is not rocket science - it just has to be done correctly, according to the particular coin. You have to hire (and/or train) at appropriate wages the talent needed.
And I’m sure that the private investors who own Collectors Universe will take notice and deal with this serious PCGS problem.
Eventually.
But there’s no doubt that CACG and NGC are both paying close attention.
Right now.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
@Typekat said:
I haven’t sent coins in to PCGS for a while, but this thread about the current state of the Trueviews is very discouraging.
Problem #1 is that not having reliable pix hinders buy and sell decisions on coins.
The second problem for collectors is that Registry Sets, as showcases for our coins, count on excellent coins being depicted via excellent photos
Third, (and maybe most importantly), many of us (non-Registry collectors) don’t keep our numismatic treasures at hme. We enjoy and share our coins via accurate and, yes, flattering Trueviews. Take that access away, and the hobby kind of ‘loses its lustre’, you might say.
Now, I’m sure that the private investors who own Collectors Universe will wake up to this serious PCGS problem.
Eventually.
But there’s no doubt that John Albanese is paying close attention.
Right now.
I was hoping private ownership would improve operations at PCGS, given the expense, effort, and distraction of producing quarterly GAAP earnings went away. Effects seem to be more negative than positive so far, at least from a PCGS customer service perspective.
Do you believe these are going to be produced? I doubt it.
They are part of the Collectors Club membership and I think they are used as promo material at shows, so I would think they would continue on, but who knows.
Do you believe these are going to be produced? I doubt it.
They are part of the Collectors Club membership and I think they are used as promo material at shows, so I would think they would continue on, but who knows.
Since they didn't make them this year, I doubt they will next year.
But to continue the theme, all of these TVs are from the same order. I am amazed at the inconsistency/variety of lighting and settings used for what is all the same/similar coins in the same order. All coins are from the same US mint rolls.
Compare to a Phil-era photo:
Do you believe these are going to be produced? I doubt it.
They are part of the Collectors Club membership and I think they are used as promo material at shows, so I would think they would continue on, but who knows.
Since they didn't make them this year, I doubt they will next year.
But to continue the theme, all of these TVs are from the same order. I am amazed at the inconsistency/variety of lighting and settings used for what is all the same/similar coins in the same order. All coins are from the same US mint rolls.
Compare to a Phil-era photo:
Do you believe these are going to be produced? I doubt it.
They are part of the Collectors Club membership and I think they are used as promo material at shows, so I would think they would continue on, but who knows.
Since they didn't make them this year, I doubt they will next year.
But to continue the theme, all of these TVs are from the same order. I am amazed at the inconsistency/variety of lighting and settings used for what is all the same/similar coins in the same order. All coins are from the same US mint rolls.
Compare to a Phil-era photo:
The surface being varied is normal, Ps are usually frostyish unc. looking while Ds are often semi-PL.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24
When you compare those 2024 quarters to the 2021 quarter in the photos above, you can still see the "yellow tint" that is infecting all recent Trueviews.
Well, I just sent a lengthy letter to PCGS Customer Service detailing my concerns over this issue (essentially what has been discussed on this and related threads). I just can't sit idly by, I need to do something, despite the lack of success to date other board members have indicated when they reached out. I would post my message here, but don't want to "pile on". If anyone is interested in a copy of what I sent, PM me and I will pass it along.
I think this needs attention of senior management at PCGS ASAP. I would encourage others to reach out as well, as there is typically strength in numbers regarding customer service issues in any business.
I look forward to hearing from PCGS soon, either in responding to my message, or better yet, public communication on how they are addressing this.
Do you believe these are going to be produced? I doubt it.
They are part of the Collectors Club membership and I think they are used as promo material at shows, so I would think they would continue on, but who knows.
Since they didn't make them this year, I doubt they will next year.
But to continue the theme, all of these TVs are from the same order. I am amazed at the inconsistency/variety of lighting and settings used for what is all the same/similar coins in the same order. All coins are from the same US mint rolls.
Compare to a Phil-era photo:
The surface being varied is normal, Ps are usually frostyish unc. looking while Ds are often semi-PL.
I'm just concerned about the variation in photography. The last Patsy photo has everything lit fairly well with no "extra shine" whereas the other photos seem to have a lot more shadows. Look how Patsy's arms are completely dark in the first photo and completely lit in the last. I don't think it has anything to do with surface quality.
My coins were sent in straight out of the boxed proof sets. I took a picture with my iPad as you see here….and the true view images. I thought they were different coins…..🤔😏!
@Connecticoin said:
Well, I just sent a lengthy letter to PCGS Customer Service detailing my concerns over this issue (essentially what has been discussed on this and related threads). I just can't sit idly by, I need to do something, despite the lack of success to date other board members have indicated when they reached out. I would post my message here, but don't want to "pile on". If anyone is interested in a copy of what I sent, PM me and I will pass it along.
I think this needs attention of senior management as PCGS ASAP. I would encourage others to reach out as well, as there is typically strength in numbers regarding customer service issues in any business.
I look forward to hearing from PCGS soon, either in responding to my message, or better yet, public communication on how they are addressing this.
I recently had a conversation with senior management at PCGS/CU about this very topic, and directed them to these threads. Let’s see what happens.
@lkenefic said:
Excellent subject matter for the photographer to work with but the white balance looks off. FWIW... the gold looks nice. I wonder if they're using an Auto setting for exposure. Copper is difficult to image regardless and getting mint luster to show up is definitely a task...
Beautiful 3-legger BTW...
I'd bet tossing a quick contrast correction in photoshop would fix a lot of the problems. I used to have the worst luck trying to photograph copper but when I updated my lighting setup, it got a LOT easier. I agree, mint luster can be tough to image as well.
Lighting and camera settings make all the difference in the world! Those photos are just awful. TruView used to be a standard bearer of coin photography. It's sad how bad they've gotten.
Phil's team just did one of my extra old red PCGS graded Lincolns for an auction and it looks fabulous. Just sayin' talent and a desire for quality make all the difference, which is probably why there are a number of great photographers on the forum that could fix the TV debacle.
@Connecticoin said:
Well, I just sent a lengthy letter to PCGS Customer Service detailing my concerns over this issue (essentially what has been discussed on this and related threads). I just can't sit idly by, I need to do something, despite the lack of success to date other board members have indicated when they reached out. I would post my message here, but don't want to "pile on". If anyone is interested in a copy of what I sent, PM me and I will pass it along.
I think this needs attention of senior management as PCGS ASAP. I would encourage others to reach out as well, as there is typically strength in numbers regarding customer service issues in any business.
I look forward to hearing from PCGS soon, either in responding to my message, or better yet, public communication on how they are addressing this.
I recently had a conversation with senior management at PCGS/CU about this very topic, and directed them to these threads. Let’s see what happens.
Here's the thing... Phil wasn't the only photographer and he didn't take the equipment with him and I would assume he passed his knowledge on to others. It's clear that PCGS has been working hard to reduce the backlog and improve cycle times and no doubt photography is a big part of the process contributing to cycle time. I have to wonder if it's not the loss of one key photographer but an edict by management that doesn't allow the photographers to spend as much time (or some other management dictate) on each coin as they did before.
We like to exalt Phil and his talent, but let's face it, anyone with a deep interest in photographing coins and the right equipment can take great coin pictures. We've seen countless inexperienced members in this forum slowly improve to coin photography excellence and that's just doing it as a hobby with home setups. PCGS has a department of what should be comprised of photography enthusiasts, working full time, who I would assume want to produce good work. I find it hard to believe that in that environment the reason for lackluster pictures is the quality of the photographers.
@Connecticoin said:
Well, I just sent a lengthy letter to PCGS Customer Service detailing my concerns over this issue (essentially what has been discussed on this and related threads). I just can't sit idly by, I need to do something, despite the lack of success to date other board members have indicated when they reached out. I would post my message here, but don't want to "pile on". If anyone is interested in a copy of what I sent, PM me and I will pass it along.
I think this needs attention of senior management as PCGS ASAP. I would encourage others to reach out as well, as there is typically strength in numbers regarding customer service issues in any business.
I look forward to hearing from PCGS soon, either in responding to my message, or better yet, public communication on how they are addressing this.
I recently had a conversation with senior management at PCGS/CU about this very topic, and directed them to these threads. Let’s see what happens.
Here's the thing... Phil wasn't the only photographer and he didn't take the equipment with him and I would assume he passed his knowledge on to others. It's clear that PCGS has been working hard to reduce the backlog and improve cycle times and no doubt photography is a big part of the process contributing to cycle time. I have to wonder if it's not the loss of one key photographer but an edict by management that doesn't allow the photographers to spend as much time (or some other management dictate) on each coin as they did before.
We like to exalt Phil and his talent, but let's face it, anyone with a deep interest in photographing coins and the right equipment can take great coin pictures. We've seen countless inexperienced members in this forum slowly improve to coin photography excellence and that's just doing it as a hobby with home setups. PCGS has a department of what should be comprised of photography enthusiasts, working full time, who I would assume want to produce good work. I find it hard to believe that in that environment the reason for lackluster pictures is the quality of the photographers.
From what I’ve heard (and this is just bourse hearsay), it sounded like Phil’s proteges actually left for greener pastures before he did. I don’t know the details
@Connecticoin said:
Well, I just sent a lengthy letter to PCGS Customer Service detailing my concerns over this issue (essentially what has been discussed on this and related threads). I just can't sit idly by, I need to do something, despite the lack of success to date other board members have indicated when they reached out. I would post my message here, but don't want to "pile on". If anyone is interested in a copy of what I sent, PM me and I will pass it along.
I think this needs attention of senior management as PCGS ASAP. I would encourage others to reach out as well, as there is typically strength in numbers regarding customer service issues in any business.
I look forward to hearing from PCGS soon, either in responding to my message, or better yet, public communication on how they are addressing this.
I recently had a conversation with senior management at PCGS/CU about this very topic, and directed them to these threads. Let’s see what happens.
If you think I should send my letter directly to someone at PCGS and you have their e-mail feel free to PM it to me.
I also don't like piling on, but in addition to the obvious problems with the quality of Trueviews there is the ongoing problem (and apparent total lack of concern therefor) of the Digital Albums not showing most of the coins that have Trueviews, whether good or bad. It feels to me like the wheels are falling off the bus, and speaking just for myself, I am seriously contemplating not renewing my PCGS membership, which I have had for decades. I never thought I'd say that, but ... there it is.
@giorgio11 said:
I also don't like piling on, but in addition to the obvious problems with the quality of Trueviews there is the ongoing problem (and apparent total lack of concern therefor) of the Digital Albums not showing most of the coins that have Trueviews, whether good or bad. It feels to me like the wheels are falling off the bus, and speaking just for myself, I am seriously contemplating not renewing my PCGS membership, which I have had for decades. I never thought I'd say that, but ... there it is.
George
Yeah I saw that on the other forum. That likely would never have happened during the David Hall era, and even if it did, the Registry “czar” that ran things then would have not taken over a year to fix it.
@giorgio11 said:
I also don't like piling on, but in addition to the obvious problems with the quality of Trueviews there is the ongoing problem (and apparent total lack of concern therefor) of the Digital Albums not showing most of the coins that have Trueviews, whether good or bad. It feels to me like the wheels are falling off the bus, and speaking just for myself, I am seriously contemplating not renewing my PCGS membership, which I have had for decades. I never thought I'd say that, but ... there it is.
George
Yeah I saw that on the other forum. That likely would never have happened during the David Hall era, and even if it did, the Registry “czar” that ran things then would have not taken over a year to fix it.
I couldn't agree more. And beyond that is the seeming complete and total lack of any communication from knowledgeable people at PCGS as to what (if anything) is going on to fix the problem (which I will point out again is global in nature, not "call Customer Service"--even the DLH sets are missing tons of Trueviews), as well as a lack of any credible explanation for why it happened. For a while there I was in personal touch with Phil and he told me he brought it up at a senior-level meeting--and then, of course, he crossed the fence to greener pastures.
It might not be so infuriating to me if someone in a position of authority and knowledgeable at PCGS would come out and say something credible--"this is not fixable and here's why," or "here is a partial solution that may help some collectors" or "this is what we are actually doing about it"--anything beyond their Wall of Silence and GASitis. It seems like the problem started happening around the time that CAC Grading came in. Did their renumbering somehow affect the Digital Albums/PCGS database?
Earlier today I received a response to my lengthy customer service letter sent last Friday. The good news is it appears my letter was kicked up the chain to PCGS Customer Care. According to their response, they are taking mine (and others) concerns seriously and are working to remedy the situation. So I did not get a dismissive "boilerplate" response, and they seem to acknowledge that this is a problem.
Following is the letter - the Customer Care Rep who replied (Isidro G.) did not leave a direct contact e-mail for me to ask if I could share this, but I would think PCGS would not mind, given the content of the letter. However, if that is not the case, the moderator can let me know.
.
.
Thank you for reaching out to PCGS Customer Care.
Thank you for bringing your concerns regarding the quality of PCGS Trueview images to our attention. We sincerely apologize for any frustration or inconvenience this may have caused you and other members of the numismatic community.
We acknowledge the importance of accurate and high-quality images in the certification process, and we share your commitment to maintaining the integrity of our services. Your detailed feedback regarding the white balance issues, overexposure, and poor cropping in recent Trueview images is invaluable to us as we strive to address these issues promptly.
We are actively investigating the root causes of these problems and are committed to implementing necessary improvements to ensure that Trueview images accurately represent the coins being certified. While we regret any decline in quality following the departure of Phil Arnold, we are dedicated to maintaining and enhancing the standards he helped establish.
Please rest assured that we are taking your concerns seriously and will work diligently to remedy the situation. We understand the impact that subpar images can have on the perceived value and marketability of certified coins, and we are committed to upholding the reputation of the PCGS brand.
I have reached out to our Photos team on the images displayed for the coins on order XXXXXXXX. Once I have an update, I will reach out.
Kind Regards,
Isidro G.
Associate Customer Care Representative
.
.
.
So, to me it seems they are saying the right things in the response, but I guess time will tell whether their actions yield results. However I think this is a positive development, and I am cautiously optimistic that the situation will improve, hopefully sooner than later.
@DeplorableDan said:
From what I’ve heard (and this is just bourse hearsay), it sounded like Phil’s proteges actually left for greener pastures before he did. I don’t know the details
They did all get hired away before he left. PCGS wasn't aggressive enough in retaining the talent that Phil brought in and trained and they walked for better salaries elsewhere.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@Connecticoin said:
I was hoping private ownership would improve operations at PCGS, given the expense, effort, and distraction of producing quarterly GAAP earnings went away. Effects seem to be more negative than positive so far, at least from a PCGS customer service perspective.
Try to remember PCGS wasn't the core focus of that acquisition, it was more about sports and trading cards, and the base that could be built off that reputation they've built, akin to what is going in Florida.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I hope you all keep PCGS's feet to the fire. I renewed my membership solely for the TVs, so I am an avid reader of this thread to learn if PCGS has corrected its issues.
@Connecticoin said:
I was hoping private ownership would improve operations at PCGS, given the expense, effort, and distraction of producing quarterly GAAP earnings went away. Effects seem to be more negative than positive so far, at least from a PCGS customer service perspective.
Try to remember PCGS wasn't the core focus of that acquisition, it was more about sports and trading cards, and the base that could be built off that reputation they've built, akin to what is going in Florida.
@Connecticoin said:
I was hoping private ownership would improve operations at PCGS, given the expense, effort, and distraction of producing quarterly GAAP earnings went away. Effects seem to be more negative than positive so far, at least from a PCGS customer service perspective.
Try to remember PCGS wasn't the core focus of that acquisition, it was more about sports and trading cards, and the base that could be built off that reputation they've built, akin to what is going in Florida.
Well, I would think PCGS is still a valuable asset worth Collectors' attention and resources, and skimping on resources dedicated to Trueview and the Registry would be, as they say, penny-wise and pound foolish. And when the next recession comes, cards will likely get hit harder than coins and currency.
@Mark said:
I hope you all keep PCGS's feet to the fire. I renewed my membership solely for the TVs, so I am an avid reader of this thread to learn if PCGS has corrected its issues.
You know you could always let it lapse and then just get a new membership if/when the issues are resolved...
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Hey PCGS, I just deleted my registry set because of the number of embarrassing photos and I'm halting all further submissions. Not that you care.
I care. I have been contemplating the registry and the grading costs necessary to participate. Trueviews were a big reason why I chose the PCGS registry. Is it worth it to spend another $1500 for grades and clown photos that follow my coins?
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Hey PCGS, I just deleted my registry set because of the number of embarrassing photos and I'm halting all further submissions. Not that you care.
I care. I have been contemplating the registry and the grading costs necessary to participate. Trueviews were a big reason why I chose the PCGS registry. Is it worth it to spend another $1500 for grades and clown photos that follow my coins?
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Hey PCGS, I just deleted my registry set because of the number of embarrassing photos and I'm halting all further submissions. Not that you care.
I care. I have been contemplating the registry and the grading costs necessary to participate. Trueviews were a big reason why I chose the PCGS registry. Is it worth it to spend another $1500 for grades and clown photos that follow my coins?
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Hey PCGS, I just deleted my registry set because of the number of embarrassing photos and I'm halting all further submissions. Not that you care.
I care. I have been contemplating the registry and the grading costs necessary to participate. Trueviews were a big reason why I chose the PCGS registry. Is it worth it to spend another $1500 for grades and clown photos that follow my coins?
@Mark said:
I hope you all keep PCGS's feet to the fire. I renewed my membership solely for the TVs, so I am an avid reader of this thread to learn if PCGS has corrected its issues.
I dropped my sub instead. If things get better I will consider re upping but for now no thanks!
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Hey PCGS, I just deleted my registry set because of the number of embarrassing photos and I'm halting all further submissions. Not that you care.
The interesting thing about pcgs right now is it seems they are taking us (the customer base) for granted, and they’re about to completely blow it as a company. CAC comes in and starts a grading company, which looked like a shaky idea at best last year. Pcgs was a dominating force for decades, and why would their customers even think of being promiscuous to try cacg? But it’s like every decision pcgs is making is either backfiring or is turning out to be wrong.
Someone posted that pcgs turnaround times have improved. Not for me. I’ve got US coin submissions stemming anywhere from 3-7 months lingering in “grading” status with no movement ever. Trueviews are a mess at best.
Pcgs is just handing cac their customers, and either aren’t afraid or don’t care.
Here are a few of mine just received the TV yesterday 7/9, coins just shipped. I know these are not US coins, but I'm extremely disappointed, does not appear there has been any improvements. Definitely nowhere near the caliber of previous imaging.
@skier07 said:
PE acquisitions often don’t end well except for the PE.
This is the answer to most (if not all) complaints re PCGS. Probably NGC also but I don't really deal with them.
When collectors/dealers ran the company, despite trying to profit, they kept the collector in mind and changes/feedback for the benefit of all were considered. Now, the owners have no connection with the collecting community and do not care in the slightest, as long as their profit margins are meeting/exceeding expectations. That is the only concern.
It happens in all industries. It's not a fault, it's a feature, that's the business model. As frustrating as it is with PCGS, I do place clients of mine in Private Equity investments and I would want those companies run ethically but ruthlessly in the drive for profit. Just like this.
@skier07 said:
PE acquisitions often don’t end well except for the PE.
This is the answer to most (if not all) complaints re PCGS. Probably NGC also but I don't really deal with them.
When collectors/dealers ran the company, despite trying to profit, they kept the collector in mind and changes/feedback for the benefit of all were considered. Now, the owners have no connection with the collecting community and do not care in the slightest, as long as their profit margins are meeting/exceeding expectations. That is the only concern.
It happens in all industries. It's not a fault, it's a feature, that's the business model. As frustrating as it is with PCGS, I do place clients of mine in Private Equity investments and I would want those companies run ethically but ruthlessly in the drive for profit. Just like this.
The thing is, I don't really think it would cost much more to take better photos.
Here are some True View photos from a submission I received back from PCGS on 11-8-2023. They are proof coins, they look great and were apparently taken before the change over in the photography department happened.
Here are some True View photos from a submission I received back from PCGS on 11-22-2023. They are also proof coins and they look great.
Here are some True View photos (of circulation strike coins and of proof coins) from submissions I also received back from PSGS on 11-22-2023. They are of lesser quality than the photos posted above and they do not show what the pictured coins look like in hand under good lighting.
I have some additional raw coins that I would like to have graded by PSGS but I am holding off due to the low quality True View photos that are being produced. If the quality of the True View photos reverted to the quality produced prior to the change over I would be more motivated to submit coins for grading.
A thought just occurred to me as I was reading and viewing these pics. This color/over exposure looks like my experiments with scanning coins over a decade ago. I found DSLR more true to life and went with that. Are they now scanning coins?
Comments
Yeah until a crash after another card bubble. Ms. Sabin and her management need to step up and fix this! From what I can tell this started with cert numbers starting with “46” or “47” and has gotten progressively worse. Seriously, are these photos going to adorn the cover of “PCGS Market Report” and future PCGS coin calendars?
are pics ATS any better? if you'd still need to get professional pics, then better to get pics, submit, and scuttle the bad TVs if necessary, right?
Well, now they are. The ATS photos are not good IMO, but at least the white balance is not off. The new competitor might have decent ones but I have not really evaluated them yet. I would rather stay with PCGS, I still like their holder better, and I would rather participate in the PCGS registry than start in a new one.
Regarding your second point, yeah I can take decent photos to use instead of TVs, but, as others mentioned, the horrible new TVs are indefinitely linked to the coin in the cert lookup
Trueviews have been erratic a lot longer than that. Go back to "43." The top photo is reality, the bottom is Trueview.
This was my first submission of (4) coins and featured some of my best finds that I wanted documented as well as a beautifully toned Lincoln. The grades were accurate. The Trueviews were dark and depressing and are now associated with these neat coins forever. Fortunately, I was able to edit them back to a view close to reality.
They sure turned the lights off on this beautiful Lincoln.
Do Trueview personnel compare their photos against the actual coin? These photos suggest they don't. I can show a lot more coins that are either grossly underexposed, overexposed, color saturation juiced to "11," or the coins turned orange. Gray and brown coins are now bright orange. Dark coins become a kaleidoscope of color. The TVs are very misleading and therefore, useless.
I haven’t sent coins in to PCGS for a while, but this thread about the current state of the Trueviews is very discouraging.
Problem #1 is that not having reliable pix hinders buy and sell decisions on coins.
The second problem for collectors is that Registry Sets, as showcases for our coins, count on excellent coins being depicted via excellent photos
Third, (and maybe most importantly), most of us don’t keep our numismatic treasures at home. We enjoy and share our coins via accurate and, yes, flattering Trueviews. Take that access away, and the hobby kind of ‘loses its lustre’, you might say.
Someone here rightly said that coin photography is not rocket science - it just has to be done correctly, according to the particular coin. You have to hire (and/or train) at appropriate wages the talent needed.
And I’m sure that the private investors who own Collectors Universe will take notice and deal with this serious PCGS problem.
But there’s no doubt that CACG and NGC are both paying close attention.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
That’s all!
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
I was hoping private ownership would improve operations at PCGS, given the expense, effort, and distraction of producing quarterly GAAP earnings went away. Effects seem to be more negative than positive so far, at least from a PCGS customer service perspective.
RE: 2025 calendars.
Do you believe these are going to be produced? I doubt it.
They are part of the Collectors Club membership and I think they are used as promo material at shows, so I would think they would continue on, but who knows.
Since they didn't make them this year, I doubt they will next year.
But to continue the theme, all of these TVs are from the same order. I am amazed at the inconsistency/variety of lighting and settings used for what is all the same/similar coins in the same order. All coins are from the same US mint rolls.
Compare to a Phil-era photo:
Time to talk to Nat Turner...
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
If you have his ear, please bring this matter up to him!
The grading is still tight so all is not lost.
The surface being varied is normal, Ps are usually frostyish unc. looking while Ds are often semi-PL.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24
When you compare those 2024 quarters to the 2021 quarter in the photos above, you can still see the "yellow tint" that is infecting all recent Trueviews.
Well, I just sent a lengthy letter to PCGS Customer Service detailing my concerns over this issue (essentially what has been discussed on this and related threads). I just can't sit idly by, I need to do something, despite the lack of success to date other board members have indicated when they reached out. I would post my message here, but don't want to "pile on". If anyone is interested in a copy of what I sent, PM me and I will pass it along.
I think this needs attention of senior management at PCGS ASAP. I would encourage others to reach out as well, as there is typically strength in numbers regarding customer service issues in any business.
I look forward to hearing from PCGS soon, either in responding to my message, or better yet, public communication on how they are addressing this.
I'm just concerned about the variation in photography. The last Patsy photo has everything lit fairly well with no "extra shine" whereas the other photos seem to have a lot more shadows. Look how Patsy's arms are completely dark in the first photo and completely lit in the last. I don't think it has anything to do with surface quality.
My coins were sent in straight out of the boxed proof sets. I took a picture with my iPad as you see here….and the true view images. I thought they were different coins…..🤔😏!
I recently had a conversation with senior management at PCGS/CU about this very topic, and directed them to these threads. Let’s see what happens.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Phil's team just did one of my extra old red PCGS graded Lincolns for an auction and it looks fabulous. Just sayin' talent and a desire for quality make all the difference, which is probably why there are a number of great photographers on the forum that could fix the TV debacle.
Here's the thing... Phil wasn't the only photographer and he didn't take the equipment with him and I would assume he passed his knowledge on to others. It's clear that PCGS has been working hard to reduce the backlog and improve cycle times and no doubt photography is a big part of the process contributing to cycle time. I have to wonder if it's not the loss of one key photographer but an edict by management that doesn't allow the photographers to spend as much time (or some other management dictate) on each coin as they did before.
We like to exalt Phil and his talent, but let's face it, anyone with a deep interest in photographing coins and the right equipment can take great coin pictures. We've seen countless inexperienced members in this forum slowly improve to coin photography excellence and that's just doing it as a hobby with home setups. PCGS has a department of what should be comprised of photography enthusiasts, working full time, who I would assume want to produce good work. I find it hard to believe that in that environment the reason for lackluster pictures is the quality of the photographers.
From what I’ve heard (and this is just bourse hearsay), it sounded like Phil’s proteges actually left for greener pastures before he did. I don’t know the details
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
If you think I should send my letter directly to someone at PCGS and you have their e-mail feel free to PM it to me.
I also don't like piling on, but in addition to the obvious problems with the quality of Trueviews there is the ongoing problem (and apparent total lack of concern therefor) of the Digital Albums not showing most of the coins that have Trueviews, whether good or bad. It feels to me like the wheels are falling off the bus, and speaking just for myself, I am seriously contemplating not renewing my PCGS membership, which I have had for decades. I never thought I'd say that, but ... there it is.
George
Yeah I saw that on the other forum. That likely would never have happened during the David Hall era, and even if it did, the Registry “czar” that ran things then would have not taken over a year to fix it.
I couldn't agree more. And beyond that is the seeming complete and total lack of any communication from knowledgeable people at PCGS as to what (if anything) is going on to fix the problem (which I will point out again is global in nature, not "call Customer Service"--even the DLH sets are missing tons of Trueviews), as well as a lack of any credible explanation for why it happened. For a while there I was in personal touch with Phil and he told me he brought it up at a senior-level meeting--and then, of course, he crossed the fence to greener pastures.
It might not be so infuriating to me if someone in a position of authority and knowledgeable at PCGS would come out and say something credible--"this is not fixable and here's why," or "here is a partial solution that may help some collectors" or "this is what we are actually doing about it"--anything beyond their Wall of Silence and GASitis. It seems like the problem started happening around the time that CAC Grading came in. Did their renumbering somehow affect the Digital Albums/PCGS database?
Kind regards,
George
Earlier today I received a response to my lengthy customer service letter sent last Friday. The good news is it appears my letter was kicked up the chain to PCGS Customer Care. According to their response, they are taking mine (and others) concerns seriously and are working to remedy the situation. So I did not get a dismissive "boilerplate" response, and they seem to acknowledge that this is a problem.
Following is the letter - the Customer Care Rep who replied (Isidro G.) did not leave a direct contact e-mail for me to ask if I could share this, but I would think PCGS would not mind, given the content of the letter. However, if that is not the case, the moderator can let me know.
.
.
Thank you for reaching out to PCGS Customer Care.
Thank you for bringing your concerns regarding the quality of PCGS Trueview images to our attention. We sincerely apologize for any frustration or inconvenience this may have caused you and other members of the numismatic community.
We acknowledge the importance of accurate and high-quality images in the certification process, and we share your commitment to maintaining the integrity of our services. Your detailed feedback regarding the white balance issues, overexposure, and poor cropping in recent Trueview images is invaluable to us as we strive to address these issues promptly.
We are actively investigating the root causes of these problems and are committed to implementing necessary improvements to ensure that Trueview images accurately represent the coins being certified. While we regret any decline in quality following the departure of Phil Arnold, we are dedicated to maintaining and enhancing the standards he helped establish.
Please rest assured that we are taking your concerns seriously and will work diligently to remedy the situation. We understand the impact that subpar images can have on the perceived value and marketability of certified coins, and we are committed to upholding the reputation of the PCGS brand.
I have reached out to our Photos team on the images displayed for the coins on order XXXXXXXX. Once I have an update, I will reach out.
Kind Regards,
Isidro G.
Associate Customer Care Representative
.
.
.
So, to me it seems they are saying the right things in the response, but I guess time will tell whether their actions yield results. However I think this is a positive development, and I am cautiously optimistic that the situation will improve, hopefully sooner than later.
They did all get hired away before he left. PCGS wasn't aggressive enough in retaining the talent that Phil brought in and trained and they walked for better salaries elsewhere.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Try to remember PCGS wasn't the core focus of that acquisition, it was more about sports and trading cards, and the base that could be built off that reputation they've built, akin to what is going in Florida.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Plus one to opting out of TV > @FlyingAl said:
Unfortunately with the TV quality I agree. This would be helpful.
Shannon
ParadimeCoins.com PCGS NGC CAC InventorySign up for our exclusive NEWPs mailing list - Subscribe
I hope you all keep PCGS's feet to the fire. I renewed my membership solely for the TVs, so I am an avid reader of this thread to learn if PCGS has corrected its issues.
Well, I would think PCGS is still a valuable asset worth Collectors' attention and resources, and skimping on resources dedicated to Trueview and the Registry would be, as they say, penny-wise and pound foolish. And when the next recession comes, cards will likely get hit harder than coins and currency.
You know you could always let it lapse and then just get a new membership if/when the issues are resolved...
Hey PCGS, I just deleted my registry set because of the number of embarrassing photos and I'm halting all further submissions. Not that you care.
I care. I have been contemplating the registry and the grading costs necessary to participate. Trueviews were a big reason why I chose the PCGS registry. Is it worth it to spend another $1500 for grades and clown photos that follow my coins?
I think he was referring to PCGS caring, not us.
Correct.
I must have been blinded by rage.
I dropped my sub instead. If things get better I will consider re upping but for now no thanks!
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
The interesting thing about pcgs right now is it seems they are taking us (the customer base) for granted, and they’re about to completely blow it as a company. CAC comes in and starts a grading company, which looked like a shaky idea at best last year. Pcgs was a dominating force for decades, and why would their customers even think of being promiscuous to try cacg? But it’s like every decision pcgs is making is either backfiring or is turning out to be wrong.
Someone posted that pcgs turnaround times have improved. Not for me. I’ve got US coin submissions stemming anywhere from 3-7 months lingering in “grading” status with no movement ever. Trueviews are a mess at best.
Pcgs is just handing cac their customers, and either aren’t afraid or don’t care.
I was hoping they have improved but my latest TVs are awful. Both of these are Reverse Proof 70's.
Can someone give me some verbiage to complain about these with some good photography terms?
Here are a few of mine just received the TV yesterday 7/9, coins just shipped. I know these are not US coins, but I'm extremely disappointed, does not appear there has been any improvements. Definitely nowhere near the caliber of previous imaging.
PE acquisitions often don’t end well except for the PE.
This is the answer to most (if not all) complaints re PCGS. Probably NGC also but I don't really deal with them.
When collectors/dealers ran the company, despite trying to profit, they kept the collector in mind and changes/feedback for the benefit of all were considered. Now, the owners have no connection with the collecting community and do not care in the slightest, as long as their profit margins are meeting/exceeding expectations. That is the only concern.
It happens in all industries. It's not a fault, it's a feature, that's the business model. As frustrating as it is with PCGS, I do place clients of mine in Private Equity investments and I would want those companies run ethically but ruthlessly in the drive for profit. Just like this.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
The thing is, I don't really think it would cost much more to take better photos.
disappointing, I can't submit anything until this is fixed, I don't want to go ATS but eventually what choice do you have?
Here are some True View photos from a submission I received back from PCGS on 11-8-2023. They are proof coins, they look great and were apparently taken before the change over in the photography department happened.
Here are some True View photos from a submission I received back from PCGS on 11-22-2023. They are also proof coins and they look great.
Here are some True View photos (of circulation strike coins and of proof coins) from submissions I also received back from PSGS on 11-22-2023. They are of lesser quality than the photos posted above and they do not show what the pictured coins look like in hand under good lighting.
I have some additional raw coins that I would like to have graded by PSGS but I am holding off due to the low quality True View photos that are being produced. If the quality of the True View photos reverted to the quality produced prior to the change over I would be more motivated to submit coins for grading.
"...clown photos that follow my coins"
@Barberian said a mouthful
The entertainment can never be overdressed....except in burlesque
I’m not sure who is more at fault them or me?!
I thought the color would look cool here, Woopsies!
A thought just occurred to me as I was reading and viewing these pics. This color/over exposure looks like my experiments with scanning coins over a decade ago. I found DSLR more true to life and went with that. Are they now scanning coins?
https://www.smallcopperguy.com