I think the photographers have all the skills and equipment but are not coin collectors. They do not know what attributes to highlight to make glamour shots. I challenge all to guess the grade on this Canadian from the True View.
@davewesen said:
I think the photographers have all the skills and equipment but are not coin collectors. They do not know what attributes to highlight to make glamour shots. I challenge all to guess the grade on this Canadian from the True View.
There have been other excellent coin photographers that aren't collectors. The missing skills at PCGS are both artistic and technical in nature.
I think being a collector is not essential to being a good photographer. I think the kind of ways I see the current PCGS photo team making errors is not just a lack of customer awareness (what you would be sure to have if you are a collector). The color/light balance is a fundamental technical skill. There is some artistic license to not land at a completely neutral choice. The balance between direct and diffuse lighting is tricky, technically. And the choice on where to land there is a judgement call that depends on the coin type, metal, strike type, and state of preservation. Managing the lighting to interact with design and details in attractive ways is purely aesthetic. Collectors have strong opinions on that, but it's purely aesthetic at the end of the day. Being able to manipulate the camera and lighting so that it does what you want it to do is a craft unto itself.
I can't help but be a backseat driver. I took a photography class in high school and have a basic knowledge of optics from a science education and would be able to navigate many of these issues that PCGS is seeing better than they are now. But then again, PCGS may not be willing to do what it takes to hire someone who has a working knowledge of photography and the willingness to learn and adapt.
@Dropdaflag said:
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?
That would explain a lot. And it would be a cost-savings move as well.
@tcollects said:
disappointing, I can't submit anything until this is fixed, I don't want to go ATS but eventually what choice do you have?
Seriously! I’m in the same boat with my growing pile to submit. Ultimately I sent several ATS of the series I’m not holder picky about. They were back in a little over 2 weeks, (moderns), including a 5 day shipping delay for the July 4th holiday!
Now, what the heck do I do with my pile of coins that I DO want in PCGS slabs and that I DO want some great pictures with? Ugh….
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.
Since I had a couple dozen submissions this year, including some notable toners, I took the plunge and ordered TVs. Like everyone else here I wish I hadn't. Yes they look like they were imaged on a flatbed scanner.
And yes, aa also stated above these images will follow the coins around like a boat anchor, forever depressing their market values.
All I could do is take my own photos, which were much more accurate, and post them alongside the primary TV with a note of explanation and apology.
The aggregate diminished value in my case was probably only a thousand dollars, so much less than others have reported here.
But it's virtually impossible to quantify. Yet it hurts, and not just financially. It's almost as though they damaged the coins.
@MS66 said:
Since I had a couple dozen submissions this year, including some notable toners, I took the plunge and ordered TVs. Like everyone else here I wish I hadn't. Yes they look like they were imaged on a flatbed scanner.
And yes, aa also stated above these images will follow the coins around like a boat anchor, forever depressing their market values.
All I could do is take my own photos, which were much more accurate, and post them alongside the primary TV with a note of explanation and apology.
The aggregate diminished value in my case was probably only a thousand dollars, so much less than others have reported here.
But it's virtually impossible to quantify. Yet it hurts, and not just financially. It's almost as though they damaged the coins.
How much faith do you have in their current grades is the main question. If I crack and submit to CAC can I live with the results, maybe. If I crack and submit to NGC could I believe my eyes, maybe. At the very least the coin will be cleaned of any bad publicity and the experience could be a good one.
@MS66 said:
Since I had a couple dozen submissions this year, including some notable toners, I took the plunge and ordered TVs. Like everyone else here I wish I hadn't. Yes they look like they were imaged on a flatbed scanner.
And yes, aa also stated above these images will follow the coins around like a boat anchor, forever depressing their market values.
All I could do is take my own photos, which were much more accurate, and post them alongside the primary TV with a note of explanation and apology.
The aggregate diminished value in my case was probably only a thousand dollars, so much less than others have reported here.
But it's virtually impossible to quantify. Yet it hurts, and not just financially. It's almost as though they damaged the coins.
How much faith do you have in their current grades is the main question. If I crack and submit to CAC can I live with the results, maybe. If I crack and submit to NGC could I believe my eyes, maybe. At the very least the coin will be cleaned of any bad publicity and the experience could be a good one.
My opinion is that so far this year the grading has been on the strict side, possibly due to the presence of CAC.
@MS66 said:
Since I had a couple dozen submissions this year, including some notable toners, I took the plunge and ordered TVs. Like everyone else here I wish I hadn't. Yes they look like they were imaged on a flatbed scanner.
And yes, aa also stated above these images will follow the coins around like a boat anchor, forever depressing their market values.
All I could do is take my own photos, which were much more accurate, and post them alongside the primary TV with a note of explanation and apology.
The aggregate diminished value in my case was probably only a thousand dollars, so much less than others have reported here.
But it's virtually impossible to quantify. Yet it hurts, and not just financially. It's almost as though they damaged the coins.
How much faith do you have in their current grades is the main question. If I crack and submit to CAC can I live with the results, maybe. If I crack and submit to NGC could I believe my eyes, maybe. At the very least the coin will be cleaned of any bad publicity and the experience could be a good one.
My opinion is that so far this year the grading has been on the strict side, possibly due to the presence of CAC.
I haven’t noticed a change in the grading standards but you couldn’t tell by looking at my true views, what makes the standards look very substandard.
Hopefully, they are working on a solution meanwhile my ban hammer lies in wait.
@braddick said:
On a truly positive note, accolades to PCGS for not killing this thread.
Absolutely agree, but perhaps they see the wisdom in why they shouldn’t? More than anything, it’s a collective “cry for help” from loyal members.
I like to believe as long as we’re making our comments in a courteous and professional manner, they’re understanding and good with it. A healthy, open, honest, and fair discussion should never be outlawed. That’s how all sides learn and grow.
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.
I’m looking @ this coin in Sunday’s GC auction. Here’s a comparison with the GC pic & TV:
I actually like both. But, the GC pic shows the details better, especially in the important areas when considering a Walker. Eagles trailing leg detail (this is where the difference is most noticeable), obv skirt lines & branch hand, head all show better slightly better on the GC pic. The slab pics (not posted) are a bit closer to the GC pic, but the TV compares favorably in this area. What I don’t know is when the TV pics were taken. If it is recent, then quality is on the way up, at least in this example.
@Connecticoin said:
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.
I'm afraid this is just more lipstick on a pig. As you say, time will tell, but I got a fancy "we're working on it and we take your concerns seriously" letter myself more than a year ago after complaining about the problems with images not appearing in digital albums. Now the Trueviews are apparently so bad, many of them, that collectors don't even want them to show up. Is that water circling the drain I hear?
I had 8 coins change to "Being Imaged" on the PCGS order status page today.
Thankfully, I only care about TrueViews for the aspect of comparing the pics to the real thing to prove it's the right coin in the holder. All of my coins have nicks or small discolorations that serve as "landmarks" for identification purposes.
Just catching up on 50 or more new comments. So here is an update:
PCGS Customer Service offered to re-shoot the coins and re-holder, and send me a free Fed-Ex label. Problem is, not anticipating they would offer this, I sent several of them to CAC and 5 of them are stickered. I really don't want to have to send them to CAC for re-stickering, so asked if they could Trueview them in the holder, and they said no.
So I then thought ok, I will have then re-shot and re-holdered anyway, just to see how well they do.
So I was pulling together the submission, and then I noticed the photos in the cert verification looked different! Apparently, they edited the photos to get rid of the overexposure and the "yellow tint". So now the photos look much better, so much so that I and not going to have them re-holdered. Maybe they would look better if they were re-shot, but at least now they are not "atrocious" anymore.
For example, here is the new, edited 21 Buff:
And here is the original TV, before it was edited:
I will be sending another submission out within the week, so hopefully the Trueviews will be better after all our feedback -- I will let you know when they come back (likely 2 months from now).
This is all really a shame, luckily I don’t have anything that I want to send in right now, but if I did, I would be very reluctant. Like many others have said, a good picture is very important to me, especially since it stays with the coin’s CERT verification.
For now, my goal is to just buy stuff that’s already certified from the last few years where the TrueView is good.
@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.
Yeah...the original images were stunning, but often led to disappointment. Nothing can replace in hand viewing.
@gorebels said:
Sorry for the dumb question, but who is/was Phil?
Phil Arnold. Formerly the head of the PCGS Photo Department and a wickedly good coin photographer. He was one of the (if not THE) driving forces behind the Trueview program.
He left PCGS a little while ago and now does amazing auction photos for Great Collections.
Comments
I think the photographers have all the skills and equipment but are not coin collectors. They do not know what attributes to highlight to make glamour shots. I challenge all to guess the grade on this Canadian from the True View.
PR67
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
There have been other excellent coin photographers that aren't collectors. The missing skills at PCGS are both artistic and technical in nature.
I think being a collector is not essential to being a good photographer. I think the kind of ways I see the current PCGS photo team making errors is not just a lack of customer awareness (what you would be sure to have if you are a collector). The color/light balance is a fundamental technical skill. There is some artistic license to not land at a completely neutral choice. The balance between direct and diffuse lighting is tricky, technically. And the choice on where to land there is a judgement call that depends on the coin type, metal, strike type, and state of preservation. Managing the lighting to interact with design and details in attractive ways is purely aesthetic. Collectors have strong opinions on that, but it's purely aesthetic at the end of the day. Being able to manipulate the camera and lighting so that it does what you want it to do is a craft unto itself.
I can't help but be a backseat driver. I took a photography class in high school and have a basic knowledge of optics from a science education and would be able to navigate many of these issues that PCGS is seeing better than they are now. But then again, PCGS may not be willing to do what it takes to hire someone who has a working knowledge of photography and the willingness to learn and adapt.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
PR67DCAM
That would explain a lot. And it would be a cost-savings move as well.
TBD
wow, closer than my guess
I'm failing to see any difference between the True View and the pictures on ebay:
Tim
Edited to add matching coin from ebay
Is this matching coin from ebay ?
https://ebay.ca/itm/264510143303?itmmeta=01J2GBMGR92Y5RC41SNNYA4CA9&hash=item3d96087b47:g:ULIAAOSwLm1dsia1&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwCJMEsrsoJtKFaCU8jCkYkvlgTssoSoLHSa9RxTeP5cWSDmMpWP8Aadksr0IxscG3N45XhfmS2lrYhgo5hF%2FPK8rXXCpzDYt5FsydpvWIAQDjJJ%2BHPPH4rtYeA9cDjx7GoghieLDIAa%2BHflE0M6FfX7fOTDgJrnxNJhxvMRDay8ArQOVVk8UVADNzT%2FxwUzlebyPFm6OjpUW8QgzWfJ5WkCYSErCRQut5qg884CbFVViDCvPF7I1eC%2BNm9yNtPom4w%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR56M0ouUZA
PR67CAM > @davewesen said:
The hits on the reverse hold it back from 68. (I thought)
That eBay pic is juiced and does not look frothy enough for Dcam.
Edit- but your point is well taken that the pics are not.
Seriously! I’m in the same boat with my growing pile to submit. Ultimately I sent several ATS of the series I’m not holder picky about. They were back in a little over 2 weeks, (moderns), including a 5 day shipping delay for the July 4th holiday!
Now, what the heck do I do with my pile of coins that I DO want in PCGS slabs and that I DO want some great pictures with? Ugh….
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.
That's the one!
Tim
Since I had a couple dozen submissions this year, including some notable toners, I took the plunge and ordered TVs. Like everyone else here I wish I hadn't. Yes they look like they were imaged on a flatbed scanner.
And yes, aa also stated above these images will follow the coins around like a boat anchor, forever depressing their market values.
All I could do is take my own photos, which were much more accurate, and post them alongside the primary TV with a note of explanation and apology.
The aggregate diminished value in my case was probably only a thousand dollars, so much less than others have reported here.
But it's virtually impossible to quantify. Yet it hurts, and not just financially. It's almost as though they damaged the coins.
How much faith do you have in their current grades is the main question. If I crack and submit to CAC can I live with the results, maybe. If I crack and submit to NGC could I believe my eyes, maybe. At the very least the coin will be cleaned of any bad publicity and the experience could be a good one.
My opinion is that so far this year the grading has been on the strict side, possibly due to the presence of CAC.
On a truly positive note, accolades to PCGS for not killing this thread.
peacockcoins
Absolutely agree, but perhaps they see the wisdom in why they shouldn’t? More than anything, it’s a collective “cry for help” from loyal members.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Allowing everyone to freely express their concerns is certainly important, but the question is will the cry be answered or ignored? Time will tell.
I haven’t noticed a change in the grading standards but you couldn’t tell by looking at my true views, what makes the standards look very substandard.
Hopefully, they are working on a solution meanwhile my ban hammer lies in wait.
I like to believe as long as we’re making our comments in a courteous and professional manner, they’re understanding and good with it. A healthy, open, honest, and fair discussion should never be outlawed. That’s how all sides learn and grow.
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.
I’m looking @ this coin in Sunday’s GC auction. Here’s a comparison with the GC pic & TV:
I actually like both. But, the GC pic shows the details better, especially in the important areas when considering a Walker. Eagles trailing leg detail (this is where the difference is most noticeable), obv skirt lines & branch hand, head all show better slightly better on the GC pic. The slab pics (not posted) are a bit closer to the GC pic, but the TV compares favorably in this area. What I don’t know is when the TV pics were taken. If it is recent, then quality is on the way up, at least in this example.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
GC far superior on this proof Trade $1.
TrueView is washed out and looks nothing like coin in hand.
I'm afraid this is just more lipstick on a pig. As you say, time will tell, but I got a fancy "we're working on it and we take your concerns seriously" letter myself more than a year ago after complaining about the problems with images not appearing in digital albums. Now the Trueviews are apparently so bad, many of them, that collectors don't even want them to show up. Is that water circling the drain I hear?
I had 8 coins change to "Being Imaged" on the PCGS order status page today.
Thankfully, I only care about TrueViews for the aspect of comparing the pics to the real thing to prove it's the right coin in the holder. All of my coins have nicks or small discolorations that serve as "landmarks" for identification purposes.
My Carson City Morgan Registry Set
Congrats on having a 55 DDO!
Just catching up on 50 or more new comments. So here is an update:
PCGS Customer Service offered to re-shoot the coins and re-holder, and send me a free Fed-Ex label. Problem is, not anticipating they would offer this, I sent several of them to CAC and 5 of them are stickered. I really don't want to have to send them to CAC for re-stickering, so asked if they could Trueview them in the holder, and they said no.
So I then thought ok, I will have then re-shot and re-holdered anyway, just to see how well they do.
So I was pulling together the submission, and then I noticed the photos in the cert verification looked different! Apparently, they edited the photos to get rid of the overexposure and the "yellow tint". So now the photos look much better, so much so that I and not going to have them re-holdered. Maybe they would look better if they were re-shot, but at least now they are not "atrocious" anymore.
For example, here is the new, edited 21 Buff:
And here is the original TV, before it was edited:
I will be sending another submission out within the week, so hopefully the Trueviews will be better after all our feedback -- I will let you know when they come back (likely 2 months from now).
Thanks, a nice MS62BN, which CAC liked as well. Here is the Trueview as it is now in the Cert Verification, which looks better post-editing (by PCGS):
This is all really a shame, luckily I don’t have anything that I want to send in right now, but if I did, I would be very reluctant. Like many others have said, a good picture is very important to me, especially since it stays with the coin’s CERT verification.
For now, my goal is to just buy stuff that’s already certified from the last few years where the TrueView is good.
My YouTube Channel
These photos were taken within the last couple of days and posted to PCGS today (7/16):
My Carson City Morgan Registry Set
Those don't seem to bad...
Maybe they sent the photographer(s) to summer seminar.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
There may be hope, my most recent tv actually came out pretty good.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Not a great presentation. They all look washed out and the luster is nowhere to be seen.
I haven’t spent the time to check, but I don’t think those coins would have luster in the first place they don’t look mint state.
Those coins range from VF35 to XF45.
My Carson City Morgan Registry Set
Well, then, I think those true views look pretty good.
Yeah...the original images were stunning, but often led to disappointment. Nothing can replace in hand viewing.
I had a recent submission ship and the TV quality has improved. Not quite Phil era, but not bad.
That's encouraging. Might have to send in a small trial sub.
Sorry for the dumb question, but who is/was Phil?
Phil Arnold. Formerly the head of the PCGS Photo Department and a wickedly good coin photographer. He was one of the (if not THE) driving forces behind the Trueview program.
He left PCGS a little while ago and now does amazing auction photos for Great Collections.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase