Another Case of a Rough TrueView

FlyingAl

I recently was offered this coin by a good friend, @DeplorableDan. When I went to go see the TrueView, I was absolutely floored at how poorly it presented the coin. Nearly half of the coin is obscured in dark shadow (shadow is not bad, but when it nears black it is) and overall it's a horrible representation of the coin in hand. There's a severe yellow tint, the rim of the coin is cut away by poor cropping, and the fact of the matter is that if it wasn't Dan selling the coin it would have been a hard pass.

The reason for my post is not to rant about the quality of the photo, although that is a consequence of it. What I really want to know is there any way that I would be able to request the TrueView is taken down? I'd prefer to have no image on the cert page over the current TV. .

Here is the TrueView.

Here are my images.

alaura22

Nice coin and your pics, not so much for the TrueView................

BustHalfBrian

Man, that is a tight crop. Almost like it was struck on a foreign planchet or something. Lol

baseballjeff

My 1921 Mercury Dime True View image doesn't do this coins justice either. In hand, this coin looks 100x better.

Jeff

1madman

I actually liked the coin in the trueview as a 63, then I looked up the actual grade and wouldn’t touch this coin with a 10 foot pole

SanctionII

Your coin and coin photo is gorgeous.

The TrueView not so much.

Here is a TrueView photo of an MS66FB Mercury dime I had graded last fall. The coin looks nothing like it does in the photo. In hand the coin is darkly toned with luster under the toning.

rmpsrpms

Other than the bad circle crop, what's wrong with the WL TV? It shows the blazing luster of the coin well, and because of this I would expect the TV to be more appealing to a buyer. Is the coin that color, or is the color off as well? I do see that greenish tone on parts of both sides on the OP's images, just not as extensive.

jesbroken

As to the OP, there are two sellers on ebay who have perfected this manner of coin photography and each and every coin they offer looks nearly identical to this TV, regardless of series. I no longer even open their auctions. Won't name them as one is on the forum.
Jim

Copperindian

The TV looks like it has a greenish tint. Your pics are excellent! To answer your question, I don’t know PCGS to do that. I’ve tried to delete poor tv’s in the past without success.

Barberian

@rmpsrpms said:
Other than the bad circle crop, what's wrong with the WL TV? It shows the blazing luster of the coin well, and because of this I would expect the TV to be more appealing to a buyer. Is the coin that color, or is the color off as well? I do see that greenish tone on parts of both sides on the OP's images, just not as extensive.

One cannot see 30-40% of the coin's surfaces in the Trueview. Al's photo shows the surfaces nicely on almost the entire coin.

lilolme

Appears to be the same TV that was in DD recent thread on TV.

As far as TV questions I have emailed:

photography@collectors.com

I have not emailed since Feb. but previously when I did Zu would respond fairly quickly (within a day usually). Sometimes the response with the answer and maybe correction and other times to let me know she was sending the problem / issue to another group. I just gave it a short title that reference concern/question. Funny my last one was to get 3 TV re-insalled as they disappeared.

FlyingAl

@lilolme said:
Appears to be the same TV that was in DD recent thread on TV.

As far as TV questions I have emailed:

photography@collectors.com

I have not emailed since Feb. but previously when I did Zu would respond fairly quickly (within a day usually). Sometimes the response with the answer and maybe correction and other times to let me know she was sending the problem / issue to another group. I just gave it a short title that reference concern/question. Funny my last one was to get 3 TV re-insalled as they disappeared.

Thanks! I'll shoot them an email.

spacehayduke

@FlyingAl - I am thinking that the new photographers at PCGS are in a learning stage and will improve with time. I am thinking that shooting off an email to them to take the images down, is not going to help them much. Think of what position he/she/they are in. Certainly not all TV's over history are great, any informed numismatist is not going to devalue a coin you have bc of a TV, especially if you supply them your images which are super nice. So go lightly here I think?

Best, SH

FlyingAl

@spacehayduke said:
@FlyingAl - I am thinking that the new photographers at PCGS are in a learning stage and will improve with time. I am thinking that shooting off an email to them to take the images down, is not going to help them much. Think of what position he/she/they are in. Certainly not all TV's over history are great, any informed numismatist is not going to devalue a coin you have bc of a TV, especially if you supply them your images which are super nice. So go lightly here I think?

Best, SH

I asked for a replacement or removal. I'm hoping they can do one of the two, but regardless the image needs to be fixed in some fashion since it will always be tied to the coin.

The unfortunate fact is that PCGS doesn't seem to be doing anything to fix the TV problem. A while ago, I helped @DeplorableDan put together an email that explained the issues we were seeing with the photos and how to fix those issues. As of this time, it only appears to have gotten worse. I'm hoping they can turn things around.

TrickleCharge

Admittedly a lot of the recent TrueViews have fallen short. Your images are far superior here FlyingAl. TrueViews do still have a value when it comes to anti counterfeiting though. You won't see successful counterfeiters faking slabs where the coin has a TV image. For that reason alone I don't think PCGS will be very open to removing TrueView images.

rmpsrpms

@Barberian said:

@rmpsrpms said:
Other than the bad circle crop, what's wrong with the WL TV? It shows the blazing luster of the coin well, and because of this I would expect the TV to be more appealing to a buyer. Is the coin that color, or is the color off as well? I do see that greenish tone on parts of both sides on the OP's images, just not as extensive.

One cannot see 30-40% of the coin's surfaces in the Trueview. Al's photo shows the surfaces nicely on almost the entire coin.

So the issue is the high contrast? There are several pro photogs around that specialize in this sort of photo, with tons of luster and contrast. I do agree that the OP's photos are superior though.

FlyingAl

@rmpsrpms said:

@Barberian said:

@rmpsrpms said:
Other than the bad circle crop, what's wrong with the WL TV? It shows the blazing luster of the coin well, and because of this I would expect the TV to be more appealing to a buyer. Is the coin that color, or is the color off as well? I do see that greenish tone on parts of both sides on the OP's images, just not as extensive.

One cannot see 30-40% of the coin's surfaces in the Trueview. Al's photo shows the surfaces nicely on almost the entire coin.

So the issue is the high contrast? There are several pro photogs around that specialize in this sort of photo, with tons of luster and contrast. I do agree that the OP's photos are superior though.

The problem is the amount. If it makes the coin appear too dark (approaching black in the darkest areas) then the photo is no good. The key lies in the balance of contrast here.

1madman

@spacehayduke said:
Certainly not all TV's over history are great, any informed numismatist is not going to devalue a coin you have bc of a TV

This is where the dicey area of the trueview comes into play on putting a value on a coin as well as pulling the trigger on a coin. Classify me in the uninformed numismatist buyer group if you’d like, but in some facet of the spectrum of light, that walker had that look shown in the trueview picture. So if I’m looking to buy that coin, I’m now thinking it has the potential to replicate that look again in hand, and I’m not going to pay 67 money for a coin with a 63 look.

Having that TV will give me pause on buying that coin, and if multiple buyers/bidders take a pause, the value is going to suffer.

MsMorrisine

@TrickleCharge said:
You won't see successful counterfeiters faking slabs where the coin has a TV image

not true. seen it already.

also seen, coins without tv but are imaged on auction sites

TrickleCharge

@MsMorrisine said:

@TrickleCharge said:
You won't see successful counterfeiters faking slabs where the coin has a TV image

not true. seen it already.

also seen, coins without tv but are imaged on auction sites

Seeing it and being successful are two different things. Are you saying that a TrueView slab has no difference to a counterfeiter compared to one without? I think we have all seen they favor faking slabs where the PCGS verification does not return an image of the coin when entered on the PCGS website.

P0CKETCHANGE

@spacehayduke said:
any informed numismatist is not going to devalue a coin you have bc of a TV

“Informed numismatists” are a minority of coin buyers, and it only takes one buyer to pass on a coin for the value to drop significantly in an auction competition. IMO, it’s not too far of a stretch to say that the continued proliferation of these subpar TrueViews could drag down values across the board, so even collectors and dealers that don’t own coins with them may be impacted negatively. It’s bad timing for PCGS as I predict it will accelerate some migration to CACG.

Maywood

Now it seems the game has changed. In the past Phil A. was criticized because his images were too good, called glamour shots and other assorted non-niceties. Now the current photographer(s) just can't seem to get it right, no image he takes compares favorably to the coin in-hand. This place has turned into a bastion of whining, moaning, bitching and complaining about most things PCGs.

What a fun place to visit, and everyone wonders why members leave or the topics become uninteresting. I will await your criticism as I know it's forthcoming. But think about it for a minute, where's the joy in collecting when all you can do is be negative??

Barberian

@Maywood said:
Now it seems the game has changed. In the past Phil A. was criticized because his images were too good, called glamour shots and other assorted non-niceties. Now the current photographer(s) just can't seem to get it right, no image he takes compares favorably to the coin in-hand. This place has turned into a bastion of whining, moaning, bitching and complaining about most things PCGs.

What a fun place to visit, and everyone wonders why members leave or the topics become uninteresting. I will await your criticism as I know it's forthcoming. But think about it for a minute, where's the joy in collecting when all you can do is be negative??

What? It's a joy being negative.

Manifest_Destiny

@Maywood said:
Now it seems the game has changed. In the past Phil A. was criticized because his images were too good, called glamour shots and other assorted non-niceties. Now the current photographer(s) just can't seem to get it right, no image he takes compares favorably to the coin in-hand. This place has turned into a bastion of whining, moaning, bitching and complaining about most things PCGs.

What a fun place to visit, and everyone wonders why members leave or the topics become uninteresting. I will await your criticism as I know it's forthcoming. But think about it for a minute, where's the joy in collecting when all you can do is be negative??

That's pretty negative.

Manifest_Destiny

Here's two of my worst ones that are waaaaay too yellow and bright. They look nothing like the coins in hand.

PeakRarities

@Maywood said:
Now it seems the game has changed. In the past Phil A. was criticized because his images were too good, called glamour shots and other assorted non-niceties. Now the current photographer(s) just can't seem to get it right, no image he takes compares favorably to the coin in-hand. This place has turned into a bastion of whining, moaning, bitching and complaining about most things PCGs.

What a fun place to visit, and everyone wonders why members leave or the topics become uninteresting. I will await your criticism as I know it's forthcoming. But think about it for a minute, where's the joy in collecting when all you can do is be negative??

Maywood, you're projecting a super minority view unto the entire forum and acting as if we all switched up. When did any of us "complain" about Phil's trueviews? Sure, once in a while you'll hear someone refer to them as "glamour shots", but when was there actual complaining or moaning about it? If there was, it certainly wasn't from me or the people from the forum that I communicate with on a regular basis.

At the end of the day, we all want our coins to look the best they can. Many of the forum members here don't even possess their coins, as they reside in a SDB and the images are all they have for frequent viewing purposes. We loved the old truviews and didn't mind that they made the coin look a little too good, what matters is that they were consistently too good and then we knew how to interpret them. As previously explained, these inconsistent and sub par images are attached to the coin indefinitely, and you can observe replies in this very thread that say "Because of that TV, I wouldnt touch that coin with a 10 foot pole...".

And then reinforced in a reply above, ONE person not bidding in auction could mean the difference in a coin selling for $9500 vs $12,000. I understand that you regularly take a dissenting opinion whenever there's rabble about something, but imo you, and PCGS, are severely underestimating the impact of this. I, personally, have probably spent over $1000 submitting ratty older holder coins at shows for the objective purpose of getting a shiny new slab with a nice TV. That is a direct loss of revenue for our hosts, as now I've bought my own equipment and will not be doing so anymore. We're not asking for PCGS to take a loss on the photo service, I would be fine if they discontinued the TV service entirely as a default and made it a $10 add on. We don't complain just to rag on PCGS, we complain as a form of constuctive criticism and hope that our hosts will listen and consider reversing the direction on this. TV's were probably the most genius marketing play a TPG could have ever made, and they're directly intertwined with the registry (another genius marketing play) and now theyre just throwing that in the trash. PCGS has been lucky that they have had, essentially, a monopoly on coin grading, but that could change real quick if the new kid on the block makes some tweaks and starts picking up steam.

asheland

I really hope they get this addressed, and soon! Because I have no desire to send anything in lately with this going on.

Catbert

@Maywood said:
Now it seems the game has changed. In the past Phil A. was criticized because his images were too good, called glamour shots and other assorted non-niceties. Now the current photographer(s) just can't seem to get it right, no image he takes compares favorably to the coin in-hand. This place has turned into a bastion of whining, moaning, bitching and complaining about most things PCGs.

What a fun place to visit, and everyone wonders why members leave or the topics become uninteresting. I will await your criticism as I know it's forthcoming. But think about it for a minute, where's the joy in collecting when all you can do is be negative??

Well, here's your negative feedback. Part of the enjoyment of my hobby is to be able to see a picture of my coin that is reasonably accurate. I had concerns about SOME of Phil's TVs because several of my coins were often not close to the in-hand view (red emphasized, with copper too dark) and now we've gone from mostly accurate to not accurate at all.

Imagine your beautiful medals you collect and having a picture you don't want to post without major qualifications about it's actual appearance. While this might not be important to you, it is to me.

I've been using @robec for my photos before and after Phil when the old TVs didn't meet my standard. This involves money and risk to send my coins across the country to achieve a standard I think is worthwhile. Just because you don't make the effort to "fix" poor photos, doesn't mean it's not important to others and worthy of discussing here.

lilolme

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:
Appears to be the same TV that was in DD recent thread on TV.

As far as TV questions I have emailed:

photography@collectors.com

I have not emailed since Feb. but previously when I did Zu would respond fairly quickly (within a day usually). Sometimes the response with the answer and maybe correction and other times to let me know she was sending the problem / issue to another group. I just gave it a short title that reference concern/question. Funny my last one was to get 3 TV re-insalled as they disappeared.

Thanks! I'll shoot them an email.

.
This is what I see for the TV now. (I suspect it won't be the 'it' photo for some & not sure what the small blue is at obv 9 o/c)
.

FlyingAl

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:
Appears to be the same TV that was in DD recent thread on TV.

As far as TV questions I have emailed:

photography@collectors.com

I have not emailed since Feb. but previously when I did Zu would respond fairly quickly (within a day usually). Sometimes the response with the answer and maybe correction and other times to let me know she was sending the problem / issue to another group. I just gave it a short title that reference concern/question. Funny my last one was to get 3 TV re-insalled as they disappeared.

Thanks! I'll shoot them an email.

.
This is what I see for the TV now. (I suspect it won't be the 'it' photo for some & not sure what the small blue is at obv 9 o/c)
.

This is the replacement I was offered, and I accepted. It's not perfect, but it's better. I also don't know what the blue is.

lilolme

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:
Appears to be the same TV that was in DD recent thread on TV.

As far as TV questions I have emailed:

photography@collectors.com

I have not emailed since Feb. but previously when I did Zu would respond fairly quickly (within a day usually). Sometimes the response with the answer and maybe correction and other times to let me know she was sending the problem / issue to another group. I just gave it a short title that reference concern/question. Funny my last one was to get 3 TV re-insalled as they disappeared.

Thanks! I'll shoot them an email.

.
This is what I see for the TV now. (I suspect it won't be the 'it' photo for some & not sure what the small blue is at obv 9 o/c)
.

This is the replacement I was offered, and I accepted. It's not perfect, but it's better. I also don't know what the blue is.

.
Agree. Looking closely at the OP photo and in the dark area I believe I see this same 'spot' or whatever it is best called.

FlyingAl

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:
Appears to be the same TV that was in DD recent thread on TV.

As far as TV questions I have emailed:

photography@collectors.com

I have not emailed since Feb. but previously when I did Zu would respond fairly quickly (within a day usually). Sometimes the response with the answer and maybe correction and other times to let me know she was sending the problem / issue to another group. I just gave it a short title that reference concern/question. Funny my last one was to get 3 TV re-insalled as they disappeared.

Thanks! I'll shoot them an email.

.
This is what I see for the TV now. (I suspect it won't be the 'it' photo for some & not sure what the small blue is at obv 9 o/c)
.

This is the replacement I was offered, and I accepted. It's not perfect, but it's better. I also don't know what the blue is.

.
Agree. Looking closely at the OP photo and in the dark area I believe I see this same 'spot' or whatever it is best called.

Looking at the coin in hand with a 10x - there's nothing there.

lilolme

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:
Appears to be the same TV that was in DD recent thread on TV.

As far as TV questions I have emailed:

photography@collectors.com

I have not emailed since Feb. but previously when I did Zu would respond fairly quickly (within a day usually). Sometimes the response with the answer and maybe correction and other times to let me know she was sending the problem / issue to another group. I just gave it a short title that reference concern/question. Funny my last one was to get 3 TV re-insalled as they disappeared.

Thanks! I'll shoot them an email.

.
This is what I see for the TV now. (I suspect it won't be the 'it' photo for some & not sure what the small blue is at obv 9 o/c)
.

This is the replacement I was offered, and I accepted. It's not perfect, but it's better. I also don't know what the blue is.

.
Agree. Looking closely at the OP photo and in the dark area I believe I see this same 'spot' or whatever it is best called.

Looking at the coin in hand with a 10x - there's nothing there.

I was not saying there was anything there but just that it shows up in both of the TV. Noting that it is more difficult to see in the TV with the darker area.

Looking at the new TV closer a similar thing - tone, film, artifact of the camera or whatever it is or is best called - can be seen sporadically elsewhere but to a lesser degree. Reverse center below gold tone on eagle for one area.

If this new TV was mixed in with a bunch of others from the 'past' (example in the coinfacts other images) I would not think anything of it or different about it and just move along to the next one. Hey, it has full rims now.

FlyingAl

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:
Appears to be the same TV that was in DD recent thread on TV.

As far as TV questions I have emailed:

photography@collectors.com

I have not emailed since Feb. but previously when I did Zu would respond fairly quickly (within a day usually). Sometimes the response with the answer and maybe correction and other times to let me know she was sending the problem / issue to another group. I just gave it a short title that reference concern/question. Funny my last one was to get 3 TV re-insalled as they disappeared.

Thanks! I'll shoot them an email.

.
This is what I see for the TV now. (I suspect it won't be the 'it' photo for some & not sure what the small blue is at obv 9 o/c)
.

This is the replacement I was offered, and I accepted. It's not perfect, but it's better. I also don't know what the blue is.

.
Agree. Looking closely at the OP photo and in the dark area I believe I see this same 'spot' or whatever it is best called.

Looking at the coin in hand with a 10x - there's nothing there.

I was not saying there was anything there but just that it shows up in both of the TV. Noting that it is more difficult to see in the TV with the darker area.

Looking at the new TV closer a similar thing - tone, film, artifact of the camera or whatever it is or is best called - can be seen sporadically elsewhere but to a lesser degree. Reverse center below gold tone on eagle for one area.

If this new TV was mixed in with a bunch of others from the 'past' (example in the coinfacts other images) I would not think anything of it or different about it and just move along to the next one. Hey, it has full rims now.

Oh ok gotcha.

Elcontador

I'm a collector. Been doing this a long time. I'm old school. I need to see a coin and have someone else look at it that knows more than I do before buying it. It generally works, though I can think of two mistakes made by the person that knows more than I do. That's two coins out of all I have purchased this way, so that's not bad.

The other way I buy coins is from a small group of dealers I trust, because I know what I am getting from them and they give me a return privilege. Re auction coins, I know several people at auction houses, who can look at the coin I see in an image and tell me to pass or play. 85% of the time, they tell me to pass, and tell me why.

I learned many years ago that even the best coin photos sometimes don't show how the coin looks in hand for too many possible reasons that I won't get into them here. To me, buying from a photo is buying a coin sight unseen, and I don't do it. Ever. This has worked for me for many years. I go to a large show three time yearly to look at coins and maintain my contacts.

I realize this isn't for everyone and it limits the coins which are available for me to purchase. But I know what I'm getting. I learned many years ago that the more complicated anything is, the more likely that something may go wrong.

spacehayduke

@FlyingAl said:

@spacehayduke said:
@FlyingAl - I am thinking that the new photographers at PCGS are in a learning stage and will improve with time. I am thinking that shooting off an email to them to take the images down, is not going to help them much. Think of what position he/she/they are in. Certainly not all TV's over history are great, any informed numismatist is not going to devalue a coin you have bc of a TV, especially if you supply them your images which are super nice. So go lightly here I think?

Best, SH

I asked for a replacement or removal. I'm hoping they can do one of the two, but regardless the image needs to be fixed in some fashion since it will always be tied to the coin.

The unfortunate fact is that PCGS doesn't seem to be doing anything to fix the TV problem. A while ago, I helped @DeplorableDan put together an email that explained the issues we were seeing with the photos and how to fix those issues. As of this time, it only appears to have gotten worse. I'm hoping they can turn things around.

Okay, I agree and I hope they do something, but the photographers will need time to improve. I hate to say it, but there is a viable alternative with images that are excellent. C......................

Connecticoin

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:
Appears to be the same TV that was in DD recent thread on TV.

As far as TV questions I have emailed:

photography@collectors.com

I have not emailed since Feb. but previously when I did Zu would respond fairly quickly (within a day usually). Sometimes the response with the answer and maybe correction and other times to let me know she was sending the problem / issue to another group. I just gave it a short title that reference concern/question. Funny my last one was to get 3 TV re-insalled as they disappeared.

Thanks! I'll shoot them an email.

.
This is what I see for the TV now. (I suspect it won't be the 'it' photo for some & not sure what the small blue is at obv 9 o/c)
.

Gad, that looks like one of those “Canyon City Coin” photos 🫤

Connecticoin

@spacehayduke said:

@FlyingAl said:

@spacehayduke said:
@FlyingAl - I am thinking that the new photographers at PCGS are in a learning stage and will improve with time. I am thinking that shooting off an email to them to take the images down, is not going to help them much. Think of what position he/she/they are in. Certainly not all TV's over history are great, any informed numismatist is not going to devalue a coin you have bc of a TV, especially if you supply them your images which are super nice. So go lightly here I think?

Best, SH

I asked for a replacement or removal. I'm hoping they can do one of the two, but regardless the image needs to be fixed in some fashion since it will always be tied to the coin.

The unfortunate fact is that PCGS doesn't seem to be doing anything to fix the TV problem. A while ago, I helped @DeplorableDan put together an email that explained the issues we were seeing with the photos and how to fix those issues. As of this time, it only appears to have gotten worse. I'm hoping they can turn things around.

Okay, I agree and I hope they do something, but the photographers will need time to improve. I hate to say it, but there is a viable alternative with images that are excellent. C......................

Need time to improve? Why is it our problem that our host failed to have a photography succession plan? That MS67 Walker photo is atrocious. I would like to see a message or statement from Ms. Sabin about how this is or is going to be addressed.

lilolme

@Connecticoin said:

@lilolme said:

@FlyingAl said:

@lilolme said:
Appears to be the same TV that was in DD recent thread on TV.

As far as TV questions I have emailed:

photography@collectors.com

I have not emailed since Feb. but previously when I did Zu would respond fairly quickly (within a day usually). Sometimes the response with the answer and maybe correction and other times to let me know she was sending the problem / issue to another group. I just gave it a short title that reference concern/question. Funny my last one was to get 3 TV re-insalled as they disappeared.

Thanks! I'll shoot them an email.

.
This is what I see for the TV now. (I suspect it won't be the 'it' photo for some & not sure what the small blue is at obv 9 o/c)
.

Gad, that looks like one of those “Canyon City Coin” photos 🫤

.
I was correct - "I suspect it won't be the 'it' photo for some...."

braddick

Who remembers the good 'ol days of early 2024?

Connecticoin

@braddick said:

Who remembers the good 'ol days of early 2024?

More like 2021 with that Cert #

JimW

Was the question ever resolved if a TV can be deleted? At the request of orig submitter? I'd like to see a few of my recent subs go away....

FlyingAl

@JimW said:
Was the question ever resolved if a TV can be deleted? At the request of orig submitter? I'd like to see a few of my recent subs go away....

I believe the answer was yes. I was given the option to have the image switched or hidden when I reached out to the email provided earlier in the thread.

Connecticoin

@FlyingAl said:

@JimW said:
Was the question ever resolved if a TV can be deleted? At the request of orig submitter? I'd like to see a few of my recent subs go away....

I believe the answer was yes. I was given the option to have the image switched or hidden when I reached out to the email provided earlier in the thread.

You can hide the TV from a registry set, but am not aware if the TV can be deleted from the cert verification. If anyone has successfully done that, I would be interested in how they did that.

Manifest_Destiny

Here's my latest reholder. Worst Trueview so far. I'm going rethink having reholders done, any maybe rethink raw grading also. I'm officially tired of wasting my money on this garbage.

FlyingAl

Wow @Manifest_Destiny - that's horrible. Not even close. Keep that GreatPhoto handy.

Barberian

Maybe PCGS wants to downsize or go out of business.

I'm going to call TrueView "TermiteView" because it's undermining PCGS as a TP grading option.

Manifest_Destiny

I'm seriously considering going back to collecting in albums. I've played the TPG game for a couple of years now and they're making me feel like I wasted my time and money.

asheland

Fairly recently, there was a flowing hair half dollar that I was interested in, the holder was scuffed up and older, and my initial thought was to buy the coin and send it for re-holder, but then I remembered that I would get an awful TrueView with the deal and it was just enough to make me just pass on the coin. That’s a shame.

SanctionII

I have some coins that I would like to submit for grading and have Trueview photos of the coins taken. My submissions of late last year came back with Trueview photos of some of the coins being of very poor quality (not even close to what the coins look like in hand and very unattractive).

As a result I am reluctant to submit any additional coins for grading.

robec

@FlyingAl said:
Wow @Manifest_Destiny - that's horrible. Not even close. Keep that GreatPhoto handy.

If Phil could have imaged this coin raw he would have had the fields lit up also. Because it’s a proof Phil wasn’t able to do that. It looks like the TrueView had the right idea. He didn’t do a good job cleaning up the image, the haze shouldn’t have been there. Color wise it is typical with TVs to be off. For a long time they favored a red tint…..now it’s yellow.

I think he was going for something like this.