I would rather have no True View than a bad True View. I emailed my concern to customer service, asking if the TV in question could be deleted from their database. I was told no, because the future owners of the coin may want the image. In turn, I made my own image for my Registry set, and let my membership lapse a few months later. I might add, there were lots of dandruff flakes inside the holder that only served to ruin what was left of my enjoyment. I cracked it out and enjoy it now in an Air-Tite holder. I would probably pay multiples of the $5 fee, if I could be reasonably sure I would get a nice image like when Phil was there.
And of course, if you're not the original submitter you're stuck with them; you can't even ask if there are alternate pictures as I found after these recent purchases. PCGS did offer to re-image them as part of a submission, but I'll not be sending anything else in until I start to see some real and consistent improvement.
Steve Feltner (the guy in charge of grading at PCGS) will be at the Long Beach show in 2 weeks. Not sure who's going but anyone who goes should give him an earful about TVs.
@Cladiator said:
Got an 8 coin submission in the works now, all to be TV'd. I'll post the images when they come in, fingers crossed lol.
Got the grades and images this week. Here they are. While I don't think they are quite up to the very high bar Phil set back in the day I wouldn't call them bad. I'm not displeased and don't feel the images misrepresent any of the coins.
@Cladiator said:
Got an 8 coin submission in the works now, all to be TV'd. I'll post the images when they come in, fingers crossed lol.
Got the grades and images this week. Here they are. While I don't think they are quite up to the very high bar Phil set back in the day I wouldn't call them bad. I'm not displeased and don't feel the images misrepresent any of the coins.
Tonight or in the next few days I was going to make a summary post of my recent PCGS and CAC experiences. Whereas earlier this year the images were ready close to when the grades are ready, now the images aren't available for up to a week after and the images have been significantly better. I am speculating that they heard our feedback and have fixed their TV process at the expense of images being delayed. I'm sure we'll all take the delay over poor image quality any day.
PCGS hasn't acted on anything they've heard or read.
For example - A three-coin submission order.
ONE COIN IS MISIDENTIFIED! Coin is an EDS WB-1 55/54 with the strongest overdate I've seen, yet they called it an 1855 normal date even though it was written on the submission sheet "1855/54"
All the Trueviews are WAY TOO DARK.
Out of the last 100 coins submitted, the Trueviews for about 80 of them are poor. Either they're overexposed, ridiculously underexposed, or they turn the color saturation up to absurd levels. Easily a half dozen coins have been rendered unrecognizable or they've turned them into clown coins with strange color. I can never use them and they are now linked to the coin.
@hummingbird_coins said:
If anyone has trueviews with a heavy yellow tint and wouldn't mind me using them to make a meme of sorts, PM me with them if you want.
There's a fine line between discussing the decline in TV quality and making it a point of mockery. Tread lightly.
@hummingbird_coins said:
If anyone has trueviews with a heavy yellow tint and wouldn't mind me using them to make a meme of sorts, PM me with them if you want.
There's a fine line between discussing the decline in TV quality and making it a point of mockery. Tread lightly.
And whatever that line might be, I think that the proposed meme would be over the line.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@hummingbird_coins said:
If anyone has trueviews with a heavy yellow tint and wouldn't mind me using them to make a meme of sorts, PM me with them if you want.
There's a fine line between discussing the decline in TV quality and making it a point of mockery. Tread lightly.
And whatever that line might be, I think that the proposed meme would be over the line.
I don't believe this at all to be "over the line".
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
@hummingbird_coins said:
If anyone has trueviews with a heavy yellow tint and wouldn't mind me using them to make a meme of sorts, PM me with them if you want.
@hummingbird_coins said:
If anyone has trueviews with a heavy yellow tint and wouldn't mind me using them to make a meme of sorts, PM me with them if you want.
There's a fine line between discussing the decline in TV quality and making it a point of mockery. Tread lightly.
Since we're paying for the "decline in quality", I think it's deserved.
@hummingbird_coins said:
If anyone has trueviews with a heavy yellow tint and wouldn't mind me using them to make a meme of sorts, PM me with them if you want.
There's a fine line between discussing the decline in TV quality and making it a point of mockery. Tread lightly.
Since we're paying for the "decline in quality", I think it's deserved.
What we think doesn't matter. What the mods think does.
@hummingbird_coins said:
If anyone has trueviews with a heavy yellow tint and wouldn't mind me using them to make a meme of sorts, PM me with them if you want.
There's a fine line between discussing the decline in TV quality and making it a point of mockery. Tread lightly.
Since we're paying for the "decline in quality", I think it's deserved.
What we think doesn't matter. What the mods think does.
They could shut down the speculation/mockery by addressing the issue. Seems odd they haven't. Banning people for being annoyed at paying for a substandard product and not addressing their concerns seems a little extreme. But you're right, what we think clearly doesn't matter.
@hummingbird_coins said:
If anyone has trueviews with a heavy yellow tint and wouldn't mind me using them to make a meme of sorts, PM me with them if you want.
There's a fine line between discussing the decline in TV quality and making it a point of mockery. Tread lightly.
Since we're paying for the "decline in quality", I think it's deserved.
What we think doesn't matter. What the mods think does.
I don't mind being a martyr if necessary.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Now I find out that "1855/54" is too vague for the graders, they ignore the coin identification number (6282) that one must add for each coin, and that I should have specified that it was an overdate. Why would I insure it for $500?!!! PCGS uses "1855/54" and "6282" throughout Coin Facts and Coin Prices, even the CF page is entitled "1855/54." What do the graders think an "1855/54" is? Carefully looking up and recording "6282" means nothing but time waste. Do they look at their own literature? Do they check id numbers? Did they look at the date? This is an early die state that screams OVERDATE!
Apparently not.
Also, 1855/54s apparently require variety attribution now. I never used variety attribution before in submitting the last three 55/54s for grading and they came out fine. Now, I may have to pay an additional $60 to have the label changed!
Customer service also said the pictures looked fine when they didn't have the coin in-hand. The pictures are too dark.
@Barberian said:
Now I find out that "1855/54" is too vague for the graders, that I should have specified that it was an overdate. PCGS uses "1855/54" throughout Coin Facts and Coin Prices, even the CF page is entitled "1855/54." What do the graders think an "1855/54" is? Now the
Also, 1855/54s apparently require variety attribution now. I never used variety attribution before in submitting the last three 55/54s for grading and they came out fine. Now, I may have to pay $60 to have the label changed!
Customer service also said the pictures looked fine when they didn't have the coin in-hand. The pictures are too dark.
If the coin has a main sequence #, you should be able to get it graded as any other regular coin with 55/54 on the label. If you want the FS-xxx designation on the label, then there's the separate variety # and you pay the variety fee.
Well I was optimistic that they had fixed things, but no...
So this first one the picture is great, but of course it is a high contrast Deep Cameo coin and does not look like this in real life. I am just bewildered that they think a PR70DCAM coin owner wants a non-Deep Cameo photo. I am going to ask and hope that they have an alternative photo.
Onto other coins... at least they aren't yellow...
Seems like this could be better:
This one's a little better (slightly yellow but...:
I hadn't submitted in a long time due to the TV issues, but finally had hope they were fixed. As others have reported, they are not fixed. Just terrible.
Figured I would add this one to the pile, I knew it would details grade due to the reverse corrosion but in the hand the color is much more natural, this makes it look like I just pulled it out of the ground.
My decidedly amateur pictures:
Trueview:
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I can't grasp how TVs have lacked something so basic as white adjustment for what years now? I had to send stuff ATS when I didn't want to, it's bananas
I know, just another strike on this dead horse... but..... ..... .. .
If you don't like your True View pictures, be careful what you ask for. After complaining about the original True Views of cert #50387170, PCGS changed them. The new pics are pale and the coin appears absolutely flat, which it is not. Guess I'm out of options unless another collector knows of another route to take.
@Saam said:
I know, just another strike on this dead horse... but..... ..... .. .
If you don't like your True View pictures, be careful what you ask for. After complaining about the original True Views of cert #50387170, PCGS changed them. The new pics are pale and the coin appears absolutely flat, which it is not. Guess I'm out of options unless another collector knows of another route to take.
Original:
New:
Jeez, and now they’re making the coins look smushed, too!?
Here's a challenge for TrueView. This Connecticut is curiously toned a light pink color.
It was just graded and photographed by PCGS. Grades were posted today (wanted AU58, ended up MS63) but PCGS hasn't posted the TrueViews yet. Getting the color right for this coin may be difficult.
Edited: 10/15 6:40 AM - TVs posted - they must work into the evening because it was posted sometime between 7:41 PM and 3:30 AM Pacific Time.
Some pink color shows but there's too much yellow, little contrast. Here, I've adjusted the color closer to the coin in-hand.
"Is that a real attribution or is that a 'Sears' attribution."
- with apologies to Frank Z
The WB-11 1840-O is one of the most common DMs for 1840-O. Most WB-11s have 145 reeds and have conspicuous large die breaks on the reverse. However, some WB-11s such as this coin have 146 reeds with no die breaks and are considered to be scarce (R6). I wanted the reed count "146 reeds" specified on the label so I can possibly reap some "R6 rewards" someday. PCGS labeled it improperly and I seriously doubt they did the reed count that I specifically requested for this coin to validate that it has, in fact, 146 reeds. They saw it was a WB-11, ignored my specific request, and rang up $20.
I anticipated this problem when I filled out the submission form because to specify that on the submission form is bound to confuse these people. After dealing with their CS and staff, I realize this is beyond what the numismatists at PCGS can handle. This will have to be a multiple-step process. On the 2nd try, I will have to submit a mini-manuscript complete with photos of Bugert's WB-11 page and a drawing of what I want for a label. I don't want them counting reeds because it's tedious and tricky and they'll eff that up as well.
Looking over the photos in this thread, both old and new, plus the old and new GC photos, and it seems clear (to me at least) that when Phil left he took the lighting style he developed with him, and the new folks at PCGS are using a completely different and variable style. The main difference appears to be some amount of "axial" or "pseudo-axial" lighting done by Phil when at PCGS and now at GC, while the new TVs don't seem to have anything near axial in them. The axial style is what produces the bright fields and deep colors we see in older TVs. The flipside is that axial light illuminates the fields of brilliant proofs, so the fields of @SanctionII's proofs would show as bright rather than the dark shown in the new TVs. It simply appears that the new staff at PCGS are still learning how to light coins, though I wonder why they don't just use the tried-and-true methods from Phil's tenure.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Comments
I would rather have no True View than a bad True View. I emailed my concern to customer service, asking if the TV in question could be deleted from their database. I was told no, because the future owners of the coin may want the image. In turn, I made my own image for my Registry set, and let my membership lapse a few months later. I might add, there were lots of dandruff flakes inside the holder that only served to ruin what was left of my enjoyment. I cracked it out and enjoy it now in an Air-Tite holder. I would probably pay multiples of the $5 fee, if I could be reasonably sure I would get a nice image like when Phil was there.
Matt Snebold
And of course, if you're not the original submitter you're stuck with them; you can't even ask if there are alternate pictures as I found after these recent purchases. PCGS did offer to re-image them as part of a submission, but I'll not be sending anything else in until I start to see some real and consistent improvement.
Steve Feltner (the guy in charge of grading at PCGS) will be at the Long Beach show in 2 weeks. Not sure who's going but anyone who goes should give him an earful about TVs.
Got the grades and images this week. Here they are. While I don't think they are quite up to the very high bar Phil set back in the day I wouldn't call them bad. I'm not displeased and don't feel the images misrepresent any of the coins.
Those look like very decent TV's.
Tonight or in the next few days I was going to make a summary post of my recent PCGS and CAC experiences. Whereas earlier this year the images were ready close to when the grades are ready, now the images aren't available for up to a week after and the images have been significantly better. I am speculating that they heard our feedback and have fixed their TV process at the expense of images being delayed. I'm sure we'll all take the delay over poor image quality any day.
PCGS hasn't acted on anything they've heard or read.
For example - A three-coin submission order.
ONE COIN IS MISIDENTIFIED! Coin is an EDS WB-1 55/54 with the strongest overdate I've seen, yet they called it an 1855 normal date even though it was written on the submission sheet "1855/54"
All the Trueviews are WAY TOO DARK.
Out of the last 100 coins submitted, the Trueviews for about 80 of them are poor. Either they're overexposed, ridiculously underexposed, or they turn the color saturation up to absurd levels. Easily a half dozen coins have been rendered unrecognizable or they've turned them into clown coins with strange color. I can never use them and they are now linked to the coin.
People collect virtual cards, even buy and sell them. So maybe......
If anyone has trueviews with a heavy yellow tint and wouldn't mind me using them to make a meme of sorts, PM me with them if you want.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
There's a fine line between discussing the decline in TV quality and making it a point of mockery. Tread lightly.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
And whatever that line might be, I think that the proposed meme would be over the line.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I just crossed this seated half to PCGS from an ANACs OWH (down graded from 55 to 50 - I think it's a 53).
First, here's @robec 's excellent through the slab pics:
Here's the new TV:
I am not unhappy with the result in this case.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I don't believe this at all to be "over the line".
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Since we're paying for the "decline in quality", I think it's deserved.
What we think doesn't matter. What the mods think does.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
They could shut down the speculation/mockery by addressing the issue. Seems odd they haven't. Banning people for being annoyed at paying for a substandard product and not addressing their concerns seems a little extreme. But you're right, what we think clearly doesn't matter.
I don't mind being a martyr if necessary.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
I think they may have fixed it. See... https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1107046/recent-cac-pcgs-experiences#latest
Not really a fair test since the coin was already yellow.
Actual Trueview
Adjusted Trueview - the toning is brown, not orange.
Now I find out that "1855/54" is too vague for the graders, they ignore the coin identification number (6282) that one must add for each coin, and that I should have specified that it was an overdate. Why would I insure it for $500?!!! PCGS uses "1855/54" and "6282" throughout Coin Facts and Coin Prices, even the CF page is entitled "1855/54." What do the graders think an "1855/54" is? Carefully looking up and recording "6282" means nothing but time waste. Do they look at their own literature? Do they check id numbers? Did they look at the date? This is an early die state that screams OVERDATE!
Apparently not.
Also, 1855/54s apparently require variety attribution now. I never used variety attribution before in submitting the last three 55/54s for grading and they came out fine. Now, I may have to pay an additional $60 to have the label changed!
Customer service also said the pictures looked fine when they didn't have the coin in-hand. The pictures are too dark.
If the coin has a main sequence #, you should be able to get it graded as any other regular coin with 55/54 on the label. If you want the FS-xxx designation on the label, then there's the separate variety # and you pay the variety fee.
Example:
Well I was optimistic that they had fixed things, but no...
So this first one the picture is great, but of course it is a high contrast Deep Cameo coin and does not look like this in real life. I am just bewildered that they think a PR70DCAM coin owner wants a non-Deep Cameo photo. I am going to ask and hope that they have an alternative photo.
Onto other coins... at least they aren't yellow...
Seems like this could be better:
This one's a little better (slightly yellow but...:
I hadn't submitted in a long time due to the TV issues, but finally had hope they were fixed. As others have reported, they are not fixed. Just terrible.
Sadly, after seeing many of these poor quality photos, it does make me cherish the few that I have that were done while Phil was still there.
Here are a few that I really like:
My YouTube Channel
Figured I would add this one to the pile, I knew it would details grade due to the reverse corrosion but in the hand the color is much more natural, this makes it look like I just pulled it out of the ground.
My decidedly amateur pictures:
Trueview:
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I can't grasp how TVs have lacked something so basic as white adjustment for what years now? I had to send stuff ATS when I didn't want to, it's bananas
My latest submission.....I'm in the terrible camp.
Washed out and heavy on yellow filter.
These coins look so much nicer in hand....the 1834 has amazing eye appeal.
You'd never know it by the TV image.
My most recent TV of world coins are below. I’m still waiting on my US coin submission results.
The Canada 20 cent coin has the most misrepresented toning in the images. The other images are okay.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
I know, just another strike on this dead horse... but..... ..... .. .
If you don't like your True View pictures, be careful what you ask for. After complaining about the original True Views of cert #50387170, PCGS changed them. The new pics are pale and the coin appears absolutely flat, which it is not. Guess I'm out of options unless another collector knows of another route to take.
Original:
New:
Jeez, and now they’re making the coins look smushed, too!?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Guess which one is the TV. Harumph.
Graded this month and last month. The True View photos show these Cameo Proof and SMS coins nicely.
I guess this is the True View since it appears to show less depth that the other.
TV's seem to be like the lottery, a winner now and then but lots of losers.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Here's a challenge for TrueView. This Connecticut is curiously toned a light pink color.
It was just graded and photographed by PCGS. Grades were posted today (wanted AU58, ended up MS63) but PCGS hasn't posted the TrueViews yet. Getting the color right for this coin may be difficult.
Edited: 10/15 6:40 AM - TVs posted - they must work into the evening because it was posted sometime between 7:41 PM and 3:30 AM Pacific Time.
Some pink color shows but there's too much yellow, little contrast. Here, I've adjusted the color closer to the coin in-hand.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. The actual TV, as is so common, is the yellow one
They do seem to like the yellow / orange tinge.
I was hoping for good news, at this point I'm not holding my breath for a fix
"Is that a real attribution or is that a 'Sears' attribution."
- with apologies to Frank Z
The WB-11 1840-O is one of the most common DMs for 1840-O. Most WB-11s have 145 reeds and have conspicuous large die breaks on the reverse. However, some WB-11s such as this coin have 146 reeds with no die breaks and are considered to be scarce (R6). I wanted the reed count "146 reeds" specified on the label so I can possibly reap some "R6 rewards" someday. PCGS labeled it improperly and I seriously doubt they did the reed count that I specifically requested for this coin to validate that it has, in fact, 146 reeds. They saw it was a WB-11, ignored my specific request, and rang up $20.
I anticipated this problem when I filled out the submission form because to specify that on the submission form is bound to confuse these people. After dealing with their CS and staff, I realize this is beyond what the numismatists at PCGS can handle. This will have to be a multiple-step process. On the 2nd try, I will have to submit a mini-manuscript complete with photos of Bugert's WB-11 page and a drawing of what I want for a label. I don't want them counting reeds because it's tedious and tricky and they'll eff that up as well.
At least the TrueView is OK.
WB-11, 146 reeds, Large O
Looking over the photos in this thread, both old and new, plus the old and new GC photos, and it seems clear (to me at least) that when Phil left he took the lighting style he developed with him, and the new folks at PCGS are using a completely different and variable style. The main difference appears to be some amount of "axial" or "pseudo-axial" lighting done by Phil when at PCGS and now at GC, while the new TVs don't seem to have anything near axial in them. The axial style is what produces the bright fields and deep colors we see in older TVs. The flipside is that axial light illuminates the fields of brilliant proofs, so the fields of @SanctionII's proofs would show as bright rather than the dark shown in the new TVs. It simply appears that the new staff at PCGS are still learning how to light coins, though I wonder why they don't just use the tried-and-true methods from Phil's tenure.
http://macrocoins.com