TrueView versus GreatPhoto

Mark

I just won this PR67 from GreatCollections. I have the GreatPhoto and the TrueView photographs below. It's amazing the difference, especially on obverse of the coin. If all I had to go on was the TrueView, I am unsure if I would have bid on the coin.

Herb_T

Agreed.

Maywood

It would be helpful to know when the coin was originally encapsulated. A strange thing is going to happen: coins with a "GreatPhoto" will be compared to TrueViews and touted as superior when in fact both will have been photographed by the same person.

Understanding as much I had my first coins graded and photographed since Phil A. left PCGS and will admit to being disappointed in the quality.

FlyingAl

Axial vs. non-axial.

WaterSport

Very easy to take pictures of the same coin and NOT come out with the same results.

WS

blitzdude

Depends on which photo is most representative of the physical coin? Perhaps the latter is merely "juiced"?

lermish

@Maywood said:
It would be helpful to know when the coin was originally encapsulated. A strange thing is going to happen: coins with a "GreatPhoto" will be compared to TrueViews and touted as superior when in fact both will have been photographed by the same person.

Understanding as much I had my first coins graded and photographed since Phil A. left PCGS and will admit to being disappointed in the quality.

The cert number on the coin is very recent, it was likely encapsulated and imaged within the last few months.

fathom

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

DisneyFan

In checking the GC website I see both photo "versions" were posted. Why did you prefer the GC photo you posted?

Eldorado9

Having the Trueview is a net positive....I don't see this as a contest where one pic is better than the other. You could probably make either one seem "accurate" based on a simple tilt of the slab a few degrees.

FlyingAl

@fathom said:

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

I wouldn't call either of these 'glamour' shots. They're simply different techniques. Much like the below:

Both sets of images are equally as accurate. Knowing imaging techniques is an incredible advantage in today's market, and one very few know how to take full advantage of.

Cameonut

@lermish said:
The cert number on the coin is very recent, it was likely encapsulated and imaged within the last few months.

I have never been able to figure out PCGS's cert numbering with respect to when a coin was graded. How can you tell that the coin was recently graded/photographed?

Goldbully

---

Here's a gold MS62 example. I believe the GP coin looks more natural than the TV coin.

I would buy the GP coin before I would buy the TV coin.

Gold guys, what say you?

lermish

@Cameonut said:

@lermish said:
The cert number on the coin is very recent, it was likely encapsulated and imaged within the last few months.

I have never been able to figure out PCGS's cert numbering with respect to when a coin was graded. How can you tell that the coin was recently graded/photographed?

It doesn't always work because there was a period when they went out of order, and Asia and Europe are also out of order. Also, the earlier seven-digit numbers seemed mostly out of order as well although not always.

However for the last several years the numbers have been moving sequentially. I've had subs in consistently over the last
few years and the numbers have steadily gone up from 41xxxxxx to now 50xxxxxx.

A year ago when Phil left I think we were at the end of 48xxxxxx or beginning of 49xxxxxxx. EDIT: Beginning of 48xxxxxx.

Mark

@DisneyFan
I really did not prefer one photo over the other. I was just in a hurry, grabbed one and that was it.

Maywood

@Cameonut said: I have never been able to figure out PCGS's cert numbering with respect to when a coin was graded. How can you tell that the coin was recently graded/photographed?

PCGS has stated that the numbers are randomly generated, they don't follow in any sequential order, so there's really no way to know when a coin was graded. At least that was the company line in the past. Maybe it changed.

lermish

@Maywood said:
@Cameonut said: I have never been able to figure out PCGS's cert numbering with respect to when a coin was graded. How can you tell that the coin was recently graded/photographed?

PCGS has stated that the numbers are randomly generated, they don't follow in any sequential order, so there's really no way to know when a coin was graded. At least that was the company line in the past. Maybe it changed.

It's changed for quite some time, at least in practice. For sure going back to the 3xxxxxxx but I think it was in the 2xxxxxxx somewhere.

@Cameonut I'm going to edit my last post but I think Phil actually left towards the beginning of the 48xxxxxx run.

rmpsrpms

Might have been asked already, but does someone have a coin that was TV'd by Phil, which was subsequently GP'd later by Phil?

Connecticoin

What disappoints me greatly about the TVs is they cannot consistently get the white balance right after more than a year of Phil being gone. Photography 101, I really wonder if they have unexperienced interns doing photos now. They have to know this is a big problem because you would never see those horrible photos in the PCGS Market Report.

WaterSport

@rmpsrpms said:
Might have been asked already, but does someone have a coin that was TV'd by Phil, which was subsequently GP'd later by Phil?

Supposedly that is what the first set of photos are - both shot by Phil.

WS

BStrauss3

Part of the reason older cert#s aren't monotonically increasing was the preprinted paper forms themselves. They would be printed in larger batches and warehoused, then often sent out a box at a time to shows and various large users, while individual forms would be sent out to individual customers. There is also no guarantee that boxes of forms were pulled from the warehouse strictly in order.

Thus the best you could say was that a range was generally in use around a date period.

Today, with numbers computer assigned in order, it's a more reliable indicator. As long as you are aware that different PCGS branches work from different ranges.

Shurke

@rmpsrpms said:
Might have been asked already, but does someone have a coin that was TV'd by Phil, which was subsequently GP'd later by Phil?

Here's one that fits the bill. Very similar photos, though in my opinion the TrueView is slightly more appealing--probably because it was shot raw rather than through plastic.

PhilArnold

TrueViews and GreatPhotos have a different purpose and philosophy behind them. TrueViews originally was a service to
show a coin in its best light to satisfy the owner of a coin, and to provide a detailed record of a coin in the PCGS image database to be used as a reference for the grading team. Providing that record is still TrueView’s most important function.

GreatPhotos on the other hand are for coins that are to be sold at auction, producing an image faithfully that satisfies the consigner needs but also pleases the winner of an auction. Frequently I’ll produce two GreatPhotos to show different aspects of the coin. I did this with the OP’s example, although both GP’s aren't shown. I wanted to show that proof Walker’s flashy surface with a little color, but also some of the underlying luster. Both shots are useful for the consigner to accurately depict the coin, and for the bidder to bid on the coin with confidence.

There’s probably thousands of example of TVs I took that now have GPs that can be accessed by referencing the GreatCollections website. There will be some fundamental differences as for most of my PCGS tenure I was using a much different light source, and the techniques I have to use for in-slab photography are different - and a bit more difficult, especially if I want a shot with illuminated fields.

Here are some examples based on the featured listings on GC. I am not 100% sure if I took all of these TrueViews, they may have been shot by some of my former team (many of whom work at Stacks now).

This example is a challenging one. Shooting a proof coin raw is very easy compared to a coin in the holder.

For both TrueViews and GreatPhotos time is of the essence. I have images that need to get up for active listings ASAP. Hundreds of coins a day. I wish I had more time to give certain coins the care they need, but it’s just not practical. PCGS on the other hand has thousands of coins they need to image each day. It is a very hard job to be sure!

Pizzaman

@FlyingAl said:

@fathom said:

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

I wouldn't call either of these 'glamour' shots. They're simply different techniques. Much like the below:

Both sets of images are equally as accurate. Knowing imaging techniques is an incredible advantage in today's market, and one very few know how to take full advantage of.

I like the top set, I think the bottom set looks like a freak. Colorful, but a freak. Bottom-line, I'd be pissed if I bought this coin off the top set, I'd feel like I was mislead. I'm not one for crazy-shaped color disrupting the eye-movement engraved in the coin, and that's what that bottom set reveals. It corrupts the intended eye-movement the engraver skillfully tried to get across, diminishing that graceful movement for the crazy-shaped color. Sorry, not for me. I love color. But when it complements, not disrupts.

FlyingAl

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@fathom said:

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

I wouldn't call either of these 'glamour' shots. They're simply different techniques. Much like the below:

Both sets of images are equally as accurate. Knowing imaging techniques is an incredible advantage in today's market, and one very few know how to take full advantage of.

I like the top set, I think the bottom set looks like a freak. Colorful, but a freak. Bottom-line, I'd be pissed if I bought this coin off the top set, I'd feel like I was mislead. I'm not one for crazy-shaped color disrupting the eye-movement engraved in the coin, and that's what that bottom set reveals. It corrupts the intended eye-movement the engraver skillfully tried to get across, diminishing that graceful movement for the crazy-shaped color. Sorry, not for me. I love color. But when it complements, not disrupts.

Huh?

scotty4449

I spent some time comparing the following coin, in hand, against the GC photo and the TV. What I discovered is that both photos were accurate. The difference was the lighting. The coin looks like the GC photo under normal lighting, and looks more like the TV under very bright lighting.

jt88

In this case I like the great photo better. I bought this coin because of the great photo, but true view also ok

Pizzaman

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@fathom said:

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

I wouldn't call either of these 'glamour' shots. They're simply different techniques. Much like the below:

Both sets of images are equally as accurate. Knowing imaging techniques is an incredible advantage in today's market, and one very few know how to take full advantage of.

I like the top set, I think the bottom set looks like a freak. Colorful, but a freak. Bottom-line, I'd be pissed if I bought this coin off the top set, I'd feel like I was mislead. I'm not one for crazy-shaped color disrupting the eye-movement engraved in the coin, and that's what that bottom set reveals. It corrupts the intended eye-movement the engraver skillfully tried to get across, diminishing that graceful movement for the crazy-shaped color. Sorry, not for me. I love color. But when it complements, not disrupts.

Huh?

The engraver's expression is totally overcome by that freak show color. In fact, it's hardly existent. All his hard work and skill to control our eye movement through the coin is lost. Understanding any better? Your eye moves through the coin different, now. Surely you at least can pick that up.

Nic

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@fathom said:

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

I wouldn't call either of these 'glamour' shots. They're simply different techniques. Much like the below:

Both sets of images are equally as accurate. Knowing imaging techniques is an incredible advantage in today's market, and one very few know how to take full advantage of.

I like the top set, I think the bottom set looks like a freak. Colorful, but a freak. Bottom-line, I'd be pissed if I bought this coin off the top set, I'd feel like I was mislead. I'm not one for crazy-shaped color disrupting the eye-movement engraved in the coin, and that's what that bottom set reveals. It corrupts the intended eye-movement the engraver skillfully tried to get across, diminishing that graceful movement for the crazy-shaped color. Sorry, not for me. I love color. But when it complements, not disrupts.

Huh?

The engraver's expression is totally overcome by that freak show color. In fact, it's hardly existent. All his hard work and skill to control our eye movement through the coin is lost. Understanding better? Your eye moves through the coin different, now. Surely you at the least can pick that up.

Huh?

Pizzaman

@Nic said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@fathom said:

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

I wouldn't call either of these 'glamour' shots. They're simply different techniques. Much like the below:

Both sets of images are equally as accurate. Knowing imaging techniques is an incredible advantage in today's market, and one very few know how to take full advantage of.

I like the top set, I think the bottom set looks like a freak. Colorful, but a freak. Bottom-line, I'd be pissed if I bought this coin off the top set, I'd feel like I was mislead. I'm not one for crazy-shaped color disrupting the eye-movement engraved in the coin, and that's what that bottom set reveals. It corrupts the intended eye-movement the engraver skillfully tried to get across, diminishing that graceful movement for the crazy-shaped color. Sorry, not for me. I love color. But when it complements, not disrupts.

Huh?

The engraver's expression is totally overcome by that freak show color. In fact, it's hardly existent. All his hard work and skill to control our eye movement through the coin is lost. Understanding better? Your eye moves through the coin different, now. Surely you at the least can pick that up.

Huh?

FlyingAl

@Pizzaman said:

@Nic said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@fathom said:

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

I wouldn't call either of these 'glamour' shots. They're simply different techniques. Much like the below:

Both sets of images are equally as accurate. Knowing imaging techniques is an incredible advantage in today's market, and one very few know how to take full advantage of.

I like the top set, I think the bottom set looks like a freak. Colorful, but a freak. Bottom-line, I'd be pissed if I bought this coin off the top set, I'd feel like I was mislead. I'm not one for crazy-shaped color disrupting the eye-movement engraved in the coin, and that's what that bottom set reveals. It corrupts the intended eye-movement the engraver skillfully tried to get across, diminishing that graceful movement for the crazy-shaped color. Sorry, not for me. I love color. But when it complements, not disrupts.

Huh?

The engraver's expression is totally overcome by that freak show color. In fact, it's hardly existent. All his hard work and skill to control our eye movement through the coin is lost. Understanding better? Your eye moves through the coin different, now. Surely you at the least can pick that up.

Huh?

I’m feeling like the AI has it wrong on this one.

blu62vette

@rmpsrpms said:
Might have been asked already, but does someone have a coin that was TV'd by Phil, which was subsequently GP'd later by Phil?

I think that it's real hard to figure out as Phil was not the only photographer at PCGS. I am guessing many of the sub par images posted are not Phils.

yspsales

Are we griping because of the value added (or subtracted)?

Even Phil is going to get six different ways from Sunday before he settles on an image to pass onto the web guy.

Imaging color on coins borders fanciful and false advertisement as it is...

Spent 20 years moonlighting as a freelance and wedding photographer and I still pay others to photograph my coins.

Tough gig... tougher clientele.

WAYNEAS

Really some nice pictures here.
Lets see if we can convince Phil to share some pictures using his cell phone camera. 😀😀
Wayne

Zoins

@jt88 said:
In this case I like the great photo better. I bought this coin because of the great photo, but true view also ok

I like the TV reverse and GP obverse.

Where both of these done by @PhilArnold ?

Pizzaman

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@Nic said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@fathom said:

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

I wouldn't call either of these 'glamour' shots. They're simply different techniques. Much like the below:

Both sets of images are equally as accurate. Knowing imaging techniques is an incredible advantage in today's market, and one very few know how to take full advantage of.

I like the top set, I think the bottom set looks like a freak. Colorful, but a freak. Bottom-line, I'd be pissed if I bought this coin off the top set, I'd feel like I was mislead. I'm not one for crazy-shaped color disrupting the eye-movement engraved in the coin, and that's what that bottom set reveals. It corrupts the intended eye-movement the engraver skillfully tried to get across, diminishing that graceful movement for the crazy-shaped color. Sorry, not for me. I love color. But when it complements, not disrupts.

Huh?

The engraver's expression is totally overcome by that freak show color. In fact, it's hardly existent. All his hard work and skill to control our eye movement through the coin is lost. Understanding better? Your eye moves through the coin different, now. Surely you at the least can pick that up.

Huh?

I’m feeling like the AI has it wrong on this one.

Well now this is going real well. I replied to this yesterday and explained why you're wrong and the reply isn't there, now, it was taken down. Is this where we are, now, we can't disagree? Even when we explain it, in a thoughtful way? Where if anywhere are the rules on these posts? This is amateurish. A perfectly good reply. The PCGS AI-sniffer pick something up? Who in the hell knows? All I know is, this goes on, here, don't want no part no more.

Catbert

@Pizzaman said:

All I know is, this goes on, here, don't want no part no more.

For educational purposes, asking Grok:

Pizzaman

@Catbert said:

@Pizzaman said:

All I know is, this goes on, here, don't want no part no more.

For educational purposes, asking Grok:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=iXafafx3-Ks

FlyingAl

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@Nic said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@fathom said:

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

I wouldn't call either of these 'glamour' shots. They're simply different techniques. Much like the below:

Both sets of images are equally as accurate. Knowing imaging techniques is an incredible advantage in today's market, and one very few know how to take full advantage of.

I like the top set, I think the bottom set looks like a freak. Colorful, but a freak. Bottom-line, I'd be pissed if I bought this coin off the top set, I'd feel like I was mislead. I'm not one for crazy-shaped color disrupting the eye-movement engraved in the coin, and that's what that bottom set reveals. It corrupts the intended eye-movement the engraver skillfully tried to get across, diminishing that graceful movement for the crazy-shaped color. Sorry, not for me. I love color. But when it complements, not disrupts.

Huh?

The engraver's expression is totally overcome by that freak show color. In fact, it's hardly existent. All his hard work and skill to control our eye movement through the coin is lost. Understanding better? Your eye moves through the coin different, now. Surely you at the least can pick that up.

Huh?

I’m feeling like the AI has it wrong on this one.

Well now this is going real well. I replied to this yesterday and explained why you're wrong and the reply isn't there, now, it was taken down. Is this where we are, now, we can't disagree? Even when we explain it, in a thoughtful way? Where if anywhere are the rules on these posts? This is amateurish. A perfectly good reply. The PCGS AI-sniffer pick something up? Who in the hell knows? All I know is, this goes on, here, don't want no part no more.

Which reply?

Pizzaman

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@Nic said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@Pizzaman said:

@FlyingAl said:

@fathom said:

@FlyingAl said:
Axial vs. non-axial.

True, glamour vs direct..

IMO once you get into the higher mint state nothing beats lot viewing. But of course that is not always possible and convenient.

It is a good idea to be able to recognize lighting technique. Having both is a net advantage.

I wouldn't call either of these 'glamour' shots. They're simply different techniques. Much like the below:

Both sets of images are equally as accurate. Knowing imaging techniques is an incredible advantage in today's market, and one very few know how to take full advantage of.

I like the top set, I think the bottom set looks like a freak. Colorful, but a freak. Bottom-line, I'd be pissed if I bought this coin off the top set, I'd feel like I was mislead. I'm not one for crazy-shaped color disrupting the eye-movement engraved in the coin, and that's what that bottom set reveals. It corrupts the intended eye-movement the engraver skillfully tried to get across, diminishing that graceful movement for the crazy-shaped color. Sorry, not for me. I love color. But when it complements, not disrupts.

Huh?

The engraver's expression is totally overcome by that freak show color. In fact, it's hardly existent. All his hard work and skill to control our eye movement through the coin is lost. Understanding better? Your eye moves through the coin different, now. Surely you at the least can pick that up.

Huh?

I’m feeling like the AI has it wrong on this one.

Well now this is going real well. I replied to this yesterday and explained why you're wrong and the reply isn't there, now, it was taken down. Is this where we are, now, we can't disagree? Even when we explain it, in a thoughtful way? Where if anywhere are the rules on these posts? This is amateurish. A perfectly good reply. The PCGS AI-sniffer pick something up? Who in the hell knows? All I know is, this goes on, here, don't want no part no more.

Which reply?

The reply after you said you felt Google AI got it wrong. I explained it to you better and it posted here yesterday and today it's not here. Or, to @Catbert, it's not here no more (have fun with that).

ProofCollection

I have a recent result to share. The coin does have golden toning but the GP captures the color pretty accurately through the slab. Happy to get the upgrade though. Purchased in a 66FB holder, cracked out and graded 67FB (Pop 9/2).