Selling coins-what's ethical?

laurentyvan · December 16, 2003 12:04PM

New marketing tools for online sales: if his skills in photography alone manage to bring these premiums, it's fine with me.

This was a remark made in another thread concerning greattoning and his ability to capture the potential color of a coin at the right angle with the appropriate light.

The coin I bought from this seller was nice, but the coloration was much less subdued than the photos suggested

This was another comment concerning greattoning.

It speaks to the heart of my concern: inappropriate presentation of product.

Internet buyers of any product depend on accurate photo presentation and good verbal description more than any other type of consumer. Having an item, (any item) in hand is an enormous advantage over not. When dealing with coins where strike, luster, and toning can be impaired or enhanced depending on the quality of the photography, it is no less than criminal to suggest that photographic standards for presentation of product not be established.

Scenario: "Oh crap, that farthing I took in as part of the Fescue collection is slightly hairlined! Joe, when you image that, soften it a little, would you?"

Scenario: "Ah, at 56 degrees from horizontal with an OTT light at four points of the compass, there is a shade of cold blue that is dynamite. Make sure you grab that for the e-bay pictures."

Scenario: "I have no clue. I'm going with the family camera, with whatever they loaded as film, and flash should work fine because the coin is dark."

Scenario: Good coins, excellent photo and description, little to no hype, accomodating shipping/payment options. Quality seller, whether on e-bay or web site.

This last is a breed I see often as a forum member. (Congrats) The best coins I see on the web (especially on E-bay) are the ones with several photo's, several angles, showing the best and the normal of the coin; no problems there.

[i]while NEN may underestimate the view of their coins (pale and washed out)

Another forum member's observation- this is an excellent selling technique; you underpromise and overdeliver. Showing an attractive coin with a picture at 85 or 90% and delivering better gets you a reputation for undergrading, does it not? Or at least overdelivering-Wow, nicer than the picture-love it! Once again, no problems there.

this guy jacks the saturation on his images to the point where they almost strobe-comments from another forum member. Ah Hah!

Accurate; now I have problems. Don't just show the best of the coin hyped to a level that causes collectors to drool because we have no other alternative to remote viewing . Please don't quote return policys, 7 or ten day money backs, etc. First, it's a pain in the asp-I have no time or tolerance for it. I'm as likely to keep a coin as send it back if it doesn't quite measure up (as long as it's cheap). Second, I've read plenty of posts by knowledgable forum members who got screwed, even with guarantees.

What's my point? I feel that an image manipulator can be as bad as a coin doctor or someone who sells a cleaned coin and doesn't mention it. Greattoning may have an ardent following but to me he's a visual cheat. He may follow the letter of the law but trespasses all over the spirit of it. If I decide to spend more money than otherwise because of inaccurate presentation, that is cheating (stealing). Don't make me stretch for the extra buck and then I get (rhymes with buck).

I ordered a beautifully toned French ten centime recently and got a blast white UNC-Merde, I am still pissaoff!

GDJMSP · December 16, 2003 12:07PM

What he said !!

wybrit · December 16, 2003 12:09PM

You illustrate a common problem.

The biggest problem I see on ebay is hairlining/harsh cleaning. Most scanners will not catch the problem at all. Some digicameras do, but the angle can certainly be adjusted to hide it. I am constantly faced with returning ebay coins that have this issue and I am bloomin' fed up with it!

Radagast · December 16, 2003 12:31PM

Would you guys say that it is best not to buy coin on the net? I get most of mine from mail order and shows, but I was thinking of getting signed on to Ebay.

MacCrimmon · December 16, 2003 12:58PM

<< <i> Would you guys say that it is best not to buy coin on the net? I get most of mine from mail order and shows, but I was thinking of getting signed on to Ebay. >>

Go ahead! And if this MacCrimmon guy is selling the coin, the pics are "dead-bang" with no turbo saturation!!

As DH, Cosmic, and many others in our little part of the Darkside have shown, you can get pics which are 90-95% accurate as to color/lightness with the camera and lighting only. My only use for Photoshop Elements is to crop/mask the pics to minimize file size, etc.......and,
moreso than NEN, these pics are accurate but the actual coin is far better. The pic can't capture the swirl of the cartwheel and that light/color interplay. I suppose the best way would be to utilize a macro-camcorder and present a 10 second avi movie......I haven't seen it but I suppose it's very doable, and probably just around the corner as Net speeds keep increasing.

I submit this:

The reverse of this tanner is 'electric autumn' . . I'll be back to show the greattoning treatment.

The greattoning "trick" - - - increase the contrast to greater than the brightness, play with the specific hue/saturations. In this case I tweaked around with green, red, and magenta.....increase the sharpness twice, and bingo - - - electric red, green, orange

The reverse of the "real" tanner above is a bit flat due to the light and the 'depth' of the oxidation. I've recently increased the resolution on all my shots to 800-900k original file sizes and 1200 x 1600 dpi. If I re-shoot with the two lights and increased resolution it should have a little more of the 'real' sparkle with no enhancements necessary....we'll see, if I get time in the next week.

Radagast · December 16, 2003 1:01PM

Those are some really nice coins. I want to branch out into some of these older issues, but I bet they cost a pretty penny.

canadiancoinguy · December 16, 2003 1:42PM

Whoa, big difference on the 6d there.

Askari · December 16, 2003 1:48PM

IMHO one should go for the most accurate pic and then describe what the pic misses -- good and bad. What I especially dislike is the growing trend to not give a grade but rather to invite the bidder to view the scan and "attribute and grade" yourself. That's fine if the coin is in hand, but not over the internet. In fact, those who do what I originally suggested not only tend to get higher bids, but a loyal following. Remember, it costs a lot more to win a customer than to keep one.

1jester · December 16, 2003 5:19PM

Absolutely wonderful post, Laurent. Thank you for coming forth with such poignant remarks on a serious problem. I too am surprised that so many people tolerate this form of stealing: misrepresentation.

wybrit · December 16, 2003 8:28PM

Mac - nice post.

wallstreetman · December 16, 2003 8:59PM

wybrit, buy PCGS and you wont have to return for hairlines!

wybrit · December 16, 2003 9:07PM

wybrit, buy PCGS and you wont have to return for hairlines!

Certainly that would not be a problem, since they bodybag them, but there are other problems:

(1) There aren't that many Brit coins in reputable TPG holders.
(2) Some (maybe many) TPG Brit coins are improperly graded due to lack of experience. For example, tell me if this one rates an AU-55:

(3) I once had to return a damaged and improperly graded coin graded by a TPG. I did get my moeny back from the company, but what a "jump-through-hoops" hassle, bigger than just returning a coin the old fashioned way.

Fairlaneman · December 16, 2003 9:28PM

laurentyvan and MacCrimmon both of your posts are excellent. This subject has been brought up many times on the good old coin board and all that comes out of the threads is someone defending another person for the way a coin is scanned. I guess those people just do not mind getting fleeced out of their money.

The three photos shown are excellent examples of coins and personally I would have no problem buying coins pictured like number 1 and 2. The third photo would be looked at and then this guy would be on his merry way looking for something else.

I wonder if this coin would have sold if the picture would have looked like this.....

instead of how it was pictured on eBay ?

Ken

1jester · December 16, 2003 9:37PM

Wybrit, the 1871 half penny looks far too worn to merit an AU-55. I'd give it an XF-45.

wybrit · December 16, 2003 10:06PM

1jester, I agree with you. It might not even rate XF-45 but XF-40. This is a rare date so it behooves me to keep it in its shell, but there's no way it's an AU. Not even close.

laurentyvan · December 16, 2003 10:47PM

this guy jacks the saturation on his images to the point where they almost strobe-

Cacheman made the above statement yesterday in related thread and I could not agree with him more or the excellent photographic examples of MacCrimmon in this post-ye doughty scot;

that turboed six pence is exactly what I'm talking about! I hope I'm not sounding like a whiner. To exhibit the color potential of a coin in the forums is one thing; to use it as the exclusive selling shot is simply not honest. So, no whining, just observation.

On a related topic, I'm ready to get six new e-mail addresses and 6 new E-bay bidding identities and begin handing out the kind of normal feedback I would like to give when someone misrepresents a coin. I agree with other forum members comments on the frustration of a feedback system that doesn't allow for even the mildest rebuke without a firestorm of protest and innuendo following.

However, I guess I can accept the fact that this may be the only way that E-bay can work-i.e. as uncluttered as possible in the product/money exchange, with that somewhat false happy happy, joy joy feeling that alls well with the world on E-bay, essentially created by the incredibly good feedback everyone gives and receives. Why, E-Bay merchants have to be the best in the world at customer satisfaction!

Let me hasten to add that I have bought from most forum members who deal (and some who don't) and have not a quibble or a qualm about any of them. Excellent prople to deal with...

IMHO one should go for the most accurate pic and then describe what the pic misses -- good and bad. Askari makes the essential point- There is nothing left for me to add.

wallstreetman · December 17, 2003 12:22AM

I wouldnt complain about paying AU money for that!

spoon · December 17, 2003 12:52AM

Then again.. Big Macs never look as good as the commercials make them seem....

shirohniichan · December 17, 2003 12:57AM

I wanted this South African 2 shillings until I saw how the photography set up was perfect for hiding flaws.

CIVITAS · December 17, 2003 1:09AM

<< <i>Then again.. Big Macs never look as good as the commercials make them seem.... >>

I too do not appreciate it when someone manipulates a photo to make a coin look far better than it does in person. A major auction company on the east coast is notorious for doing as such in their online auctions. Many eBay sellers are as well. I prefer to show the coin as accurately as possible with both good and bad represented, and I expect the same from those I purchase from online.

But I think it's funny how we tolerate such misrepresentation in so many other venues. Spoon's comment about food never looking as good as the picture on the menu. Car commercials that show a vehicle with a fully loaded options package and then quote the price for a basic package with a fine print that requires a microscope to read. Clothing stores using special lights and slightly curved mirrors in dressing rooms. It's all marketing. Perhaps that's how these eBay sellers justify it to themselves. All you can do is not buy from these sellers. Or if you do, have reasonable expectations.

tbirde56 · December 17, 2003 7:15AM

Good thread!
Has anyone yet noticed that Wybrit's '1908 Edward VII 1 shilling' in his sigline above is in actuality a 1967 Elizabeth II VG penny that he has cruelly manipulated to appear to be the nice coin that has fooled so many for so long?

1jester · December 17, 2003 7:24AM

Wow! ....now that you mention it....

PS: Does Wybrit by any chance go by the name of "Dragonbrit" on ebay?

wybrit · December 17, 2003 7:35AM

Has anyone yet noticed that Wybrit's '1908 Edward VII 1 shilling' in his sigline above is in actuality a 1967 Elizabeth II VG penny that he has cruelly manipulated to appear to be the nice coin that has fooled so many for so long?

tbirde!! How could you say this about little ol' me?

tbirde56 · December 17, 2003 8:59AM

Nice red Brittania, btw!

Askari · December 17, 2003 10:40AM

<< <i>On a related topic, I'm ready to get six new e-mail addresses and 6 new E-bay bidding identities and begin handing out the kind of normal feedback I would like to give when someone misrepresents a coin. I agree with other forum members comments on the frustration of a feedback system that doesn't allow for even the mildest rebuke without a firestorm of protest and innuendo following.

However, I guess I can accept the fact that this may be the only way that E-bay can work-i.e. as uncluttered as possible in the product/money exchange, with that somewhat false happy happy, joy joy feeling that alls well with the world on E-bay, essentially created by the incredibly good feedback everyone gives and receives. Why, E-Bay merchants have to be the best in the world at customer satisfaction! >>

No, it's not "the only way that E-bay can work". A simple, more useful system could easily be devised. For one thing, don't list feedback until both have submitted theirs.

wybrit · December 17, 2003 11:20AM

wybrit · December 17, 2003 11:29AM

1jester · December 17, 2003 3:58PM

Man, where did you get all those museum-quality coins, Wybrit???

wybrit · December 17, 2003 8:42PM

Selling coins-what's ethical?

Comments