Looking for your opinions - do you think more coins look better, or worse in person, than in images

coinguy1

There have been numerous threads / discussions here, about how various coins look in person, compared to how they appeared in images. Many of you have complained that the coins were disappointing, but many others have commented that the coins looked somewhat, if not much better, in hand.

I realize that many factors can come into play here. Among them are the quality of the imaging equipment, the ability of the person who does the imaging, the desire of the seller to provide accurate images (or not), etc.

So, I'm curious, based on your personal experiences, have more of the coins you've viewed in person, looked better or worse, than they did in the images? Thanks, in advance, for your comments.

Shamika

I've noticed that at first I usually think the coin looks better in person, but then after a few days, the coin seems to look no better or worse than the image.

Sphinx357

In every single example where I've seen a photo of the coin and then held the coin, the photo looks worse. Photos seems to make marks appear worse amongst other things.

JrGMan2004

From the scans I've done of my coins, none of these have come close to looking any where as good as the actual coin.

tjkillian

For me, it has been a toss up. Several times the coins looked better in person, especially the red copper. Other times, the picture was taken with so much light that the coins just jumped out at you. Those looked worse in person. Red copper is very difficult to photograph whereas brown copper is very easy to photograph. So basically it all depends on the coin, for me any way.

Tom

airplanenut

It depends on the type of coin... consider:

-Marks can be exaggerated in a picture
-Color can be increased in an image
-On proof coins, lighting can erase all hairlines/nicks
-An image can just be wrong

Sometimes they look better, other times, worse... the key is to go to eBay, find the bad images knowing what the coin looks like, and get it cheap

Lakesammman

With MS red small cents, the picture looks better than the coin. It's almost like buying sight unseen.

With small cent proofs, the coin almost always looks better.

With RB and Br coins, the picture is about the same as the coin.

morganbarber

When someone on this forum posts a picture of one of his nicer coins, you can bet that it looks better in person. When I bid on a raw coin on Ebay, it always looks worse in person.

Fairlaneman

I would say its about 50/50. The one that came from you looked a little better in hand. Whitlow had one coin I purchased that just looked so so on their site but solid looking for the grade. The coin when received was just plain killer and much better than the scan. I guess, as you suggested, it depends on who the pictures are done by and the equipment that is used.

Hey by the way the 37P on your site right now looks great. If anything sells this afternoon on eBay you will not have the coin very long. Things look bleak right at the moment though.

Ken

Clankeye

<< <i>-Marks can be exaggerated in a picture >>



Jeremy is right on the money here. I have always maintained that if you really want to get to know your coins--photograph them.

When I take pictures of my coins, often I see things exaggerated that the naked eye is not drawn to without magnification.

I would have to say I come down the middle on this-- like most people. I have seen images that make a coin look so dramatic they stand right up there with high art. But, I've also had coins take my breath away like that when viewed in hand.

Coinguy--all I can tell you is "it depends." Sorry.

Clankeye

Clankeye

Just a quick follow up to back up the point I was making...

Look at the upper fields of this coin:



The scratches on the coin look fairly pronounced in the photo.
When looking at the coin in hand, naked eye, you hardly notice them at all. A quick glance at this coin, I would have thought it might grade 66. After photographing it and giving it a closer examination in those areas (because the photo pointed me to them) I would grade the coin 64--65.

This is at the heart of why a lot of people send in coins to be graded and then are unpleasantly surprised at the grades they receive. There can be much happening on the surface of a coin that is not readily revealed by the naked eye, or reviewing the coin from a single light source.

I will say it again--photographing coins is a good way to get to know them better.

(Hope this isn't irrelevent to your thread, St. Feldolini)

Clankeye

Placid

82.5% look better 17.5% look worse.

puff

Mark...... It all depends on the dealer and how they are equipped to take photos, and if they have the time to take one properly.

Example.... I have bought several Walkers from Pinnacle, Whitlows, Heritage, and a few from DLRC.... I have found that Pinnacle and Whitlow use digital photography when imaging, and that Heritage and DLRC scan their coins. The scanned coins can never compare to the coins being imaged with a digital, because the coins will come out to flat looking, and if it is a toned coin will not show the color accurately with scanning...... But I also know that if Pinnacle and Whitlow have the time they can do a better job of imaging when they want to. Heritage does use digital photography on some of their more expensive coins, but they should use it more often. But even when they do use digital they're not all that great!

On Ebay, (where I rarely buy a coin), I have found that alot of the more unscrupulous sellers will try to hide the look of the coins they sell by purposefully distorting the image, are enhancing the image of the coins they sell by using Adobe, and other image enhancing programs. Some of the best imagers that I have bought coins from, that I'm sure everyone knows, is Greatoning, and Adrian of Annaconda. These two have imaging down to a science in my opinion!

FrattLaw

The coin's on Pinnacle's site always seem to look worse in person!

I have to go with the crowd here. Since I only recently started taking my own pics and now realize how hard it is to get a really good image of a coin, it usually looks better in person. A camera or scanner cannot capture all the details and subtle nuance that a human eye can.

Michael

CarlWohlforth

A photo rarely captures all aspects of a coin. So the photographer must decide what he is trying to show. It could be to show the most accurate representation of the coin. It could be to show the color or luster or marks or to hide marks.

If you become familar with a particular source of photos you can get a much better idea of what you should expect when you get the coin in hand. Some are great at showing color. Others take thousands of photos all in the same way so you can compare photos from that source (I'm thinking of the auction houses here).

Dog97

coinguy1 if the members have coins cosigned to the person taking the pictures the members say his pictures are the most accurate representation of the coin possible and they really do look like a radioactive Christmas tree in person.
If the members have no coins cosigned to the person then he is the biggest picture tweaking fraud to ever prowl eBay.
So I really don't believe most members here will give truthful answers or maybe they really don't know how to look at a coin.

I've found that 7 out of 10 seller's coins look better in real life than they do in the pictures because most people can't make decent scans or take good pictures.

2 out of 10 will have pictures that look waaaay better than the coins do in person. By this I mean the pictures show colors that aren't on the coin in real life, only show in the sleazeBay auction, because they tweak the hell out of their pictures or use trick lighting.

1 out of 10 sellers can actually make a picture or scan that looks somewhat like the coin really does.

You can bet if it's a toned coin and they show the colors the strike & marks won't be showing in the pict because the angle needed to catch the colors is different than the angle to catch the marks, strike & luster.
The same thing basically applies to a white coin when trying to show luster vs marks too.

I've been around coins enough to know what these sellers are trying to do with their pictures and I usually know what the coin will look like in person whether the seller be Bondman, Anaconda, Greattoning, Pinnacle or the average joebloe seller.

Fairlaneman

Carl W. has some really sound points that he has pointed out. Just with the little discs I image rarely can all aspects be shown. Usually with a Merc the hair right behind the ear appears to be missing. This usually happens when luster is highlighted in the photo. Just the opposite happens when strike is highlited, then no luster shows.

His other point about getting acquainted with images from a source is invaluable. The best example probably would be Heritage. Many of their nicely toned coins are much darker image wise than they really are. It took a couple of chances with purchases but after getting acquainted with the Hertage picture mode some very nice coins have been received.

Clank has a outstanding point also for the more senior collectors, like me, that cannot see shinola any more. A nice picture put up on the computer screen does wonders for a blind person. Now if this could only happen at Coin Shows life would be good.

Ken

Trime

Hard to predict, better to look at the coin unless of course you collect pictures.

Fairlaneman

Dog I'm thinking you are talking about heavily toned coins that need to be twirled to see the color, Right ?

For coins that are not toned like the before mentioned it is quite easy to get a nice photo that shows color, strike and marks on the coin.

I'll betcha anything you would not be unhappy with the four Mercs that are at the bottom of this post.

Ken

jeffnpcb

No better no worse in person! Certain images online[DLRC's] are always bad and you can't tell. Others are relatively good, but in-hand you can really make a determination of the quality!

Dog97

Fairlaneman read the bottom of my post: The same thing basically applies to a white coin when trying to show luster vs marks too.
Maybe I included you in the 10% that gets it right.

Elcontador

Mark, as far as I am concerned, you need to see the coin. Small carbon flecks on Unc. copper and silver (don't know re gold) often don't show up on scans. Ditto re hairlines on proof coins. Also, I have found that thin scratches on coins do not image well, and that the severity of contact marks often does not image well, either.

nwcs

In general, I found that images that are digital photographs tend to look better than the coin at the snapshot in time. Usually because of the intense lighting, angles, and manipulations. The coin usually looks its best that way.

dpoole

I have trouble telling the intangibles, like lustre and eye appeal, from the photos. It just is real hard to get the photography good enough to accurately show those things. I rely on the photos mostly for the technicalities, like marks, wear, strike, etc. For a more expensive item, though, I'd really need to see it in hand, or have someone I trust to look at it, to know what I've really got.

mgoodm3

A good image brings out good details you may have never noticed before, but they also bring out every flaw that may not be apparent without the magnification.

Nic

In general the pics look better than the coins. Great toned coins are often an exception. K

jacktheknife

I agree with DPoole. An image is good for determining some aspects of a coin's total appearance. But, for eye appeal, luster, etc. viewing in person is the only way to go, particularly with high price items.

airplanenut

<< <i>A photo rarely captures all aspects of a coin. So the photographer must decide what he is trying to show. It could be to show the most accurate representation of the coin. It could be to show the color or luster or marks or to hide marks. >>

VERY true... especially with toned coins, where luster and color can hardly ever be shown together... that's why I just take two shots and show both, as with this one:

mommam17

I buy classic commems from a wide variety of sources. To me the coin always looks better than the scan or picture. I can`t think of one coin that didn`t look as good as the picture or scan. My best surprise was a New Rochelle NGC 65 prooflike and an Iowa toned NGC 66 that I bought from Teletrade. They looked much, much better than the pictures from their site. Coinguy- I`ll let you know about your site pictures because I bought my first coin, a Maine toned PCGS 65, from Pinnacle.

Nic

APN... agree. Like this. K

mdwoods

In most cases I've found the coin looks better than the image. There are a few sellers that make their coins look better in the images, but they are the exception rather than the rule.