The difference between a Heritage image & reality...

VamGuy

This is a coin I bid on thinking it may have been under graded as a NGC 63 (consider the reverse is equivalent in quality)....






This is the coin that arrived....

Barndog

No doubt your thoughts when it arrived are the same as mine now: no freakin' way that's the same coin!

Steve27

It's hard to believe that they're the same coin. I assume the slab numbers matched?

mgoodm3

I think they are the same coin. The small piece of plastic on the slab at 4 o'clock looks the same. Shows you how misleading images can be.

stev32k

Over exposure can hide a lot of problems. However, that still looks better than MS63 to me.

rkfish

I agree......Heritage's new pics are gonna cost them money. At least with the old ones you could "have an idea" what the coin looked like but with the flooded light they now use it's hopeless without viewing the coin in person.

curly

It's the same coin.....dings on "pluribus" are identical.

FatMan

Yep, it used to be you could always trust the old heritage scans for surface hits. You just never knew about luster and color. Now their images are worthless when it comes to what the coin will look like in hand. Bidder beware, don't bid without you or an agent seeing the coin in hand.

majorbigtime

Send it back QUICK!!

crispy

That matching scuff on the face is faintly visible on the top image.

rainbowroosie

Same coin, bad photo...

dizzyfoxx

Oh !!! That is amazing! Usually it's the opposite -the actual coin looks MUCH nicer than their images, although, their images in general have greatly improved as of late IMHO. But as far as that example's image from what you thought, and reality...

morgannut2

Top coin looks MS65 shot 66 or even 67 assuming luster OK. Bottem MS-62, shot 60. Same thing happened to me--one time!! Expect their sales and consignments to plummet soon. Sad, that's total scum retailing inmy opinion.--

robertpr

Expect their sales and consignments to plummet soon.

Exactly. Heritage's strength in the past has been their strong internet presence and getting exposure to the largest audience. With their worthless new pictures, they might as well not even have a website.

BAJJERFAN

Thats grounds for return if ever there were any.

VamGuy

Returns...

I'm into the coin for $75. I paid S&H to get it here. In order to return it, I need to pay shipping & insurance back to them at my cost of roughly $3.50, and then there is a 5% return fee, with a minimum of $10.00. So it will cost me $13.50 to get my $75.00 back.

Since greysheet bid on a 63 is $68.00, I'm unfortunately better off keeping it.


Live & learn.

airplanenut

<< <i>Top coin looks MS65 shot 66 or even 67 assuming luster OK. Bottem MS-62, shot 60. Same thing happened to me--one time!! Expect their sales and consignments to plummet soon. Sad, that's total scum retailing inmy opinion.-- >>

Sell me all MS62s that look like this. The coin doesn't look like the top photo, however, it still looks like, at the worst, a nice 63--it has ONE scuff on the cheek that doesn't look deep at all.

DeepCoin

If you really thought the top coin was in a 63 holder, the something is wrong. Either the picture or the holder, the grading services dont miss by THAT much. Yes, the picture is way better than the coin, but you cant expect a 66 coin for 63 money. Morgans are easy to grade. As the old saying goes, you dont get something for nothing.

However, I do agree that if you feel the coin you received is not a 63 send it back. I think it looks very 63 to me, but Morgans are not my area of expertise.

SUPERCARCOINS

.........AW come on - Heritage has some of the best coin people

on the planet working for them ; you notta going to cherry pick

a damn thing from them

VamGuy

<< <i>If you really thought the top coin was in a 63 holder, the something is wrong. Either the picture or the holder, the grading services dont miss by THAT much. Yes, the picture is way better than the coin, but you cant expect a 66 coin for 63 money. Morgans are easy to grade. As the old saying goes, you dont get something for nothing. >>



The top coin IS in a 63 holder. It's in the exact same 63 holder that the bottom coin is in. For those who think they are different coins, take a moment and actually read the replies for the identifying characteristics.

I buy coins. Ideally I buy coins in person, but sometimes I buy on the internet using the sellers photos. I don't buy plastic, and I don't buy labels. I know this might not make sense to some of you, but that's what I do, I buy actual coins. The auction image was deceptive, in my opinion. The coin in the top image (the coin I bid on) does not have a clearly visible scuff on the cheek. It presented a coin that would grade at least a 65. However, with all that said, the coin I received is indeed a 63. It was advertised as a 63, it was holdered as a 63, and in my opinion, it is a 63. No problem, I got what I paid for.

Keep in mind, I never alluded to being ripped off. This post was merely an example of how images can mislead. Look at the top image, pretend it isn't surrounded by plastic with a label that says 63, and then offer your assessment of a grade, based on the image.

RYK

I think that someone from Heritage needs to read this thread. I agree that the imaging has gone off the deep end.

Longacre

rec78

My guess is that they got a new photographer who was told to make the photos look as attractive as possible- or he is doing it on his own to pull in more money for his listings thus a bigger salary??---JUST AN OPINION---Usually i find heritages photos pretty good. A friend of mine recently bought two AU58 morgans from them and they were definate candidates for upgrades-one even PL--He has a better eye then me on those-However it does seem that the the heritage photo was messed with-definately worth a phone call to let them know of your displeasure-----Bob

morgannut2

Ok--maybe it's NGC's idea of a low-end MS-63. The cheek is a mess though.

VTCoins

The coin looks cleaned in the Heritage photo. Where's the luster?

eagle7

I have complained verbally and with my pocket book. Heritage, are you listening? Go back to your original way you took pictures prior to this garbage. All one has to do is tilt the coin just a bit and any digital imaging will make it appear as the top photo. Only the straight on shots show all the problems.

BAJJERFAN

Returns...

I'm into the coin for $75. I paid S&H to get it here. In order to return it, I need to pay shipping & insurance back to them at my cost of roughly $3.50, and then there is a 5% return fee, with a minimum of $10.00. So it will cost me $13.50 to get my $75.00 back.

Since greysheet bid on a 63 is $68.00, I'm unfortunately better off keeping it.


Live & learn.
xxxxxxxxxxx

With pics that misleading they should pay return postage plus a penalty to you.

Coinhusker1

<< <i>Returns...

I'm into the coin for $75. I paid S&H to get it here. In order to return it, I need to pay shipping & insurance back to them at my cost of roughly $3.50, and then there is a 5% return fee, with a minimum of $10.00. So it will cost me $13.50 to get my $75.00 back.

Since greysheet bid on a 63 is $68.00, I'm unfortunately better off keeping it.


Live & learn. >>



PM the Heritage guy that posts here and request that you be made whole for such a grossly misleading image. If he does not, let us know -- I would like to see someone from Heritage justify whacking someone with a restocking fee in this instance.

AgMe

You can see the contact marks on the top coin, just "creative lighting"

Eh, it happens to all of us.

MikeInFL

<< <i>Over exposure can hide a lot of problems. >>



You hit the nail on the head with that statement.

AU58WALKERS

My first (and last) experience with their new way of illustrating their offerings
provided the same results....tis hell when a "MAJOR" resorts
to "scaming" thru photos. I expect it from ebay, but not heritage.

OH WELL, live and learn. I did and I DID!
Good Luck Heritage, you lost me as a customer..

dorancoins

<< <i>This is a coin I bid on thinking it may have been under graded as a NGC 63 (consider the reverse is equivalent in quality).... This is the coin that arrived.... >>



The only thing is that it seems that Heritage "uses too much light" when taking coin pics. I only hope that whoever takes these pics isn't teaching coin photography at the ANA.

bhartman35

I agree with what everyone has said. The standard way that Heritage takes pics whitewashes their coins. There are only two ways I could see bidding on a coin of theirs. Either bid in person where you can see the actual coin, or spend a lot of time playing with the lighting and zooming and panning in their site's plug-in. (Either that, or do the same thing with Photoshop.) I think their photographer should be fired, but I'm sure his pics sell coins, so I doubt that will happen.

Myqqy

I can't believe heritage is allowing coins to be photographed and sold this way- this is a terrible business model to be following.....

BlindedByEgo

No one has asked if the "after" photo looks like the coin in hand

At least they are not (quite) as bad as this fellow.

Check out the "touch-up" work on all of his coins - makes Heritage look as honest as the Pope.

AU58WALKERS

"Check out the "touch-up" work on all of his coins - makes Heritage look as honest as the Pope."

Hmmm...I will have to think about that one.

D

Devil's Advocate: If this was VamGuy's first post on the forums, we'd have responded with one thing:

"If it looks too good to be true, it is." I learned my lesson on this for $128 on E-Bay. It's safe to say most people get taken sometime. Just remember, experience keeps a dear school . At least it didn't cost that much for a lot of forum members to learn the same lesson. If you're buying something sight unseen it's really important to remember that you are indeed buying the coin from... The Twilight Zone.

Thank's VamGuy .

-Daniel

BlindedByEgo

<< <i>"Check out the "touch-up" work on all of his coins - makes Heritage look as honest as the Pope."

Hmmm...I will have to think about that one. >>



Hoped you would

AU58WALKERS

<< <i>

<< <i>"Check out the "touch-up" work on all of his coins - makes Heritage look as honest as the Pope."

Hmmm...I will have to think about that one. >>



Hoped you would >>



B.T.W.....Did you do a 200x200...if so congrats.

BlindedByEgo

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>"Check out the "touch-up" work on all of his coins - makes Heritage look as honest as the Pope."

Hmmm...I will have to think about that one. >>



Hoped you would >>



B.T.W.....Did you do a 200x200...if so congrats. >>



Whaddaya mean? Iwog?

AU58WALKERS

Oh, I can see clearly now

AU58WALKERS

Elcontador

The top photo is obviously overexposed. I honestly do not understand why anyone would bid on a coin based strictly on an image. I learned a long time ago that however good an image may be, it will not present a completely accurate image of the coin. You often won't see small carbon flecks, hairlines, or long, thin scratches. And you rarely get an idea of how a toned coin really looks in hand.

I have a contact person at the major auction houses, and if a lot interests me, I call the guy. I have never had any of them recommend a coin that I did not like. Usually, they tell me, "wait, you'll find a better one," when I ask about a particular lot. Then, I call a dealer I know and ask him to look at the particular lot.

If I get a thumbs up from both of them, I know I'd really like the coin (and if I get it, I pay the dealer a 5% fee). I have never bought a bad coin this way.

I honestly don't understand why there are so many people out there that feel they HAVE to buy coins. If a coin doesn't meet my specs, I don't want it. At the last Long Beach Show, I spent all day there and saw about ten Barber Halves in MS 65 holders. I only liked one of them, it was an auction coin, and I was outbid. Eventually I'll find one.

northcoin

There is a new guy at Heritage (just hired as a VP from Pinnacle). I'm hoping this is a sign that Heritage is looking for some new blood that knows how to treat their customers right. The old attitude was the customer is always wrong and that 5% return fee is just one example of it. I would suggest that any coin dealer who charges a penalty on a timely return be boycotted by those on this board. All of the reputable high end dealers I deal with are fully committed to customer satisfaction and on returns only expect the buyer to pay the return postage and insurance. As far as your photos, I actually see some positives in the 2nd photo over the first, but agree with those here that the tire track on the cheek is ugly and though the grade is what it is you should be allowed to be 100% satisfied regardless.

AU58WALKERS

15% for the privilage of spending my money with them + 5% for returning a unsatisfactory coin + juiced photos=
NO THANK YOU! I'll shop some where else.

I can do better on ebay.

TorinoCobra71

HARD to believe those are the same coins.

TC71

RYK

The top photo is obviously overexposed. I honestly do not understand why anyone would bid on a coin based strictly on an image.

I think that I have finally figured out why people will continue to do this. It's the old Psych 101 concept of variable intermeittent reward. If there were a high quality photo and no penalty for a return, one could justify doing so. Absent one or the other, no way.

MikeKing

The two pictures are the same coin.
I bought a Sesqui from Bower's and Merena a few years ago.
It was an MS64, looked great in the photo, however there was a big gash GASH accross Washington's face. I tilted the coin ever so slightly against the light and the GASH 'dissapeared'. Then I knew how they did it. Was it intentional? Maybe not. But now I know what everyone keeps saying.... you have to see a coin 'in hand'. Well, that being so, auction firms who expect internet bidding with the bidder relying on a photo need to live up to some sort of guarantee and not penalize you with restocking fees etc...for returning a coin that was innacurately represented by a single photo. It's not brain surgery to look at a piece and realize it needs a few angles of representation. Well, that's too expensive a task for them I'm sure...then write out a real disclaimer:' Our photos may not show the coin for what it is and be entirely misleading therefore bid at your own risk....'

BAJJERFAN

Well you would think that the guy taking the pic at Heritage would know that that pic was not a fair representation of the coin and should probably have done it over. If you call one of your "moles" at Heritage and ask about a particular coin and he says pass and also notices that the pic does dot fairly represent the coin then he should take steps to have the pix reshot.

marmac

Heritage changed there photography techniques a few months back. I guess everyone has to learn on their own though...I did, a 1901-s in MS62 . Thought it looked 63.9 in the pic. In hand it looks 62.9....oh well my bidding/buying thru them has dropped off to near nothing since. Playing with the light/dark function on their site helps a bit but the intitial pictures being so washed out due to over exposure it only helps a smidge.

bhartman35

I feel I have to say one thing here about buying/bidding on coins through pics only:

I, for one, am in a position where it's very difficult for me to travel to get myself to a show/auction. That's part of the reason I was away from the hobby for so long. The Internet and Ebay have been the best shot I had at actually getting a decent supply of coins. (To give you an example: There's a coin shop down the block from me -- Stone House Coin Shop, in Scotch Plains), but they've got steps, so I can't get in the door. (As far as I'm concerned, the owner is punishing himself, since he's losing my business.) While I agree that you shouldn't buy coins based on pics that are obviously substandard, I wouldn't go so far as to say you should only buy coins in person, because then I'd be screwed.