If you were a high end coin shop and needed to hire a full time photographer...

SYRACUSIAN

... which one of the two would you hire based on their results on the same coin?

a)




or b)







Finally, what would you grade the above coin?

satootoko

a certainly did a better job of minimizing the neck dings, so I guess the answer depends on the ethical level of the shop owner.

SYRACUSIAN

Roy, I wish I was able to post a's image in full size but without the grade.I believe that a in particular tends to show the coins as close as they really are, just not worse.

ajaan

a

RareBronzeCollector

<< <i>a certainly did a better job of minimizing the neck dings, so I guess the answer depends on the ethical level of the shop owner. >>

koincollect

The pictures shot by (a) are good but the editing done by (b) is better. A high-end shop should have at least professional looking pictures. A good editing software should see (a) getting hired.

Bmarkers

"a" is more colorful.
Looks like a brush or cat hair on the bottom of the Queen's hair in photo "b."

I bet the coin looks more like "a" in hand.

Bmarkers

Is the coin in a slab? Maybe its a scratch on the slab?

SYRACUSIAN

Regarding the editing, I pay for a)'s photos, and the price does not justify time consuming editing. But the coin does indeed look more in hand like's a's rendition.

Any guesses on the grade?


PS: The coin is indeed in an NGC slab.

TwoKopeiki

I would go with a as well.

Bmarkers

I've never tried grading one of these coins, but what the heck... 64

spoon

Need more data...

(A) may be the winner of this round, but I'd ask for a test group of say 2 toned coppers; 1 each in silver, toned and untoned; and a gold piece. Maybe even some older MS62ish nickel 'cause that stuff can be hard to capture.



In reality, I'd buy with confidence from either of those pictures. But (A) does bring it out a bit more.

That said, stunningly, perhaps, almost all of the leading sellers online seem to have pics more in the muted vein of (B). Without context I would've thought (B)'s pics came from NEN.

I guess my point is that reputation makes good-but-not-flashily-superb pics tolerable to the extent that no final value difference is seen.

I wouldn't go so far as to argue the converse though--that flashy pics decrease buyer confidence ("it must be doctored", "just a good angle, doesn't really look like that", etc).

SYRACUSIAN

The coin originates fron Karl Stevens and was described: (obv/rev) nice red+brown unc/ lovely sharp 90% red BU and has been graded MS63RB by NGC. I believe that a is as close to the real coin as possible. A is a member of this forum.

I upgraded this coin and consigned the MS63RB for sale. I got a blazing red NGC MS64RD instead, fresh as if it was minted yesterday.


PS: spoon, you're right, b photo is from NEN as is this one below:

MacCrimmon

NGC???

You want me to guess an NGC grade from an image?

OK!! I'll guess MS63RB

I think the coin looks like (a) in the flesh, although (b) does show more details as far as marks, etc.

SYRACUSIAN

A's own opinion: My honest opinion: Presentation of B is better, but I think A captures the lustre and color a bit better.

I think both sets of pictures are a bit dark, but on a piece like this it's tough to lighten it without making it seem washed out...

TwoKopeiki

I like the first one, however I would also like a "high-res" version of this image, so that the customer can inspect the surfaces before purchasing.

SYRACUSIAN

In fact ,Roy's first reaction shocked me, because the second photo focuses on a not distracting at all nick on the cheek, that will probably hurt its future sale. If anything, the forum member that did the first image, always tries his best to presnt the coin as is, without exaggerating its toning (sometimes seen on TrueView) and give an overall realistic representation of the coin. Thanks for all your opinions so far.

JRC

I would go with B.
I believe it is more of an honest representation of the real coin.
I would not attempt to draw a conclusion as to grade by the photos thou.

Stork

If A is the most accurate, then that is who I would want to hire if I was a seller. Did you sell it via NEN? I don't always think they have the best photos, which has made me very happy when the actual coin shows up...so maybe I will change my answer to B. The photo is certainly good enough to entice a buyer plus the buyer will be pleasantly suprised and keep coming back--it's worked on me if it's NEN we're talking about!

farthing

I prefer a) as shown.

Zoins

I also prefer (a). The photo is more vibrant and better represents the coin in-hand.

lordmarcovan

The (A) photo's darker background also causes the coin to stand out a bit more than the all-white background of the second picture.

SYRACUSIAN

A's background is simply the NGC holder my lord, I can't afford to pay him to edit and photoshop the photos, other than a minimum required for ebay auctions.


A is coinpictures of course, for whoever hadn't clicked on properties yet.

nencoin

<< <i>... which one of the two would you hire based on their results on the same coin? >>




I would think most coin shops would need to know the answer to the following question before making a decision...how long did it take to image the coin?

SYRACUSIAN

Chris, I hope that you or NEN does not take this thread the wrong way. Let's say that we have some very talented members here, and I thought that it would be interesting to compare the two photos of the same coin.

I have no idea how much time coinpivctures spent on the first photo.

coinpictures

In my experience there's no pat answer as to length of time. It depends entirely on the individual coin, it's color and reflectivity, and the holder. I've had coins that I've been able to get to my satisfaction with 1 shot, others that have taken me a half hour of repeated shots, and some that I've never been able to get imaged to my satisfaction.

I honestly don't recall how long this coin took to image. I don't remember it being overly difficult. For the sake of argument, let's say 10 minutes.

The Photoshop editing isn't time consuming at all, usually less than 5 minutes per coin.

That being said, I understand from a business owner's standpoint paying the wages of the photographer, the need to walk a line between throughput and image quality. Hiring an obsessive perfectionist wouldn't do the business any good if he was spending 2 hours per coin, even if the pictures were superb. In my case there's no time pressure when doing my shots.

I'd be interested to see this coin imaged by some of the folks with better technique and equipment than I (Bruce, Roman). I think they do a better job than I do (in fact I'm planning to send a bunch of my own to Bruce for imaging once my "busy season" here at work slows down).

nencoin

<< <i>Chris, I hope that you or NEN does not take this thread the wrong way. Let's say that we have some very talented members here, and I thought that it would be interesting to compare the two photos of the same coin.

I have no idea how much time coinpivctures spent on the first photo. >>



Not at all! I was simply pointing out an important aspect that most coin shops would have to take into consideration before answering the question you posed. The more time spent on imaging a coin, the better it should come out. Coin shops with smaller inventories will have less of a time restriction, and would be willing to allow 10-15 minutes per coin. Those with larger inventories, such as ourselves, would require a 1-2 minute per coin turnaround.