So, I requested NGC imaging...

TwoKopeiki

All I can say is .... I'm not very impressed. Anyone else use imaging service from NGC?







Looks like they are using a scanner for imaging? That caballito is full of luster and colour that is just not obvious in these pictures. If I was a seller that relies on third-party imaging, opting for this service - I wouldn't be too happy. Here's the obverse image of the Peso I took before sending it in:

ormandh

Terrible!!! Roman, maybe you should offer your services. -Dan

JoesMaName

<< <i>Terrible!!! Roman, maybe you should offer your services. -Dan >>



Seriously, those pics are garbage. I hope it's a free service.

worldcoinguy

Hussulo

Your picture is much better Roman.

CIVITAS

Less than impressive, for sure.

TwoKopeiki

Do you guys know if there are different levels of imaging service? I think on the submission form there was an option for a "print-out" type imaging done, as oppose to the "internet imaging", which I opted for. Has anyone tried it before? The images do look scanned. I was a little surprised when I heard that the imaging is done after encapsulation - that should've given me the first hint.

coinpictures

NGC's imaging service has always been horrible. Right down there with DLRC's images. I'd be embarrassed to charge for images like that.

*BLEAGH*

newsman

It's not free, and it's not worth what they charge, either. It's pretty obvious they don't put any effort into it.

ajaan

Terrible imaging. I have used them in the past, never again. The images aren't even worth the $3/coin they charge.

NumbersUsacom

I did once. Like you, I was disappointed and have not used that particular service again. Maybe they will get better at it as they go, or hire a professional in the future.

SYRACUSIAN

They use a scanner, not a camera. I believe the print out version was mostly intended as a photo certificate. Having seen previous NGC images, I'm actually surprised that the Guadalahara turned out so good ,considering.


Roman, you certainly don't need to pay for imaging.

TwoKopeiki

<< <i>Roman, you certainly don't need to pay for imaging. >>



Thanks, Dimitri, but there are a few already in PCGS plastic that I wouldn't mind to send-in for a re-holder (with TruView), just because of the amount of frustration associated with shooting toners through plastic

P.S. Both of the above coins were bodybagged by PCGS for "cleaning". In disbelief, I subscribed to NGC and submitted them across the street along with other bodybags. Peso made it back into its' original NGC 63 holder (D'oh) and the Guadalajara piece was graded, albeit lower than I expected. Plus NGC did not recognize the 21/22 variety (which is pretty obvious to anyone that looked at the date close enough). The other part of the submission went to NCS. In it is my early Guadalajara 8 Reales struck on a previously cast type, as well as an 1816/5 Chihuahua 8 Reales (also struck over a previously cast type). We'll see what NCS has to say...

Doogy

two things to remember:

their photo service is NOT TrueView, and they don't intend it to be. It has been said by NGC in the past that their inexpensive service is only intended to offer the photo of the coin and slab to enable you to have proof of ownership for insurance purposes, not to ogle and impress people like we coin geeks.

If you want better pictures than insurance proof quality, i suggest Mark Goodman or a couple others.

you get what you pay for, and for 3 bucks you can't expect much.

worldcoinguy

<< <i>two things to remember:

their photo service is NOT TrueView, and they don't intend it to be. It has been said by NGC in the past that their inexpensive service is only intended to offer the photo of the coin and slab to enable you to have proof of ownership for insurance purposes, not to ogle and impress people like we coin geeks.

If you want better pictures than insurance proof quality, i suggest Mark Goodman or a couple others.

you get what you pay for, and for 3 bucks you can't expect much. >>




Excellent perspective which goes a long way to explain the difference. PCGS pics = aesthetics. NGC pics = proof of ownership.

TwoKopeiki

Good point, Doogy!

I dug-up some of my old shots of the 1821:

coinkat

I think that says it all

Resplandor

<< <i>

<< <i>Roman, you certainly don't need to pay for imaging. >>



Thanks, Dimitri, but there are a few already in PCGS plastic that I wouldn't mind to send-in for a re-holder (with TruView), just because of the amount of frustration associated with shooting toners through plastic ... >>




I also agree with Dimitri and Doogy on this one.
Also Roman I would probably ask around if PCGS does TrueView on re-holder submissions, I personally sent a crossover back in December requesting TrueView but they told me they don't provide the service on crossovers, also you probably already know they hiked the price one hundred percent ($10)
By the way my crossover did cross at the same previous grade.

Congratulations on the peso, I'm glad it did make it to the holder once again

olmanjon

Roman--please set up your own business in imaging. Those pics are just to great to describe. Many of us here on the forum would beg to have these kinds of photos--especially of any double dies. Keep up the great pics, Olmanjon

Resplandor

<< <i>Roman--please set up your own business in imaging. Those pics are just to great to describe. Many of us here on the forum would beg to have these kinds of photos--especially of any double dies. Keep up the great pics, Olmanjon >>



Ditto!!!

TwoKopeiki

Thanks, everyone, I'm still learning when it comes to macro photography. In fact, I've spent the last 3 hours setting-up different levels of light diffusion to shoot crusty and colorful PCGS-slabbed coins.

If anyone is interested, I'll post the results

Rickc300

Yes please! Post your results! I love your pics! The more the better in my opinion...

I have many horrible pics of some very special coins to me, holler if you run out of subjects to shoot and I will be more than happy to send some your way for viewing and pic taking... Most are on my list to send to eventually send to PSGS for grading but I would like some ideas of how others here think they might grade before submitting based on good high quality pictures taken by someone who can actually make the coins look like they do in hand…

Thanks,
Rick

RareSov

<< <i>Thanks, everyone, I'm still learning when it comes to macro photography. In fact, I've spent the last 3 hours setting-up different levels of light diffusion to shoot crusty and colorful PCGS-slabbed coins.

If anyone is interested, I'll post the results >>



How much $ have you spent on the photography gear and lights, and can you take a photo of your setup ? (fully set up, with a different camera please!!)

IstilllikeZARcoins

NGC should NOT charge for pics like that.

Send them your own photos and ask for a refund imo.

Smittys

I used their service once, never again. I was thinking images like PCGS does, but NGC's are no better than my scans
thumbs down

Doogy

<< <i>I used their service once, never again. I was thinking images like PCGS does, but NGC's are no better than my scans
thumbs down >>



their photo service is NOT TrueView, and they don't intend it to be. It has been said by NGC in the past that their inexpensive service is only intended to offer the photo of the coin and slab to enable you to have proof of ownership for insurance purposes, not to ogle and impress people like we coin geeks.

If you want better pictures than insurance proof quality, i suggest Mark Goodman or a couple others.

you get what you pay for, and for 3 bucks you can't expect much. Bear mind mind that PCGS charges over 3 times as much for their service, SO THIS CANNOT BE AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON. one is intended to appease insurance companies, the other is to appease collectors.

RareSov

Not so long ago, their images were like this