Heritage Newman photos - good, bad, or acceptable? (warning: lots of images!)

lkeigwin

Over the last few days I spent more than 20 hours pouring over 37 Newman coins. I couldn't help but look up the prices (hmm) and along the way I compared HA's images to the coins in hand and the results I was getting.

In another thread a forum member said this: "Having viewed the sale, an observation about the photos online and in print. I found the images in the slabs to be so horrendously off as to be useless... Thank goodness they are at the bottom of the page. However, the top-of-page images were very accurate in terms of brightness and nuances of coloration. True elsewhere, but in particular with my area of interest, coins with lustre"

Whoa. This is just the opposite of what I thought. But until now I didn't get to study any. So, for amusement I picked a dozen or so of different types, toning and condition and contrasted them.

I am not saying that only my images are correct or that they are perfect. But I will say that I spent a lot of time trying to get realistic ones that represent the appearance of coins in hand. I was not interested in corner-cases.

Coins were hit with lots of vertical halogen light, high above and nearly square to the coins; a high quality 200mm macro lens was used on a copy stand. Shooting distance was roughly 24" (end of lens to coin). Images were shot raw and post-processed.

I was pretty surprised by many of the HA images. The color, saturation, and exposure often seemed extreme. But to their credit, the images of the raw coins were very well detailed, superbly crisp, and large for easy viewing.

I thought the catalog would be a keeper but I'm not sure. I wonder if some bidders made decisions based on catalog images, and how they'll feel about the coins when they arrive.

Below are the results, presented in this order, along with the sale price (just for fun).

Catalog photos
Slab photos (cropped and resized)
My photos

Lance.

1805-4 50c O.103a AU55 $19975







1807 50c O.112 XF40 $1292







1814 50c O.106a NGC AU58 $5875







1821 50c O.102 NGC AU55 $1233







1827 50c O.110 NGC AU58 $2467







1828 50c O.107 NGC MS62 $2585







1828 50c O.113 NGC MS63 $2350







1832 H10 LM 8.4 NGC MS66 $4406







1838 10c Fortin 108a NGC MS66+ $6756







1862 3CS NGC MS66 $1880







1871 25c NGC PF67★ cameo $9987







1875-CC 20c MS63 $4406







1893-S 25c NGC MS64 $2232

Barndog

the difference is amazing. Night and day. Love your work.

Broadstruck

<< <i>I wonder if some bidders made decisions based on catalog images, and how they'll feel about the coins when they arrive. >>



Wowzers it seems many are in for a rude awakening?

Thanks so much for posting the comparisons!

CoinCast

I was tentative after seeing the slab images on some of the coins. I figured the coin photos on HA were too good and the slabs would be slightly worse than the actual coin.
I based most my bidding off the slab photos (assuming the worse).

Thank you for doing this I was really interested in see a comparison, since I did not view the lots in hand!

steveben

very nice work. if there's anything i have learned from this it's to view the coin in person or have an expert view it for you before you pay strong money.

Boosibri

Wow what a great post. Thanks for taking the time to do this. It's really a shame that the auction images are so far from reality but what do you expect.

keyman64

I detest the FANTASY PHOTOS, the ones shown at the top. When many of the coins are darn near black and the FANTASY PHOTOS show something that is bright, colorful etc....it just seems to call into question the "TRUTH IN ADVERTISING/MARKETING." Sure the photos at the bottom may not be exactly right but you can tell they are close in many regards...if the slab is lit properly, the prongs are white then you know the coin is close to that even though it may not be a good image.

I think the FANTASY PHOTOS started with 19th Century Dark Toned Proof Silver Coins. The virus expanded into the entire Newman Collection. It's sad in my view. The goal of any photographer should be to produce a photo that is as close to what the coin looks like in hand as possible. This is not 3rd grade art class.

My thoughts on the matter...

mozin

Had your photos been used by Heritage, the coins should have brought more money. I never bother with the Heritage details shots, can't stand them. Thanks for showing this thread, very informative.

Coinflip

My vote is that your pics are way better than the auctions shots! Salute

sparky64

What an eye opener. I would have never guessed there would be that much difference.

I would have been sorely disappointed if I'd have won a few of these and had only gone by the auction photos.

I like how you've captured the proof and Barber quarters.

Thanks for posting.

roadrunner

None of the photos seem to do those coins justice as each view seems to show significant shortcomings, especially with respect to luster.

Is that really a wide patch of horizontal hairlines in the right obverse field of that PF67* 1871 quarter? Wouldn't expect those to be on the holder of a freshly slabbed coin.

hchcoin

Caveat emptor

lava

Excellent photos Lance.

This should be a very informative post for Heritage. Heritage should hire you, or at least pay you some money to remove this post.

lkeigwin

<< <i>None of the photos seem to do those coins justice as each view seems to show significant shortcomings, especially with respect to luster.

Is that really a wide patch of horizontal hairlines in the right obverse field of that PF67* 1871 quarter? Wouldn't expect those to be on the holder of a freshly slabbed coin. >>

Luster is something you see best as you move a coin around in hand. It's harder to capture in a single photo. You can orient lighting to flash across a coin. There are noticeable downsides, however, as this exaggerates the smallest surface imperfections. Maybe I'll show this in another thread.

The NGC slabs were pristine. Very refreshing. Fingerprints galore, but easy to clean up with one of those eyeglass cloths. The hairlines you see are on the coin, not the holder. These can be lessened in photos by lighting along the lines instead of against them. I wasn't trying to rig the images, though.
Lance.

coinlieutenant

Great thread....and great pics that show how dark the coins are.

TomB

Fantastic post. My own opinion was that few coins could possibly look like the top shots.

mozin

With all the money involved, one would expect Heritage to provide more true pictures. Maybe Heritage photo people were busy, and not able to spend the time required to give us their best pictures.

OriginalDan

<< <i>With all the money involved, one would expect Heritage to provide more true pictures. Maybe Heritage photo people were busy, and not able to spend the time required to give us their best pictures. >>



Rather it looks like an attempt to make the coins look lighter than they are.

rec78

<< <i>Had your photos been used by Heritage, the coins should have brought more money. I never bother with the Heritage details shots, can't stand them. Thanks for showing this thread, very informative. >>





In their best interest, Heritage should hire you as the coin photographer.

Bob

yosclimber

Excellent critique - thanks for sharing.
And I agree, they should hire you.

1Bustcollector

I too was surprised to see so many inferior images gracing page after page of what I considered one of the most significant sales of the Century. I ordered the Hardbound catalogue set to boot but am somewhat ashamed to see those bright off-color pics. What happened? It would have been a good idea to have NGC submit their images of Newman's bust material - they really have improved through the years. Take a look at their website pics, they are very accurate - true to life.

If you compare catalogue quality my vote would rest with "Goldberg" time after time. They have done their homework and know how to do imaging AND quality graphic design layouts! Goldberg takes their time to design their catalogues. after all, we are visual when it comes to buying coins. Does it not pay to perform good work? Maybe that's why the Goldbergs wins catalogue of the year over and over. We have the right technology at our fingertips today, we have competent individuals and certainly have the necessary redources to grace our catalogues with beautiful images and overall graphics.

Kudos to the OP and bringing this subject to light - I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

barberkeys

Great post, Lance. Thanks.

lkeigwin

<< <i>Excellent critique - thanks for sharing.
And I agree, they should hire you. >>

Really, any competent photographer could have pulled this off, and several forum members would have done a superb job for HA.

Maybe HA's photographer got marching orders, justified in the name of showing more detail. Many of Newman's coins were dark from envelope-toning.

I don't know how else to explain it.
Lance.

STONE

You are right, it's despicable that a collection like this was treated with shotty photographs - like the rest of Heritage's auction photo's.

A 'special' photographer should be hired for collections like this. Surely Heritage's budget for a $20m+ collection could afford to hire a
photographer to superbly photograph these coins for a relatively meager sum.

lkeigwin

Here's the $1.5M quarter, MS67+★.

And which set of images is in the catalog?
Lance.

Sheridan

Thanks for the tutorial Lance! Those were coins I came away with at the sale. Heritage Fed Ex'd them from Dallas Tuesday. I received them Wednesday (great service HA!) and took them to Lance's that day to be photographed. His photos are "spot on." When my web site guru returns from Thanksgiving vacation Dec. 3 I'll have the whole batch posted on my web site. My current plan is to offer most of them at 10% over cost. If you're on my email list stay tuned for details.

maibockaddict

Knew there was something more to this story...

coinpictures

Sweet Jesus, those Heritage photos are Gawd-awful. An embarrassment. We (as a community) don't let amateur eBay sellers get away with juiced unnatural pics like that; for a supposedly pro operation to do it is unfathomable, especially on such a high-profile sale.

Who knows how many thousands or millions of dollars cumulatively were left on the table as a result, or alternatively how many pizzed off buyers there may be which, while not reflected in this sale's results, may ultimately come back to harm Heritage's results down the line. *

Heck, I don't really do much coin photography anymore, but I could do better in my sleep.

Ugh.

P.S. Nice shots, Lance.






* Yes, I realize that the heavy hitters most likely viewed in person or via an agent, but I'd be willing to bet that not a small number of lots were affected...

jayPem

Very fond of the 1814 106a....but 58 does seem a little hopeful.
And, how come no prongs in the first photos ?

jhdfla

Nice work

lkeigwin

<< <i>Very fond of the 1814 106a....but 58 does seem a little hopeful.
And, how come no prongs in the first photos ? >>

Heritage shot them raw, before grading. A shame...that was such an advantage.
Lance.

OriginalDan

<< <i>And, how come no prongs in the first photos ? >>



Nice catch, they must have shot them before grading.

thisnamztaken

Wow!
Very illuminating post, Lance.

blu62vette

<< <i>

<< <i>Very fond of the 1814 106a....but 58 does seem a little hopeful.
And, how come no prongs in the first photos ? >>

Heritage shot them raw, before grading. A shame...that was such an advantage.
Lance. >>



Did Heritage shoot them or NGC?

OriginalDan

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Very fond of the 1814 106a....but 58 does seem a little hopeful.
And, how come no prongs in the first photos ? >>

Heritage shot them raw, before grading. A shame...that was such an advantage.
Lance. >>



Did Heritage shoot them or NGC? >>


Good point, could have been NGC.

Sheridan

The NGC photos are here: http://www.ngccoin.com/gallery/newman.aspx

I have not checked to see if they match Lance's "unpronged" photos.

lkeigwin

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Very fond of the 1814 106a....but 58 does seem a little hopeful.
And, how come no prongs in the first photos ? >>

Heritage shot them raw, before grading. A shame...that was such an advantage.
Lance. >>



Did Heritage shoot them or NGC? >>

Good question, Todd. I really don't know.

NGC has a gallery of the Newman coins and the ones I just looked at aren't the same as those Heritage used. E.g., here are NGC's images for the 1796 quarter (posted above). You can see they're not the same photos (besides the obvious overexposure).
Lance.

keyman64

Without a doubt, NGC did better with the photos. I took those into consideration when bidding and wanting to view the collection.

slimedog

Amazing what different lighting/setting can do for pictures. I would have been very upset to have received a darker coin

CoinZip

Lance your field of depth is what captivates me..... The catalog photos have decent field of depth, but the slab photos look flat in comparison.


keep up the good work.

indeetlib

Great photos, Lance. Yours definitely seem like the most accurate and best quality of the three.

I wouldn't call the Heritage images bad or misleading though. I think they just represent two extreme ends of the lighting spectrum. Any given coin can take on several extremely different appearances depending on the angle at which its viewed, distance from light, etc. and I can see those coins looking like both sets of Heritage photos depending on the lighting conditions and angle of viewing (although the catalog images are probably a bit too processed).

I think Lance's photos, in most of the cases above, represent a happy medium between the Heritage shots and you can get a great idea of what the coins will look like in hand when you take all 3 sets of images into consideration.

That being said, if you could only have one set of images - Lance's are the clear choice!

1Bustcollector

I've reviewed about a half dozen NGC quarter photographs against the printed photographs in the Heritage catalogue and I gotta say they look pretty close to be the same image - just adjusted lighter. Each point of reference light hitting the coin devices appears to be the same to me. I may be incorrect but it looks very close.

It's also possible the lighter images occured during the printing process and or they were adjusted just before. Maybe that is the look Heritage wanted.

I think the images are close but way too light! I also agree, they have that "Fantasy" look.

Has anyone positively verified who shot the pics and who processed them before printing?

roadrunner

Regardless of what photos were ultimately used, the coins probably sold for 90-110% of what they would have in any event. Most of the wiinners of the higher powered coins were inspected in-hand by dealers for their own account or for customers. Photos don't matter much in those instances. And the lesser powered coins bought a heck of lot more because they were "in" the Newman collection. Cheesy black and white photos didn't keep the Eliasberg coins from realizing top dollar. Seeing as these coins were non-PCGS graded, it really made the photos less important than normal. You HAD to see the coins. If there's a list of buyers who tossed in individual lot bids of $3,000 or more on coins they didn't see (or didn't have an agent see for them)....it's probably a very short list. If anything, I think the lighter Heritage photos boosted the prices somewhat.

stealer

If I ever buy a coin off of Heritage it would be by using their whole slab images. Their coin-only images stink and reek of contrast turned up the wazzoo.

breakdown

Some things about the coin business will forever be a mystery to me. One of them is why a high dollar operation like Heritage wouldn't hire a quality photographer like Todd or TomB to photograph at least their five figure coins and above.

As for who photographed them, NGC or Heritage, I couldn't help but wonder again how much the principals of Heritage own of NGC -- that number's been floated around here before.

1Bustcollector

Take another look around, we are visually evolving. Most collectors want to see beautiful, accurate images of their collection in any printed format. Remember, hardbounds catalogues have also been marketed. It's not just about the outside cover.

Goldberg understands that concept well. I appreciate that.

vibr0nic

Great post. The side by side comparisons illustrate the point very well. Thanks!

earlycoins

The Heritage images, while neither accurate or pretty, do seem to serve a purpose, in that they give the potential bidder a warts and all view. Every scratch, nick and rub is in evidence, even on dark pieces. I ended up with several of the bust quarters, and the coins, in hand, appeared as described, and not as published. The NGC images are far more representative of the actual coins.

It's possible that the bright images may be used for "liability" issues, via which every mark must be exposed -- unlike the old days when many images went through a beautification process.

EC

BryceM

Lance,

First of all, great post. This sort of thing takes some effort to put together. Your photos are excellent. After shooting a bunch of coins it's pretty easy to learn the tricks about how to hide problems, juice the image, hide the flaws, etc. The overly bright photos from the sale are of atrocious hideousness. Why do it like this? I will extend to the auction house the benefit of the doubt, but hopefully the intent was not to be deceptive. In their defense, they do have to photograph, catalog, and publish photos of hundreds of coins per day. Some of these are downright terrible though. I'd be most displeased to open my little box and see that my white & rainbow coin was darkly toned and not nearly so colorful.