Thank you for everyone's opinion on this matter. It's a tough one, but I don't think we will be adding to our listings. We did try it several years ago and it did not work out. Some clients expected the coin to look precisely like the Trueview image. And since we didn't take the image, we couldn't stand behind them, edit them, etc. when we thought they looked different.
For toned proofs and other toned coins where we don't think the slab shot shows the appearance accurately, we do add close-ups showing the images in a different lighting setting. We're continually improving our images (I think if you look back in our archives you can see the progress) and we're never going to stop in that regard.
@keets said:
look, I want to be clear: I'm not picking on Great Collections and have no "beef" with them. the point is simple, though, if it is a venue offering coins that interest me I would like help understanding exactly what I am buying.
Would you be okay if returns were eliminated like venues that use TrueViews?
I don't think there is direct causality there.
I think there is given Ian's reasoning for discontinuing TVs.
Direct causality so far:
TrueViews
Increase in Returns
No TrueViews
Eliminating returns, we would have:
No Returns
TrueViews
No Increase in Returns
But you can have TVs with or without returns. You don't HAVE to eliminate returns to allow TVs
In general you can, but GC had TVs before and removed them specifically because they led to increased returns.
If the goal is to allow TVs and not lead to an increased number of returns, what would you suggest?
Well, if TVs lead to increased returns, I don't want to see them anyway. So, there's that.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@keets said:
look, I want to be clear: I'm not picking on Great Collections and have no "beef" with them. the point is simple, though, if it is a venue offering coins that interest me I would like help understanding exactly what I am buying. remember, this is sight unseen despite pictures. consider the following images, all of the same coin:
it should be clear what my concern is. with this particular coin I can go to PCGS because it's a "Gold Shield" which will have an image. with recent NGC slabs I can check there and maybe find help. it may not seem like a big deal because it really just entails some work on my part, but it can be a hassle going back and forth. in the end it shortens my time and probable purchases. the larger issue for me is that when I compare the images I have to accept that most other images will be way too bright and I don't really know what the coin(s) look like.
oh, so you do know how to find TruViews without their help.
Sold this coin tonight on GC.
Here are their images and the TV image. Coin was previously in a PCGS holder but auctioned in an NGC.
It definitely looks more like the TV image.
@keyman64 said:
Around 2014 maybe, GC/Ian stopped allowing TV images to be used in the listings because it >caused an increase in returns.
wow. haven't thought about that since the post(s) were made years ago. i do recall that now though.
does gc have a phil? - i think that would be a job i would enjoy, even though taking some hits/comments about the images would come with the territory.
although, i do presume that using other technology could automate the process, from taking an image, to uploading to the image to the listings, "quality" would and possibly does take a hit.
i never worked with anyone else vis a vis imaging, so i don't know what is considered a little or a lot but i could shoot and process/upload 100 images a day pretty effectively. but i digress.
If you post an image in an auction, you are (at least passively), making a claim about what the coin looks like. And since TV's CAN make some coins look better or more impressive than they really are, you're probably better off not using them. Certainly not without reviewing them....and that takes time.
@Rob41281 said:
Sold this coin tonight on GC.
Here are their images and the TV image. Coin was previously in a PCGS holder but auctioned in an NGC.
It definitely looks more like the TV image.
I've never liked the GC images. They aren't terrible...and are at worst useful for examining surfaces, to be fair. But they tend to be over exposed and washed out.
Here is my image of a Morgan I sold a year or two ago. It is absolutely correct in terms of color, exposure, contrast, etc.
Underneath it is the GC image.
I have no doubt that the auction winner was very happy with the coin. The buyer was pleased. The consignor a little less so.
Lance.
@keets said: We did try it several years ago and it did not work out. Some clients expected the coin to look precisely like the Trueview image.
trust me, Ian, your GC images DON'T look precisely like the coin, that's at the heart of the whole thread.
The issue is that the TruView image leans towards being too good (better than the in hand look) while the GC image leans towards the buyer being positively surprised when seeing the coin in hand. And that plays a huge role in returns. I’ve been disappointed far more often with a coin bought using a TruView compared to one using a GC image.
@Rob41281 said:
Sold this coin tonight on GC.
Here are their images and the TV image. Coin was previously in a PCGS holder but auctioned in an NGC.
It definitely looks more like the TV image.
How did it go pricewise?
Price was strong, PCGS guide I think is $425 and it sold for $703 but I was expecting closer to 1k. I’m sure it helped that I posted the link to the auction and included the TV image on any board and platform I could list it on, so many people were aware of it. The buyer saw my post on
the BST.
@keets said:
I don't understand why some replies tend to be saying less information is better. wouldn't buyers be better served with additional images??
I don't know that the issue is less or more. I think the issue is conflicting information.
But i'm with you. More pictures is more information. The bidder can decide what to do with the information.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@keets said:
I don't understand why some replies tend to be saying less information is better. wouldn't buyers be better served with additional images??
People aren’t saying less information is better. We are saying it’s better to lean towards the cautious side with an image vs leaning towards the overly optimistic image.
And again the TruView is always available at the PCGS website. It takes a few seconds to look up. Those that do their research will go to the PCGS website and verify the cert number anyways (otherwise they themselves are content with seeing less information).
@ianrussell said:
... Some clients expected the coin to look precisely like the Trueview image. And since we didn't take the image, we couldn't stand behind them, edit them, etc. when we thought they looked different.
While I voted "yes," I can't argue with this, and GC doesn't really have the option of banning buyers that return coins that don't look like the TrueView. I still think that looking at as many pictures as you can find of a coin is valuable, and perhaps a compromise that would not make it look like GC endorses the appearance of a TV picture would be to change the certification number in the lot listing to a link to the coin's cert verification page, which may contain a TV, as well as links to additional pictures of the coin through previous auction appearances.
@keets said: We did try it several years ago and it did not work out. Some clients expected the coin to look precisely like the Trueview image.
trust me, Ian, your GC images DON'T look precisely like the coin, that's at the heart of the whole thread.
Thing is, no photo will "look exactly" like the coin. Not TV, not GC, and not even your own eyes once you get it in hand. Everyone's eye is different. Everyone's home lighting, cameras and setup, and hand magnifiers are different. For the dozens of coins I've bought from GC, the photos have always been good enough to keep me safe. I pretty much got exactly what I "saw" or what I thought I saw. And that goes for the thousands of coins I flipped through to find something I really wanted. The more coins and coin photos you look at over the years, the better you get at interpreting how the photo will compare to "in-hand."
@keyman64 said:
Around 2014 maybe, GC/Ian stopped allowing TV images to be used in the listings because it >caused an increase in returns.
wow. haven't thought about that since the post(s) were made years ago. i do recall that now though.
does gc have a phil? - i think that would be a job i would enjoy, even though taking some hits/comments about the images would come with the territory.
although, i do presume that using other technology could automate the process, from taking an image, to uploading to the image to the listings, "quality" would and possibly does take a hit.
i never worked with anyone else vis a vis imaging, so i don't know what is considered a little or a lot but i could shoot and process/upload 100 images a day pretty effectively. but i digress.
@keets said: We did try it several years ago and it did not work out. Some clients expected the coin to look precisely like the Trueview image.
trust me, Ian, your GC images DON'T look precisely like the coin, that's at the heart of the whole thread.
You're right, I used the wrong term there . Our goal is that we want our images to look as close as possible to the coin. Obviously, it's our opinion, and our focus is also consistency, so serious numismatists can make decisions to bid based off of our images.
If anyone has additional questions about coins in our auctions or want an opinion about the look of a coin, we're available 7 days a week to give our detailed descriptions over the phone while we have the coin(s) in our hand - just contact us for that.
@keets said:
Now that both Stack's and Heritage link PCGS TrueView images where applicable, do you think it's time that Great Collections does the same??
@Rob41281 said:
Sold this coin tonight on GC.
Here are their images and the TV image. Coin was previously in a PCGS holder but auctioned in an NGC.
It definitely looks more like the TV image.
How did it go pricewise?
Price was strong, PCGS guide I think is $425 and it sold for $703 but I was expecting closer to 1k. I’m sure it helped that I posted the link to the auction and included the TV image on any board and platform I could list it on, so many people were aware of it. The buyer saw my post on the BST.
If anyone has additional questions about coins in our auctions or want an opinion about the look of a coin, we're available 7 days a week to give our detailed descriptions over the phone while we have the coin(s) in our hand - just contact us for that.
Ian
While it's obviously possible, is it practical to do this in a video chat manner such as the coin could additionally be shown that that way?
@keets said:
I don't understand why some replies tend to be saying less information is better. wouldn't buyers be better served with additional images??
Not always, conflicting photos may confuse some buyers and lead to less or lower bids and thus lower auction results. I've said it before that TV's are glamor shots, the very best a coin can look which is not always what the in hand look is.
@keets said:
I don't understand why some replies tend to be saying less information is better. wouldn't buyers be better served with additional images??
Not always, conflicting photos may confuse some buyers and lead to less or lower bids and thus lower auction results. I've said it before that TV's are glamor shots, the very best a coin can look which is not always what the in hand look is.
TrueViews vary greatly in their ability to give a sense of the coin in-hand. I do agree that they tend to err on the side of making the coin look better, especially toners which benefit from more saturated color. GC's images are also not perfect, but tend to be a bit more consistent, IHMO. I prefer having both on a coin under consideration, as it allows me to interpolate between them.
Image quality aside, why am I the ONLY person to bring up the PHOTO SIZE?...since all the slab shots are the same size but the actual coin size portion of the image is ignored? If you focus on DIMES or smaller coins there is a TON left to be desired. Am I the only one that understands this? Then when the image size is so small and you combine it with a blurry, noisy, poorly lit image you end up with...I'll be nice...worse than eBay frequently. Why would an auction company do that? They are short changing their buyers and SELLERS in many cases. A Morgan dollar will take up the entire size of the computer screen but a dime, half dime or gold dollar etc will take up a tiny tiny portion of the screen and yet you are expected to base your thousands of dollars decision based on that? The image quality and SIZE, especially when it comes to smaller coins, needs to be addressed. SIZE does matter in this case. If I can find that a coin has a TV then great, or if the coin has previously sold at Stack's or Heritage then I can look at those photos for a better look as well. But if the only image I have to work off of is what GC provides, it's a joke. Pass and I will look elsewhere for a coin. This is how sellers at GC and GC themselves are getting hurt.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
@keyman64 said:
Image quality aside, why am I the ONLY person to bring up the PHOTO SIZE?...since all the slab shots are the same size but the actual coin size portion of the image is ignored? If you focus on DIMES or smaller coins there is a TON left to be desired. Am I the only one that understands this? Then when the image size is so small and you combine it with a blurry, noisy, poorly lit image you end up with...I'll be nice...worse than eBay frequently. Why would an auction company do that? They are short changing their buyers and SELLERS in many cases. A Morgan dollar will take up the entire size of the computer screen but a dime, half dime or gold dollar etc will take up a tiny tiny portion of the screen and yet you are expected to base your thousands of dollars decision based on that? The image quality and SIZE, especially when it comes to smaller coins, needs to be addressed. SIZE does matter in this case. If I can find that a coin has a TV then great, or if the coin has previously sold at Stack's or Heritage then I can look at those photos for a better look as well. But if the only image I have to work off of is what GC provides, it's a joke. Pass and I will look elsewhere for a coin. This is how sellers at GC and GC themselves are getting hurt.
To date, I've purchased primarily Roosie dimes off of GC. While I agree that larger images of only the coin would be nice, that would mandate twice as many photos, which adds overhead, which probably gets passed on to buyers and consignors as added costs. The GC images are adequate for my needs in most cases. IF I were consigning a high value small coin there, I would arrange to have a TrueView of it made (if there wasn't one already) before sending it to GC. FWIW and YMMV.
@keyman64 said:
Image quality aside, why am I the ONLY person to bring up the PHOTO SIZE?...since all the slab shots are the same size but the actual coin size portion of the image is ignored? If you focus on DIMES or smaller coins there is a TON left to be desired. Am I the only one that understands this? Then when the image size is so small and you combine it with a blurry, noisy, poorly lit image you end up with...I'll be nice...worse than eBay frequently. Why would an auction company do that? They are short changing their buyers and SELLERS in many cases. A Morgan dollar will take up the entire size of the computer screen but a dime, half dime or gold dollar etc will take up a tiny tiny portion of the screen and yet you are expected to base your thousands of dollars decision based on that? The image quality and SIZE, especially when it comes to smaller coins, needs to be addressed. SIZE does matter in this case. If I can find that a coin has a TV then great, or if the coin has previously sold at Stack's or Heritage then I can look at those photos for a better look as well. But if the only image I have to work off of is what GC provides, it's a joke. Pass and I will look elsewhere for a coin. This is how sellers at GC and GC themselves are getting hurt.
I've bought some dimes and have considered the images to be solid enough to make a call. Most of the dimes that sell end at $100 or less (when I search completed listings for "dime" there are 44,271 total sales and 28,719 were at $100 or less....34,617 were $200 or less). As @CoinJunkie mentioned, the numbers suggest that the extra costs of developing a separate image process aren't worth it. If someone is selling a more expensive dime, they can probably arrange to have extra photos (as I've seen listings with larger photos-although this tends to be for toners).
TrueViews are glamour shots. So are most Heritage and Stacks Bowers shots. GC photos do a pretty good job of showing what a coin will look like under ambient light. I have yet to see photography that captures light hairlining or luster disturbances well, though.
Caveat: I usually read all of the posts in a thread prior to commenting. This time I have not. I did read Ian's response above and assume he is perusing the comments here for a few useful nuggets of feedback.
I find myself buying more and more from GC, gradually over the last few years (but I'm still a pretty small fish). Lately, I've been tracking a few different gold dollars and other "common date" type coins. To be blunt, their photos aren't the best. Anything smaller than a quarter is really tough, even on the maximally magnified images. Probably I get serious about 1 in 500 coins that I look at, maybe less. I ALWAYS look for a TrueView and ONLY feel confident bidding if one is available. My biggest complaint when I listed coins for consignment with them was the quality of the photos. I am convinced better photos would have generated better prices for this consignor. I do a decent job with photography and have some idea how much work getting good photos of slabbed coins entails. Doing this on a large scale is a daunting task, and certainly very expensive. A technique that works for circulated gold isn't going to work for modern proofs.
That said, I just don't buy coins from dealers if the photos aren't really, really good. Returning coins makes everyone mad and chasing stuff through the mail is a real PITA. Two things are important. First, consistency so I can interpret the photos and second high-quality, well-focused, well-lit, detailed photos. The photos on GC are consistent, but they're lacking in fine detail and generally terribly over-exposed, making evaluation difficult especially for the little coins. Many dealers are now doing a great job with this. Coin Rarities Online, Harry Laibstain, Doug Winter, and Pinnacle Rarities are a few that come to mind. In general, almost all dealers are doing better than 5 or 10 years ago. Whatever money is spent on photography comes back many times in returns.
GC's competition, IMO, is doing a better job. Stacks has really upped their game (at least in the photography department). Heritage seems to have slipped a slight bit when it comes to photo quality, but maybe that's a bit too harsh. Their slab shots are often more true to the in-hand coin than their glamour shots, but the consistency of their technique helps. David Lawrence generally has better photo quality than GC.
As for TrueViews, I can understand Ian's frustration with the image being a little "too pretty" compared to the in-hand look. It's a valid statement. Personally, I wish the PCGS label would indicate somewhere that a TrueView was available. A little symbol in the corner would suffice. The gold shield is gradually having the same effect, but it's not 1:1.
Ian's solution to continue improving their in-house technique is probably the best plan for everyone and I think it will help them continue to grow and expand. GC fills an important niche in the market. Legitimate competition with the two big auction houses is incredibly important to collectors and the market as a whole. Ian is great to work with and his business model suits me really nicely.
why am I the ONLY person to bring up the PHOTO SIZE?
probably because that aspect of it really matters to you, but it is a good point.
one thing is clear from this thread, there are many members here who think everything is fine and there's no room for improvement. the "why" of that would be a good Poll but probably not very productive.
I would be curious to know who does the GC photography.
@keets said: why am I the ONLY person to bring up the PHOTO SIZE?
probably because that aspect of it really matters to you, but it is a good point.
one thing is clear from this thread, there are many members here who think everything is fine and there's no room for improvement. the "why" of that would be a good Poll but probably not very productive.
I would be curious to know who does the GC photography.
I don't specifically recall anyone saying that "there is no room for improvement". Clearly, GC's photos could be improved in both quality and quantity. However, I find the current situation generally adequate for me to conduct commerce on the platform. It's nice to know there is a once-per-month return privilege in the event that the photos of a high dollar coin completely miss the mark. Almost all of the coins I buy there currently are of lower value, but I'm contemplating bidding on a 5-figure coin coming up soon and will definitely call them to discuss it in hand prior to doing so. The coin does have a TV, by the way, but nothing really beats a pair of knowledgeable eyes looking at the coin and answering specific questions.
I don't specifically recall anyone saying that "there is no room for improvement."
what!!!???!!!
Thread Title ---A question regarding Great Collections imaging.
Poll question --- Now that both Stack's and Heritage link PCGS TrueView images where applicable, do you think it's time that Great Collections does the same??
Answer from 29 members and counting --- No, GC images are just fine.
you're right, noone specifically said "There's no room for improvement."
you're right, noone specifically said "There's no room for improvement."
Your poll didn't ask if there is room for improvement but rather should GC allow the inclusion of TV's; two completely different discussions. Everything can be improved, including TV's but that's not the question you asked.
@keets said: I don't specifically recall anyone saying that "there is no room for improvement."
what!!!???!!!
Thread Title ---A question regarding Great Collections imaging.
Poll question --- Now that both Stack's and Heritage link PCGS TrueView images where applicable, do you think it's time that Great Collections does the same??
Answer from 29 members and counting --- No, GC images are just fine.
you're right, noone specifically said "There's no room for improvement."
OK, now you're just playing games. The poll asked whether GC should add TrueViews, as Heritage/Stack's are now doing. In that context, "No, GC images are just fine" means "No, there's no particular reason to add TVs to the listings". Many of the people who chose that option expressed a dislike for TVs in general. Others said they would find two sets of images "confusing". In neither case was choosing that option tantamount to saying "GC images are unimprovable".
Adding TruViews does not equal improving GC's photos. It equals one less click and a few seconds saved (which might be added back in when loading the GC page).
And as others have mentioned, there is always room for improvement.
I chose that the GC images are fine.
As a buyer, I like that their pics are conservative and not sweetened up. I might not like that as a consignor.
Of course there is room for improvement.
They seem proactive in improving things, adding new features, etc so it would stand to reason that they will look to improve their photos as well.
I will say that I've been very disappointed a few times when I got a TV'd coin in hand.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
If a coin has a trueview what's wrong with relying on the potential bidder to look it up? The cert numbers are no secret and you should be checking it anyway.
@keets said: why am I the ONLY person to bring up the PHOTO SIZE?
probably because that aspect of it really matters to you, but it is a good point.
one thing is clear from this thread, there are many members here who think everything is fine and there's no room for improvement. the "why" of that would be a good Poll but probably not very productive.
I would be curious to know who does the GC photography.
I am just of the opinion that using trueviews isn't a necessity. There is always room for improvement.
Another thread with legs, but a good one. I'm actually OK with the GC images, I pretty much know what to expect when I get the coin. I think most of this discussion is leaning towards the toned coins, along with the lusterbombs. As a buyer, I know I like it when the coin is close or better in hand than the pics.
We all know grading is subjective. Well, so is how we individually look at a coin. - there are so many variables: lighting, angles, your own coin pleasure center in your brain and so on.
Comments
There is a web page floating around where PCGS indicates that True Views can be used in sales.
Thank you for everyone's opinion on this matter. It's a tough one, but I don't think we will be adding to our listings. We did try it several years ago and it did not work out. Some clients expected the coin to look precisely like the Trueview image. And since we didn't take the image, we couldn't stand behind them, edit them, etc. when we thought they looked different.
For toned proofs and other toned coins where we don't think the slab shot shows the appearance accurately, we do add close-ups showing the images in a different lighting setting. We're continually improving our images (I think if you look back in our archives you can see the progress) and we're never going to stop in that regard.
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
Well, if TVs lead to increased returns, I don't want to see them anyway. So, there's that.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
oh, so you do know how to find TruViews without their help.
Sold this coin tonight on GC.
Here are their images and the TV image. Coin was previously in a PCGS holder but auctioned in an NGC.
It definitely looks more like the TV image.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/rs8199/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=
wow. haven't thought about that since the post(s) were made years ago. i do recall that now though.
does gc have a phil? - i think that would be a job i would enjoy, even though taking some hits/comments about the images would come with the territory.
although, i do presume that using other technology could automate the process, from taking an image, to uploading to the image to the listings, "quality" would and possibly does take a hit.
i never worked with anyone else vis a vis imaging, so i don't know what is considered a little or a lot but i could shoot and process/upload 100 images a day pretty effectively. but i digress.
I can understand Ian's stance.
If you post an image in an auction, you are (at least passively), making a claim about what the coin looks like. And since TV's CAN make some coins look better or more impressive than they really are, you're probably better off not using them. Certainly not without reviewing them....and that takes time.
How did it go pricewise?
I've never liked the GC images. They aren't terrible...and are at worst useful for examining surfaces, to be fair. But they tend to be over exposed and washed out.
Here is my image of a Morgan I sold a year or two ago. It is absolutely correct in terms of color, exposure, contrast, etc.
Underneath it is the GC image.
I have no doubt that the auction winner was very happy with the coin. The buyer was pleased. The consignor a little less so.
Lance.
We did try it several years ago and it did not work out. Some clients expected the coin to look precisely like the Trueview image.
trust me, Ian, your GC images DON'T look precisely like the coin, that's at the heart of the whole thread.
The issue is that the TruView image leans towards being too good (better than the in hand look) while the GC image leans towards the buyer being positively surprised when seeing the coin in hand. And that plays a huge role in returns. I’ve been disappointed far more often with a coin bought using a TruView compared to one using a GC image.
It might be the type of lighting at GC versus body homes. If they have halogen lights or LED etc. It might look right in-house but not in your house.
There's a local B&M that has very yellow lighting. Nothing looks the same when I get it home.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I don't understand why some replies tend to be saying less information is better. wouldn't buyers be better served with additional images??
Price was strong, PCGS guide I think is $425 and it sold for $703 but I was expecting closer to 1k. I’m sure it helped that I posted the link to the auction and included the TV image on any board and platform I could list it on, so many people were aware of it. The buyer saw my post on
the BST.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/rs8199/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=
I don't know that the issue is less or more. I think the issue is conflicting information.
But i'm with you. More pictures is more information. The bidder can decide what to do with the information.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
People aren’t saying less information is better. We are saying it’s better to lean towards the cautious side with an image vs leaning towards the overly optimistic image.
And again the TruView is always available at the PCGS website. It takes a few seconds to look up. Those that do their research will go to the PCGS website and verify the cert number anyways (otherwise they themselves are content with seeing less information).
While I voted "yes," I can't argue with this, and GC doesn't really have the option of banning buyers that return coins that don't look like the TrueView. I still think that looking at as many pictures as you can find of a coin is valuable, and perhaps a compromise that would not make it look like GC endorses the appearance of a TV picture would be to change the certification number in the lot listing to a link to the coin's cert verification page, which may contain a TV, as well as links to additional pictures of the coin through previous auction appearances.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Thing is, no photo will "look exactly" like the coin. Not TV, not GC, and not even your own eyes once you get it in hand. Everyone's eye is different. Everyone's home lighting, cameras and setup, and hand magnifiers are different. For the dozens of coins I've bought from GC, the photos have always been good enough to keep me safe. I pretty much got exactly what I "saw" or what I thought I saw. And that goes for the thousands of coins I flipped through to find something I really wanted. The more coins and coin photos you look at over the years, the better you get at interpreting how the photo will compare to "in-hand."
Id like both available as some of the truviews are sometimes too much glamour for me. GC photos help me make a better decision on in hand look.
You can measure the success of a company by reading its critics.
100 images a day is peanuts to an auction house.
You're right, I used the wrong term there . Our goal is that we want our images to look as close as possible to the coin. Obviously, it's our opinion, and our focus is also consistency, so serious numismatists can make decisions to bid based off of our images.
If anyone has additional questions about coins in our auctions or want an opinion about the look of a coin, we're available 7 days a week to give our detailed descriptions over the phone while we have the coin(s) in our hand - just contact us for that.
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
Good to know and good job promoting it!
While it's obviously possible, is it practical to do this in a video chat manner such as the coin could additionally be shown that that way?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
hey abcde12345, read topstuf's reply just above yours, you've dogged me for years now so I guess I'm making sense.
Not always, conflicting photos may confuse some buyers and lead to less or lower bids and thus lower auction results. I've said it before that TV's are glamor shots, the very best a coin can look which is not always what the in hand look is.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Comparing shooting coins raw to slab shots is pretty much apples to oranges.
"Yes, the TrueView images are better quality."
Not trying to mock this thread at your expense, yet honestly- you already had an agenda as you posted your "question".
TrueViews vary greatly in their ability to give a sense of the coin in-hand. I do agree that they tend to err on the side of making the coin look better, especially toners which benefit from more saturated color. GC's images are also not perfect, but tend to be a bit more consistent, IHMO. I prefer having both on a coin under consideration, as it allows me to interpolate between them.
Comparing shooting coins raw to slab shots is pretty much apples to oranges.
I prefer Granny Smith, so which is which??
Image quality aside, why am I the ONLY person to bring up the PHOTO SIZE?...since all the slab shots are the same size but the actual coin size portion of the image is ignored? If you focus on DIMES or smaller coins there is a TON left to be desired. Am I the only one that understands this? Then when the image size is so small and you combine it with a blurry, noisy, poorly lit image you end up with...I'll be nice...worse than eBay frequently. Why would an auction company do that? They are short changing their buyers and SELLERS in many cases. A Morgan dollar will take up the entire size of the computer screen but a dime, half dime or gold dollar etc will take up a tiny tiny portion of the screen and yet you are expected to base your thousands of dollars decision based on that? The image quality and SIZE, especially when it comes to smaller coins, needs to be addressed. SIZE does matter in this case. If I can find that a coin has a TV then great, or if the coin has previously sold at Stack's or Heritage then I can look at those photos for a better look as well. But if the only image I have to work off of is what GC provides, it's a joke. Pass and I will look elsewhere for a coin. This is how sellers at GC and GC themselves are getting hurt.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Your the only one looking for tiny coins?
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
To date, I've purchased primarily Roosie dimes off of GC. While I agree that larger images of only the coin would be nice, that would mandate twice as many photos, which adds overhead, which probably gets passed on to buyers and consignors as added costs. The GC images are adequate for my needs in most cases. IF I were consigning a high value small coin there, I would arrange to have a TrueView of it made (if there wasn't one already) before sending it to GC. FWIW and YMMV.
I've bought some dimes and have considered the images to be solid enough to make a call. Most of the dimes that sell end at $100 or less (when I search completed listings for "dime" there are 44,271 total sales and 28,719 were at $100 or less....34,617 were $200 or less). As @CoinJunkie mentioned, the numbers suggest that the extra costs of developing a separate image process aren't worth it. If someone is selling a more expensive dime, they can probably arrange to have extra photos (as I've seen listings with larger photos-although this tends to be for toners).
TrueViews are glamour shots. So are most Heritage and Stacks Bowers shots. GC photos do a pretty good job of showing what a coin will look like under ambient light. I have yet to see photography that captures light hairlining or luster disturbances well, though.
Caveat: I usually read all of the posts in a thread prior to commenting. This time I have not. I did read Ian's response above and assume he is perusing the comments here for a few useful nuggets of feedback.
I find myself buying more and more from GC, gradually over the last few years (but I'm still a pretty small fish). Lately, I've been tracking a few different gold dollars and other "common date" type coins. To be blunt, their photos aren't the best. Anything smaller than a quarter is really tough, even on the maximally magnified images. Probably I get serious about 1 in 500 coins that I look at, maybe less. I ALWAYS look for a TrueView and ONLY feel confident bidding if one is available. My biggest complaint when I listed coins for consignment with them was the quality of the photos. I am convinced better photos would have generated better prices for this consignor. I do a decent job with photography and have some idea how much work getting good photos of slabbed coins entails. Doing this on a large scale is a daunting task, and certainly very expensive. A technique that works for circulated gold isn't going to work for modern proofs.
That said, I just don't buy coins from dealers if the photos aren't really, really good. Returning coins makes everyone mad and chasing stuff through the mail is a real PITA. Two things are important. First, consistency so I can interpret the photos and second high-quality, well-focused, well-lit, detailed photos. The photos on GC are consistent, but they're lacking in fine detail and generally terribly over-exposed, making evaluation difficult especially for the little coins. Many dealers are now doing a great job with this. Coin Rarities Online, Harry Laibstain, Doug Winter, and Pinnacle Rarities are a few that come to mind. In general, almost all dealers are doing better than 5 or 10 years ago. Whatever money is spent on photography comes back many times in returns.
GC's competition, IMO, is doing a better job. Stacks has really upped their game (at least in the photography department). Heritage seems to have slipped a slight bit when it comes to photo quality, but maybe that's a bit too harsh. Their slab shots are often more true to the in-hand coin than their glamour shots, but the consistency of their technique helps. David Lawrence generally has better photo quality than GC.
As for TrueViews, I can understand Ian's frustration with the image being a little "too pretty" compared to the in-hand look. It's a valid statement. Personally, I wish the PCGS label would indicate somewhere that a TrueView was available. A little symbol in the corner would suffice. The gold shield is gradually having the same effect, but it's not 1:1.
Ian's solution to continue improving their in-house technique is probably the best plan for everyone and I think it will help them continue to grow and expand. GC fills an important niche in the market. Legitimate competition with the two big auction houses is incredibly important to collectors and the market as a whole. Ian is great to work with and his business model suits me really nicely.
why am I the ONLY person to bring up the PHOTO SIZE?
probably because that aspect of it really matters to you, but it is a good point.
one thing is clear from this thread, there are many members here who think everything is fine and there's no room for improvement. the "why" of that would be a good Poll but probably not very productive.
I would be curious to know who does the GC photography.
I don't specifically recall anyone saying that "there is no room for improvement". Clearly, GC's photos could be improved in both quality and quantity. However, I find the current situation generally adequate for me to conduct commerce on the platform. It's nice to know there is a once-per-month return privilege in the event that the photos of a high dollar coin completely miss the mark. Almost all of the coins I buy there currently are of lower value, but I'm contemplating bidding on a 5-figure coin coming up soon and will definitely call them to discuss it in hand prior to doing so. The coin does have a TV, by the way, but nothing really beats a pair of knowledgeable eyes looking at the coin and answering specific questions.
I don't specifically recall anyone saying that "there is no room for improvement."
what!!!???!!!
Thread Title ---A question regarding Great Collections imaging.
Poll question --- Now that both Stack's and Heritage link PCGS TrueView images where applicable, do you think it's time that Great Collections does the same??
Answer from 29 members and counting --- No, GC images are just fine.
you're right, noone specifically said "There's no room for improvement."
Of course there is room for improvement. Yes, 2 different pics is better than one, but I just don't have trust in the TV being accurate either.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Your poll didn't ask if there is room for improvement but rather should GC allow the inclusion of TV's; two completely different discussions. Everything can be improved, including TV's but that's not the question you asked.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
OK, now you're just playing games. The poll asked whether GC should add TrueViews, as Heritage/Stack's are now doing. In that context, "No, GC images are just fine" means "No, there's no particular reason to add TVs to the listings". Many of the people who chose that option expressed a dislike for TVs in general. Others said they would find two sets of images "confusing". In neither case was choosing that option tantamount to saying "GC images are unimprovable".
Adding TruViews does not equal improving GC's photos. It equals one less click and a few seconds saved (which might be added back in when loading the GC page).
And as others have mentioned, there is always room for improvement.
I chose that the GC images are fine.
As a buyer, I like that their pics are conservative and not sweetened up. I might not like that as a consignor.
Of course there is room for improvement.
They seem proactive in improving things, adding new features, etc so it would stand to reason that they will look to improve their photos as well.
I will say that I've been very disappointed a few times when I got a TV'd coin in hand.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
Why not both?
If a coin has a trueview what's wrong with relying on the potential bidder to look it up? The cert numbers are no secret and you should be checking it anyway.
Collector, occasional seller
I am just of the opinion that using trueviews isn't a necessity. There is always room for improvement.
Collector, occasional seller
Another thread with legs, but a good one. I'm actually OK with the GC images, I pretty much know what to expect when I get the coin. I think most of this discussion is leaning towards the toned coins, along with the lusterbombs. As a buyer, I know I like it when the coin is close or better in hand than the pics.
We all know grading is subjective. Well, so is how we individually look at a coin. - there are so many variables: lighting, angles, your own coin pleasure center in your brain and so on.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets